Philosophy Now Forum

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 4:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:23 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 10:04 pm

There are no fixed truths and, yes, this applies to science as well.

LOL 'There are no fixed truths'.

Do ANY of those who CLAIM things like, 'There is NO truth', 'There are NO absolutes', 'Truth/s can NOT be known', or ANY other 'claim of an absolute truth' RECOGNIZE and SEE the CONTRADICTION and the HYPOCRISY IN the CLAIM.

Can you REALLY NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE the CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY in CLAIMING, 'There are NO fixed truths', as though 'it' IS A FIXED TRUTH?

If there, REALLY, are NO 'fixed truths', then 'your CLAIM', here, is NOT A 'fixed truth', ALSO. Making 'your CLAIM', literally, A 'contradiction in terms'.

OK, I'll rephrase it for you. It's impossible to express truth in any language spoken by homo omnisciencis. And, yes, that includes this statement and the previous.

So, your statement and claim, here, is obviously just an oxymoron and self-refuted, and so is actually false, and wrong, right?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 4:58 am If scientific truth is refined over time by further science and so on and so forth, is scientific truth merely contextually oriented as an expression of the time thus is not fixed jnterpretations?

One will get a better understanding of the above question if one read the following SEP article thoroughly:

SEP: Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=43488

The problem [as with philosophical realists] is to assume there is something [reality] that is fixed and science is expected to refine its truths to that of an absolutely mind-independent reality, i.e. to get closer to that fixed point and eventually attained it.
Based on that, when we realize science dismissed some truth and keep changing certain truths, we regard science as problematic.

The real thing [philosophical] we do with science is assessing its objectivity of its observations with its hypothesis such that scientific truths, facts and objectivity are;
-strong enough to be valuable, and
-weak enough to be attainable and workable in practice.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Scie ... jectivity/

To assess scientific objectivity we would need a methodology of assessment where I propose the Framework and System [FS] Approach with a rating methodology for the different FS-s within science.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 4:39 am
So, your statement and claim, here, is obviously just an oxymoron and self-refuted, and so is actually false, and wrong, right?

Yes!!! Exactly! It is what I said.

Now you need to deal with the fact all these statements are more true than false.

"This statement is false" is neither true nor false either.

It is not reality that is confused about being true or false; it is every language spoken since the "tower of babel" by homo omnisciencis. Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. All life (except homo omnisciencis) is conscious and logic incarnate.

We are confused because we speak an analog, abstract, and symbolic language and this is unnatural. Scientists speak and think in the same language and paradigms are expressed in it. Our beliefs are unnatural and untrue.

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:05 pm Scientists speak and think in the same language and paradigms are expressed in it. Our beliefs are unnatural and untrue.

We lack an understanding of even the most basic forces.

All things affect all other things all the time. All experiment applies to all things observed.

So it is simply impossible to understand half of reality or any percentage at all.

We package up interpretations of experiment into discreet units called paradigms and then we extrapolate this to apply to all observation. And we use confused language to formulate and express it. We often use induction to make the interpolations and extrapolations and all induction is largely based not in science or knowledge per se but rather in semantics.

Because of the way we think and pursue science we can be very very wrong about anything at all.



With effort statements can be engineered to be 99.9% true. I call this "truth" but I try to remember that I and it can still be wrong.

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 4:39 am
So, your statement and claim, here, is obviously just an oxymoron and self-refuted, and so is actually false, and wrong, right?

Yes!!! Exactly! It is what I said.

Now you need to deal with the fact all these statements are more true than false.

"This statement is false" is neither true nor false either.

It is not reality that is confused about being true or false; it is every language spoken since the "tower of babel" by homo omnisciencis. Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. All life (except homo omnisciencis) is conscious and logic incarnate.

We are confused because we speak an analog, abstract, and symbolic language and this is unnatural. Scientists speak and think in the same language and paradigms are expressed in it. Our beliefs are unnatural and untrue.

This is both and expression of language and a belief.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:26 am

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 4:39 am
So, your statement and claim, here, is obviously just an oxymoron and self-refuted, and so is actually false, and wrong, right?

Yes!!! Exactly! It is what I said.

Now you need to deal with the fact all these statements are more true than false.

"This statement is false" is neither true nor false either.

It is not reality that is confused about being true or false; it is every language spoken since the "tower of babel" by homo omnisciencis. Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. All life (except homo omnisciencis) is conscious and logic incarnate.

We are confused because we speak an analog, abstract, and symbolic language and this is unnatural. Scientists speak and think in the same language and paradigms are expressed in it. Our beliefs are unnatural and untrue.

This is both and expression of language and a belief.

Yes! Of course. But, "This statement is false" is neither true nor false either, is as much truth as can be expressed in modern language IMO.

Just because we can only express concepts or "truth" in confused language does not change the fact that truth exists.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 1:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:26 am

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:05 pm

Yes!!! Exactly! It is what I said.

Now you need to deal with the fact all these statements are more true than false.

"This statement is false" is neither true nor false either.

It is not reality that is confused about being true or false; it is every language spoken since the "tower of babel" by homo omnisciencis. Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. All life (except homo omnisciencis) is conscious and logic incarnate.

We are confused because we speak an analog, abstract, and symbolic language and this is unnatural. Scientists speak and think in the same language and paradigms are expressed in it. Our beliefs are unnatural and untrue.

This is both and expression of language and a belief.

Yes! Of course. But, "This statement is false" is neither true nor false either, is as much truth as can be expressed in modern language IMO.

Just because we can only express concepts or "truth" in confused language does not change the fact that truth exists.

Truth is occurence, justified by the occurence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 6:12 pm

Truth is occurence, justified by the occurence.

If you mean that only reality is truth then I disagree.

All of reality unfolds through initial conditions and the effect of all real things everywhere. It is unpredictable.

Only life can experience truth and our species (homo omnisciencis) mistakes our beliefs for truth where no other species does this. All other species use natural logic to understand reality through pattern recognition. We use reductionistic science primarily.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 6:12 pm

Truth is occurence, justified by the occurence.

If you mean that only reality is truth then I disagree.

All of reality unfolds through initial conditions and the effect of all real things everywhere. It is unpredictable.

Only life can experience truth and our species (homo omnisciencis) mistakes our beliefs for truth where no other species does this. All other species use natural logic to understand reality through pattern recognition. We use reductionistic science primarily.

All reality contains a degree of truth but the degree differs by its relationship to other truths. If something exists as x it is true as x, a hallucination may not be fully true but it is true that it is a hallucination.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:18 am 'Truth', itself, is SO SIMPLE, and SO EASY, TO UNDERSTAND.

There consists; The 'Truth' AND the 'truth'.

What is 'true' to some, alone, is the 'truth'.

But, what is 'true' to EVERY one, is the 'Truth'.

And, it is ONLY the 'Truth', which is FIXED, FOREVER, IRREFUTABLE, and thus what is ACTUALLY True.

'truth', however, although appearing to some, may not be ACTUALLY True, AT ALL. Although

Now, and AGAIN, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE and DISTINGUISH, EXACTLY, BETWEEN what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, FOREVER MORE, FROM what is just ASSUMED to be true, to some only, IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

And, also AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one is INTERESTED in FINDING OUT HOW, ALSO, then let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Age, may I recommend that you purchase an Introduction To Philosophy textbook, and an Intrroduction To Science textbook, and read both of them carefully before you attempt to post again. This will save you the effort of re-inventing the wheel every time you post.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 4:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:18 am 'Truth', itself, is SO SIMPLE, and SO EASY, TO UNDERSTAND.

There consists; The 'Truth' AND the 'truth'.

What is 'true' to some, alone, is the 'truth'.

But, what is 'true' to EVERY one, is the 'Truth'.

And, it is ONLY the 'Truth', which is FIXED, FOREVER, IRREFUTABLE, and thus what is ACTUALLY True.

'truth', however, although appearing to some, may not be ACTUALLY True, AT ALL. Although

Now, and AGAIN, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE and DISTINGUISH, EXACTLY, BETWEEN what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, FOREVER MORE, FROM what is just ASSUMED to be true, to some only, IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

And, also AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one is INTERESTED in FINDING OUT HOW, ALSO, then let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Age, may I recommend that you purchase an Introduction To Philosophy textbook, and an Intrroduction To Science textbook, and read both of them carefully before you attempt to post again. This will save you the effort of re-inventing the wheel every time you post.

ONCE MORE what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE, here, is another one with NO CURIOSITY and NO INTEREST, and who OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES that it's OWN PERSONAL 'truth' is what Is TRUE and RIGHT, in Life.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 4:58 am If scientific truth is refined over time by further science and so on and so forth, is scientific truth merely contextually oriented as an expression of the time thus is not fixed jnterpretations?

Well, I'll be buttered on both sides. This is the first statement you have uttered on this forum which is actually good science! Congratulations, you nailed it! You got it absolutely right! The whole story of science is a story of contextually-adequate explanations which met the needs of the time, but which proved to be inadequate as further data came to light. There are no "fixed" interpretations in science! Everything is negotiable. As Richard Feynman once said, "everything we think we know in physics is just an approximation".

Obviously 'this one', here, is NOT YET AWARE that 'science' NEVER deals WITH the ACTUAL Truth.