Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:41 pm**

raw_thought wrote:BTW, Truth has a specific definition. For example in logic truth does not = validity.
Here is a valid argument that lacks truth.
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is a true but invalid argument.
1. Carter was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. therefore, W. Bush was president.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:04 pm**

raw_thought wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/#Cri

I'd rather hear how one might argue against my points directly then to require 'homework' on my own that I already do. What are you asserting or denying, agreeing, or disagreeing to? Or is this even a response to me?

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:09 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
raw_thought wrote:BTW, Truth has a specific definition. For example in logic truth does not = validity.
Here is a valid argument that lacks truth. Validity here makes it 'true' RELATIVE to some other world, just valued, 'false' to ours
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is a true but invalid argument.<-- Actually 'valid' in form, but incomplete.*
1. Carter was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. therefore, W. Bush was president.

Validity is the part the determines HOW the inputs are connected appropriately. This HAS to be minimally 'true'. I definitely did not assert this in isolation of 'soundness'. That is, validity is NOT a sufficient condition. Nor is the 'soundness' of the premises without the connectivity making them valid. The 'fitness' must require the relationship of 'coinciding' values in some domain these factors share collectively of one another, regardless of whether we could or could not directly determine.

[* All that 'validity' means is that given true premises, the conclusion must also be true. The incompleteness is due to "W. Bush" as not being mentioned in the argument. The conclusion is just a restatement of at least those things derived in the premises. This allows "inductive arguments" to be a form of argument too. You could also make the first one 'true' to our world by defining "Martian(s)" as something 'fit' in our world.]

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:23 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:" so: truth (the true[ful] statement) is that which describes what is real."
Henry
So you finally agree that truth does not = reality. Truth is when a statement describes reality.
That's the normative description. But truth is used validly to comply to a lesser standard too' such as religious truth, moral truth. You might even say of literature that it has a truthful account of friendship or human relations, when it is actually 100% fiction.
Truth is in fact when one statement or account complies with your view of the world.
However, even then "truth" is a correspondence ( ironically and this is interesting as I mentioned previously the correspondence theory of truth has problems) between a proposition and reality. For example, I can lie and say that I am sad. My statement is not the truth because it doesn't correspond to my state of mind.

Indeed. It all depends on what truth you want to push.
It is certainly not a simple matter of definition.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:53 pm**

Shimmer

Wife.....Gilda Radner
Husband.....Dan Aykroyd
Spokesman.....Chevy Chase

[ open on suburban kitchen, Wife and Husband arguing ]

Wife: New Shimmer is a floor wax!

Husband: No, new Shimmer is a dessert topping!

Wife: It's a floor wax!

Husband: It's a dessert topping!

Wife: It's a floor wax, I'm telling you!

Husband: It's a dessert topping, you cow!

Spokesman: [ enters quickly ] Hey, hey, hey, calm down, you two. New Shimmer is both a floor wax and a dessert topping! Here, I'll spray some on your mop.. [ sprays Shimmer onto mop ] ..and some on your butterscotch pudding. [ sprays Shimmer onto pudding ]

[ Husband eats while Wife mops ]

Husband: Mmmmm, tastes terrific!

Wife: And just look at that shine! But will it last?

Spokesman: Hey, outlasts every other leading floor wax, 2 to 1. It's durable, and it's scuff-resistant.

Husband: And it's delicious!

Spokesman: Sure is! Perks up anything from an ice cream sundae to a pumpkin pie!

Wife: Made from an exclusive non-yellowing formula.

Husband: I haven't even touched my pudding and I'm ready for more!

Wife: But what about black heel marks?

Spokesman: Dirt, grime, even black heel marks, wipe clean with a damp mop.

[ Husband accidentally sprays Shimmer onto the floor ]

Husband: Oh, sorry, honey, I'll clean that up!

Wife: Oh, no problem, sweetheart, not with new Shimmer!

[ Spokesman laughs continuously as he approaches the camera ]

Spokesman: New Shimmer, for the greatest shine you ever tasted!

[ fade ]

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 3:56 am**

Scott Mayers wrote: [* All that 'validity' means is that given true premises, the conclusion must also be true.]

Bullshit. Validity refers to correct inference. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises and invalid if not. An argument can have true premisses, a true conclusion, but be invalid(if the conclusion doesn't follow). It can also have true premisses, a false conclusion and be invalid(must be in that case). Thus, what you say above isn't correct...

Given true premisses and an invalid argumentative form, the conclusion is not necessarily true. The only time a conclusion 'must' be true is if it follows from true premises(if the argument has both true premisses and a valid argumentative form).

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:58 am**

henry quirk wrote:
Truth is what is true...

What makes those things true?

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:43 am**

raw_thought wrote:BTW, Truth has a specific definition. For example in logic truth does not = validity.

Truth has more than one specific definition.

In some logic(s)... truth is often taken to have much to do with coherence(consistent word usage accompanied by valid reasoning sprinkled with an apparent lack of self-contradiction). Following the laws of thought/belief. Those shed light on some things, but not all. Other logics deny the law/principle of ambivalence. Some attempt to deny the law of self-contradiction. Some deny both.

All logical argument necessarily presupposes correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of the premisses. Logic aims to preserve the presupposed correspondence by virtue of following the rules of correct inference(valid argument/reasoning).

Here is a valid argument that lacks truth.
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.

The premisses lack correspondence.

Here is a true but invalid argument.
1. Carter was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. therefore, W. Bush was president.

Arguments aren't the sort of thing that can be true. The premisses are both true. The conclusion is invalid because it does not follow from the premisses.

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:49 am**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Truth is in fact when one statement or account complies with your view of the world.

Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:17 am**

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Truth is in fact when one statement or account complies with your view of the world.
Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...

It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:55 am**

"Arguments aren't the sort of thing that can be true. The premisses are both true. The conclusion is invalid because it does not follow from the premisses."
creative soul
Agreed! That is what I was saying!!!! Validity is not the same as truth.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:00 am**

creativesoul wrote:
henry quirk wrote:
Truth is what is true...
What makes those things true?

Exactly!!! that is henry's and Sphere's tautological definition of truth. Their "definition" does not help us identify truth and so as a definition is useless.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:07 am**

Here is a valid argument that lacks truth.
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
ME

The premisses lack correspondence.
creativesoul
They correspond to each other. If all As are Bs and C is an A then C is a B.
The fact that All Martians do not eat snakes and that Bob is not a martian is an issue of truth not validity. The above argument is valid but not true.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:10 am**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Truth is in fact when one statement or account complies with your view of the world.
Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...
It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

It is true that Trump believes that immigrants are rapists etc. However, it is not true that they are rapists. It is true that doofus believes that 1+1= 349, but it is not true that 1+1=349.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:27 am**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...
It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.
It is true that Trump believes that immigrants are rapists etc. However, it is not true that they are rapists. It is true that doofus believes that 1+1= 349, but it is not true that 1+1=349.

His statement is true if more than one immigrant has been shown to be a rapist.
It is also true that immigrants have founded the US. Thomas Paine migrated to the US from England and practically invented the US. QED.

Philosophy Now Forum

What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re:

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: Re:

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?