Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:53 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:50 pm Thus saying something such as "there is no truth" is at best childish.

It's at worst childish. It's at best - true.

A truth revealed simply by asking How would you recognise truth when you find it?

You are stuck contemplating your own navel.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:09 pm You are stuck contemplating your own navel.

You must be projecting. I am drinking whiskey and I am not contemplating anything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:44 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:09 pm You are stuck contemplating your own navel.

I am not contemplating anything.

That figures!!
Maybe you should try it sometime?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:43 pm should try it sometime

Yes, You should!

Then you might figure out that there's no truth.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:25 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:36 am Truth are all the puzzle pieces we play with and seek to conjoin until we run out of pieces...or discover more beyond our current horizon forcing truth to be more complete though remaining always incomplete along its edges.

Oh, that's useful. So when you find the broken cookie jar and ask you son if he broke it, you won't know if he's telling the, "truth," or not until you have found, "all the puzzle pieces we play with and seek to conjoin until we run out of pieces...or discover more beyond our current horizon forcing truth to be more complete though remaining always incomplete along its edges..."

Good luck. The rest of us know, if he broke the cookie jar, and says he didn't, he's not telling the, truth, and if he broke the cookie jar, and says he did, he's telling the, truth." There isn't any other kind of truth.

Unlike you I wasn't talking about cookie jars.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:43 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:18 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:16 pm You do not speak the truth.

I do. Truth does not exist is true.

SInce nothing you can say is true, there is no point talking to you.

Still the same old Hobbes!

I contemplated my navel once... turned into a battleship with a jolly roger...

-Imp

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:16 pm Unlike you I wasn't talking about cookie jars.

Yes, I think I noticed that. I talked about cookie jars because I thought it would be a simple illustration anyone could understand. Apparently I was mistaken.

So, what were you talking about?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:54 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:16 pm Unlike you I wasn't talking about cookie jars.

Yes, I think I noticed that. I talked about cookie jars because I thought it would be a simple illustration anyone could understand. Apparently I was mistaken.

Yes, apparently you were!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:53 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:50 pm Thus saying something such as "there is no truth" is at best childish.

It's at worst childish. It's at best - true.

A truth revealed simply by asking How would you recognise truth when you find it?

There are truths, but they are only relative truths as conditioned upon their specific Framework and System.
There are scientific truths but valid only as conditioned to the requirements of the Scientific Framework, the scientific method, peer review, assumptions, limitations, etc.

So one can recognize a scientific truth if that is accepted via intersubjective consensus from within the Scientific Framework only.
A legal truth can be recognized to specific court papers within a specific legal system of a sovereign nation, etc.

There are no absolute truths that stand alone by themselves without reference to a specified framework.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am There are truths, but they are only relative truths as conditioned upon their specific Framework and System.

And in which framework do you determine which framework/system is "most true" relative to all other frameworks/systems?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am There are no absolute truths that stand alone by themselves without reference to a specified framework.

In which framework do you decide which framework to use?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am There are truths, but they are only relative truths as conditioned upon their specific Framework and System.

And in which framework do you determine which framework/system is "most true" relative to all other frameworks/systems?

What is most true [confidence level] would be based on the same results from repeated tests.
If we burn Hydrogen with Oxygen, we always get H20 i.e. water.
Anyone can test this scientific truths and they will get the same result every time.
What is most true will depend on the reliability, consistency of the result and the easiness the test can be carried out.

It is not purely based on which framework/system, but also the nature of the type of truth from each framework/system. Testing the truth of hydrogen + oxygen = H2O is easy is can be most true, but other more complicated truth may be difficult to test, e.g. The truth of Big Bang theory cannot be on par with the H2O truth.


What is most true will depend on who is rating the truth. Those who are not testing the truths may have to use faith to rely on the approval of scientists.

Note the legal truth 'X is a convicted murderer within US Laws' may not be the same with a different prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge and jury. Such has happen many times.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am There are no absolute truths that stand alone by themselves without reference to a specified framework.

In which framework do you decide which framework to use?

The most effective is to rely on the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide which framework to use.
E.g. to use the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide whether to use the Divine-Theological Framework or Scientific Framework to decide on the truths of the Universe.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:57 am And in which framework do you determine which framework/system is "most true" relative to all other frameworks/systems?
What is most true [confidence level] would be based on the same results from repeated tests.
If we burn Hydrogen with Oxygen, we always get H20 i.e. water.
Anyone can test this scientific truths and they will get the same result every time.
What is most true will depend on the reliability, consistency of the result and the easiness the test can be carried out.

This is a statement made in a statistical/empirical framework. How and why did you choose this framework?

Why do you even care about reliability and consistency?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:57 am It is not purely based on which framework/system, but also the nature of the type of truth from each framework/system. Testing the truth of hydrogen + oxygen = H2O is easy is can be most true, but other more complicated truth may be difficult to test, e.g. The truth of Big Bang theory cannot be on par with the H2O truth.

You are still making stataements inside the scientific framework. How and why did you choose this framework?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:57 am What is most true will depend on who is rating the truth. Those who are not testing the truths may have to use faith to rely on the approval of scientists.

It's not just about WHO is rating the truth. It's also about how and why they are rating the truth.

If you don't have a mechanism for deciding which framework/system to use in any particular situation, then you are relying on faith.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:57 am Note the legal truth 'X is a convicted murderer within US Laws' may not be the same with a different prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge and jury. Such has happen many times.

How and why did you choose the legal system/framework?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:57 am The most effective is to rely on the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide which framework to use.
E.g. to use the Critical and Philosophical Thinking Framework to decide whether to use the Divine-Theological Framework or Scientific Framework to decide on the truths of the Universe.

How and why did you decide which Philosophical system/framework yo use?

Skepdick me old mucker, how did you choose your hysterical, Wikipedia splattering method of persuasion, and why do you persist with it, given that it clearly doesn't work?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:08 pm Skepdick me old mucker, how did you choose your hysterical, Wikipedia splattering method of persuasion, and why do you persist with it, given that it clearly doesn't work?

1. Why do you assume I am in the game of persuasion?
2. How are you measuring the effectiveness of my method (whatever you think that is)? What are your positive and negative feedback loops?

What do you expect to observe if "it worked"?
What do you expect to observe if "it didn't work"?
What do you conclude when you observe neither?

I thought you said you understood how this underdeterminism thing worked...