No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

[Skepdick]

According to this site there are about 6500 language in the world.
Therefore there are appx 6500 credible descriptions of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is other than 'green' or 'blue' as claimed by the respective language users.
There would be more if we refer to dialects.

Yeah. And? Which one of those 6500 is the most credible? Which is the least credible? And where on that scale do you place "green" and "blue"?

My claim;
"Red is a more credible description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH than blue or green because......." it is with reliance on our current scientific "model dependent realism" re the Science of Colors'.

So what?

The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

On the other hand your,
The description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is blue or green, is "your" own personal model which is not in alignment with the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

So what?

Color Theory says THIS COLOR is red.
Skepdick Theory says THIS COLOR is green.

Why is Color Theory better than Skepdick Theory?

I don't have a personal one.
As above I relied on the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

OK. And? I have a personal one.

In what way is the Scientific model better than my own?

Again I am relying on the current Scientific method from the scientific community which is still ongoing because its truth has utilities which are proven to be useful with the proviso [on the whole] it is net-positive against its side effects.

You are not addressing the question.

Why is the Scientific description (e.g red) a better description of THIS COLOR than my description (e.g green)?

As I had stated whatever is 'truth' [NEVER ABSOLUTELY Absolute] has to come with its relevant context.
As such, "it is scientifically true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person" would be qualified with the amount that is likely to kill a person. A credible model would not be so stupid to make Absolute and unqualified assertions.

Your model is worthless to me in practice if the things that are going to killme and I am not supposed to eat aren't pre-labeled with "WARNING: Contains arsenic"

There are degrees to truth. In the past it was based on 'trial & error' 'cause & effect' truths which are nevertheless 'truth' of lesser precision, then humans progress with credible models to make more precise truths.

The degrees of truth are only conceptual. In practice it's really a matter of "Does this water I am about to drinnk contain arsenic or not?"

Do I drink it or not?

Is a choice.

Is that based on "your" own home-made model of dependent realism? i.e. with unqualified and no-context conclusions. Don't assume I am that dumb to follow your logic.
As I had stated I am relying on the current scientific model which would have qualify all its truth with relevant details within specific context.

So why are you making general, unqualified and uncontextualised claims then?

I have already explained above.
If there are 2, 10 or more truths, I will take [though not blindly] the one verified and justified by our current scientific method from the scientific community as most credible than all others.

Why?

Can't you see for yourself what THIS COLOR is?

Why do you need somebody else's model to tell you what it is?

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to this site there are about 6500 language in the world.
Therefore there are appx 6500 credible descriptions of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is other than 'green' or 'blue' as claimed by the respective language users.
There would be more if we refer to dialects.

Yeah. And? Which one of those 6500 is the most credible? Which is the least credible? And where on that scale do you place "green" and "blue"?

My claim;
"Red is a more credible description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH than blue or green because......." it is with reliance on our current scientific "model dependent realism" re the Science of Colors'.

So what?

The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

On the other hand your,
The description of THIS COLOR/WAVELNEGTH is blue or green, is "your" own personal model which is not in alignment with the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

So what?

Color Theory says THIS COLOR is red.
Skepdick Theory says THIS COLOR is green.

Why is Color Theory better than Skepdick Theory?

I don't have a personal one.
As above I relied on the current Scientific method from the scientific community.

OK. And? I have a personal one.

In what way is the Scientific model better than my own?

Again I am relying on the current Scientific method from the scientific community which is still ongoing because its truth has utilities which are proven to be useful with the proviso [on the whole] it is net-positive against its side effects.

You are not addressing the question.

Why is the Scientific description (e.g red) a better description of THIS COLOR than my description (e.g green)?

As I had stated whatever is 'truth' [NEVER ABSOLUTELY Absolute] has to come with its relevant context.
As such, "it is scientifically true arsenic is very poisonous & toxic and merely small amounts can kill a person" would be qualified with the amount that is likely to kill a person. A credible model would not be so stupid to make Absolute and unqualified assertions.

Your model is worthless to me in practice if the things that are going to killme and I am not supposed to eat aren't pre-labeled with "WARNING: Contains arsenic"

There are degrees to truth. In the past it was based on 'trial & error' 'cause & effect' truths which are nevertheless 'truth' of lesser precision, then humans progress with credible models to make more precise truths.

The degrees of truth are only conceptual. In practice it's really a matter of "Does this water I am about to drinnk contain arsenic or not?"

Do I drink it or not?

Is a choice.

Is that based on "your" own home-made model of dependent realism? i.e. with unqualified and no-context conclusions. Don't assume I am that dumb to follow your logic.
As I had stated I am relying on the current scientific model which would have qualify all its truth with relevant details within specific context.

So why are you making general, unqualified and uncontextualised claims then?

I have already explained above.
If there are 2, 10 or more truths, I will take [though not blindly] the one verified and justified by our current scientific method from the scientific community as most credible than all others.

Why?

Can't you see for yourself what THIS COLOR is?

Why do you need somebody else's model to tell you what it is?

Show me proofs "your skepdick" model is more popular than the current scientific model before you even consider "your" model is credible.

It is a fool's errand in trying to claim your model is more credible than the current scientific model re the Science of Color.

[Skepdick]

Show me proofs "your skepdick" model is more popular than the current scientific model before you even consider "your" model is credible.

What does this have to do with anything?

You are insisting that the scientific model is better.

You are the one insisting that "red" is a better model for THIS COLOR/WAVELENGTH than "green".

Justify that.

It is a fool's errand in trying to claim your model is more credible than the current scientific model re the Science of Color.

It is a fool's errand! Which is why I specifically said that credibility is a red herring.

My model is equivalent in function AND utility. It's as good a description of THIS PHENOMENON as any other!

Yet you keep insisting that "red" is more credible than "green". Show me this credibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Show me proofs "your skepdick" model is more popular than the current scientific model before you even consider "your" model is credible.

What does this have to do with anything?

You are insisting that the scientific model is better.

You are the one insisting that "red" is a better model for THIS COLOR/WAVELENGTH than "green".

Justify that.

It is a fool's errand in trying to claim your model is more credible than the current scientific model re the Science of Color.

It is a fool's errand! Which is why I specifically said that credibility is a red herring.

My model is equivalent in function AND utility. It's as good a description of THIS PHENOMENON as any other!

Yet you keep insisting that "red" is more credible than "green". Show me this credibility.

I insisted the current scientific model is more credible than 'your' "green" model is because the scientific model has been proven to be credible and trustworthy since it emerged >500 years ago and polished to its present credible status [albeit with reservations].

"red" is a better model for THIS COLOR/WAVELENGTH is red rather than "green".
Someone who agree with your model may be suffering from red-green color blindness and not knowing his deficiency and claim that is a truth, whereas such a truth is only relative to an "illness".

Say in a general scenario, an enemy is 'red' the own good people are "green".
With the intrusion of your model, "red" is green, and when the command for a platoon is to kill all the 'red', the soldiers will not kill the enemy because they are 'green' and not 'red'.
Since the enemies were not killed, the whole platoon is subsequently killed.
So with the intrusion of your model, it will lead to chaos.

I understand it is good to be unique, different and not going with the crowd, but in this case, your smart-alec move turn out to the a smart-fool move. If your model is acceptable to all, you should deserve a Nobel prize.

[Skepdick]

I insisted the current scientific model is more credible than 'your' "green" model is because the scientific model has been proven to be credible and trustworthy since it emerged >500 years ago and polished to its present credible status [albeit with reservations].

"red" is a better model for THIS COLOR/WAVELENGTH is red rather than "green".
Someone who agree with your model may be suffering from red-green color blindness and not knowing his deficiency and claim that is a truth, whereas such a truth is only relative to an "illness".

You are like a stuck record. You keep insisting that one particular model is "more credible" than another particular model.
You keep refusing to explain WHY it's more credible.

What qualities and properties of the model itself make it more credible?

Say in a general scenario, an enemy is 'red' the own good people are "green".
With the intrusion of your model, "red" is green, and when the command for a platoon is to kill all the 'red', the soldiers will not kill the enemy because they are 'green' and not 'red'.
Since the enemies were not killed, the whole platoon is subsequently killed.
So with the intrusion of your model, it will lead to chaos.

You are an idiot. Utter and total idiot.

You have a platoon from Country A (who believe that THIS IS GREEN and THIS IS RED). These people wear GREEN UNIFORMS..
You also have a platoon from Country B (who believe that THIS IS GREEN and THIS IS RED). These people wear GREEN UNIFORMS.

When the general of the platoon from Country A says "The people in RED UNIFORMS are the enemy!" he's not lying!
When the general of the platoon from Country B says "The people in RED UNIFORMS are the enemy!" he is not lying!

Each respectivel platoon knows exactly what friends look like; and what enemies look like.

Any "confusion and chaos" is in your head, because you can't hold the two different models in your head at the same time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I insisted the current scientific model is more credible than 'your' "green" model is because the scientific model has been proven to be credible and trustworthy since it emerged >500 years ago and polished to its present credible status [albeit with reservations].

"red" is a better model for THIS COLOR/WAVELENGTH is red rather than "green".
Someone who agree with your model may be suffering from red-green color blindness and not knowing his deficiency and claim that is a truth, whereas such a truth is only relative to an "illness".

You are like a stuck record. You keep insisting that one particular model is "more credible" than another particular model.
You keep refusing to explain WHY it's more credible.

What qualities and properties of the model itself make it more credible?

Say in a general scenario, an enemy is 'red' the own good people are "green".
With the intrusion of your model, "red" is green, and when the command for a platoon is to kill all the 'red', the soldiers will not kill the enemy because they are 'green' and not 'red'.
Since the enemies were not killed, the whole platoon is subsequently killed.
So with the intrusion of your model, it will lead to chaos.

You are an idiot. Utter and total idiot.

You have a platoon from Country A (who believe that THIS IS GREEN and THIS IS RED). These people wear GREEN UNIFORMS..
You also have a platoon from Country B (who believe that THIS IS GREEN and THIS IS RED). These people wear GREEN UNIFORMS.

When the general of the platoon from Country A says "The people in RED UNIFORMS are the enemy!" he's not lying!
When the general of the platoon from Country B says "The people in RED UNIFORMS are the enemy!" he is not lying!

Each respectivel platoon knows exactly what friends look like; and what enemies look like.

Any "confusion and chaos" is in your head, because you can't hold the two different models in your head at the same time.

Which country at present is practicing the model you are preaching above?
As I had stated, the model you are proposing is only yours and no one will adopt what you are proposing, else there will likely to be the confusions I raised earlier.

[Skepdick]

Which country at present is practicing the model you are preaching above?

EVERY country that doesn't call THIS COLOR "red" is NOT practicing the model you are preaching!

So. Basically every non-English speaking country.

There is confusion indeed! Philosophers have been confused about the "true nature of reality" for thousands of years.
Precisely because they can't navigate the different uses of language.

"true", "nature" and "reality" are socially constructed linguistic terms. They never penetrate into that thing we call "reality".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Which country at present is practicing the model you are preaching above?

EVERY country that doesn't call THIS COLOR "red" is NOT practicing the model you are preaching!

So. Basically every non-English speaking country.

There is confusion indeed! Philosophers have been confused about the "true nature of reality" for thousands of years.
Precisely because they can't navigate the different uses of language.

"true", "nature" and "reality" are socially constructed linguistic terms. They never penetrate into that thing we call "reality".

You are veering and going off tangent.

Anyone or any nation that doesn't call THIS COLOR "red" will initially encounter a question of doubt re why the different words and sound.

Most will understand the difference is due to semantics.
But in the event there is still further doubt they will arbitrate using the model I proposed, i.e. the current scientific model, [not 'your' baseless model] where scientists will test and verify the wavelengths and other criteria involved to arrive at the likely conclusion what is called 'red' is the same as their terminology for the same color.

[Gary Childress]

There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity.

Truth is an attribute. Truth is an attribute of only one kind of thing: statements that assert something about something else. Any statement (sentence or proposition) of the form, "such'n'such is so'n'so," is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so, and is not true (false) if such'n'such is not so'n'so. Truth is nothing more than the attribute of all true assertions. There is no other kind of truth.

Like all attributes there is no truth independent of those things (verbal assertions) truth is a quality of. Truth only pertains to actual sentences that are thought, articulated, or written in a language. There is no truth of any kind independent of actual verbal statements. There is no truth independent of human conscious thought.

Just as there is no size, (such as big) or shape, (such as triangular), or taste (such as sweet) if there is nothing that has size, shape, or flavor, there is no truth (or falehood) if there is no verbal assertion that can be true or false.

Makes sense, I think. Truth is not a "thing" in the same manner that a rock is a thing. We can make true or false statements about a rock and the truth of a statement can sometimes be observed to correspond between what is said and what is observed.

As far as there not being an "ultimate truth" or "absolute" truth, I guess words like "ultimate" and "absolute" are subjective qualitative words that we humans apply to truths that we encounter in the world. Those qualitative words indicate what is important to know. Some might say, the "ultimate truth" would be whether or not there is a God. I don't know that it is wrong to say that something like that is the "ultimate truth." It seems like it would be a more important truth compared to a truth like, "I saw a blade of green grass today."

In any case, one could go on at great length on the topic of truth, however, sometimes a person might think, "is it worth it for me to do so."

Almost everything said or written about truth in religion and philosophy is nonsense intended to obfuscate what truth means with the intention of repudiating truth and knowledge to put over some absurd ideology, program, or agenda or other superstitious nonsense.

It does seem at times that statements are often made with some sort of ideological agenda behind them. I sort of wonder if it's even possible for a human being not to string together statements in order to realize some end goal, whether it be to fool someone else or otherwise perhaps help them in some way.

But thank you for an opportunity to think more deeply about something. Hopefully doing so will stave off Alzheimer's for a little longer.

[Skepdick]

You are veering and going off tangent.

Anyone or any nation that doesn't call THIS COLOR "red" will initially encounter a question of doubt re why the different words and sound.

Questions from and by whom?

Russian speakers don't care about your doubt.
Mandarin speakers don't care about your doubt.
Spanish speakers don't care about your doubt.
Italian speakers don't care about your doubt.

You sound like an English colonialist - you think the world revolves around you.

Most will understand the difference is due to semantics.
But in the event there is still further doubt they will arbitrate using the model I proposed, i.e. the current scientific model, [not 'your' baseless model] where scientists will test and verify the wavelengths and other criteria involved to arrive at the likely conclusion what is called 'red' is the same as their terminology for the same color.

And you continue to be stupid. After all this.

Science cannot and does not solve the symbol grounding problem

In order for you to test and verify "wavelengths" you need a metric system. Units of measurement. You know... semantically meaningful stuff.
You need to understand what "length" is.
You uneed to understand what "frequency" is.
You uneed to understand what "time" is.

And you have yourself the exact same problem? What's the wavelength of THIS COLOR?

Uuuuh??!?! in which measurement system?

[Belinda]

Gary Childress wrote:

As far as there not being an "ultimate truth" or "absolute" truth, I guess words like "ultimate" and "absolute" are subjective qualitative words that we humans apply to truths that we encounter in the world. Those qualitative words indicate what is important to know. Some might say, the "ultimate truth" would be whether or not there is a God. I don't know that it is wrong to say that something like that is the "ultimate truth." It seems like it would be a more important truth compared to a truth like, "I saw a blade of green grass today."

I understand. There is the subjective meaning of 'truth' that involves affections or aspirations. I have subjective affection towards a thing, event, or person that for me represents beauty. I can have subjective feelings affection towards some thing, event, or person that for me represents truth. Why omit subjective feelings when trying to define a value?
True, subjective feelings are not accessible to others although we can feel very similar feelings to someone else and sometimes, maybe at a concert for instance, we fancy we are all feeling the same. Values are the only ideas that may transcend both subjectivity and objectivity and have independent Platonic existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are veering and going off tangent.

Anyone or any nation that doesn't call THIS COLOR "red" will initially encounter a question of doubt re why the different words and sound.

Questions from and by whom?

Russian speakers don't care about your doubt.
Mandarin speakers don't care about your doubt.
Spanish speakers don't care about your doubt.
Italian speakers don't care about your doubt.

You sound like an English colonialist - you think the world revolves around you.

Most will understand the difference is due to semantics.
But in the event there is still further doubt they will arbitrate using the model I proposed, i.e. the current scientific model, [not 'your' baseless model] where scientists will test and verify the wavelengths and other criteria involved to arrive at the likely conclusion what is called 'red' is the same as their terminology for the same color.

And you continue to be stupid. After all this.

Science cannot and does not solve the symbol grounding problem

In order for you to test and verify "wavelengths" you need a metric system. Units of measurement. You know... semantically meaningful stuff.
You need to understand what "length" is.
You uneed to understand what "frequency" is.
You uneed to understand what "time" is.

And you have yourself the exact same problem? What's the wavelength of THIS COLOR?

Uuuuh??!?! in which measurement system?

You are going all over the place.

First, your model is baseless and useless to humanity, it is only good for your own mental masturbation.

The current scientific model is the most credible, why?
I have provided the reasons here;
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
I have referred this many time, did you read it?

The current scientific model is far from perfect, but it is the most credible at present with its declared transparent limitations.
So your above points of doubts are already addressed within the current scientific model and yet it is still the most credible model we have at present.

Btw, I have always echo Popper's 'scientific truths are at best, polished conjectures' but the scientific model is still the most credible model available to represent reality.

[Skepdick]

You are going all over the place.

First, your model is baseless and useless to humanity, it is only good for your own mental masturbation.

The current scientific model is the most credible, why?
I have provided the reasons here;
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
I have referred this many time, did you read it?

The current scientific model is far from perfect, but it is the most credible at present with its declared transparent limitations.
So your above points of doubts are already addressed within the current scientific model and yet it is still the most credible model we have at present.

Btw, I have always echo Popper's 'scientific truths are at best, polished conjectures' but the scientific model is still the most credible model available to represent reality.

My model has equivalent basis AND equivalent utility to the model humanity is currently using.
By any notion of objectivity that doesn't appeal to a bandwagon fallacy my model is equivalent to your model.

Only - my model isn't widely used.

You can throw in as many rubber-stamp adjectives into your arguments and it won't make your point any more reasonable.

You are just just doing marketing/sales for the model you like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are going all over the place.

First, your model is baseless and useless to humanity, it is only good for your own mental masturbation.

The current scientific model is the most credible, why?
I have provided the reasons here;
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
I have referred this many time, did you read it?

The current scientific model is far from perfect, but it is the most credible at present with its declared transparent limitations.
So your above points of doubts are already addressed within the current scientific model and yet it is still the most credible model we have at present.

Btw, I have always echo Popper's 'scientific truths are at best, polished conjectures' but the scientific model is still the most credible model available to represent reality.

My model has equivalent basis AND equivalent utility to the model humanity is currently using.

Note the majority of humans [>80%] at present are theists.
Their model of reality is the same like yours.

By any notion of objectivity that doesn't appeal to a bandwagon fallacy my model is equivalent to your model.

Only - my model isn't widely used.

You can throw in as many rubber-stamp adjectives into your arguments and it won't make your point any more reasonable.

You are just just doing marketing/sales for the model you like.

What?

My model is based on the Scientific Method within its defined Framework and System.


I have already argued and justify why it is the most credible we have at present, despite its inherent weakness.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338