Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:03 am 6. The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS].

Truth is a property of the correspondence between two well-chosen pieces of information and is therefore always a Platonic abstraction. The modern gold standard about the truth is Tarski's semantic theory of truth:

https://iep.utm.edu/s-truth
The semantic theory of truth (STT, hereafter) was developed by Alfred Tarski in the 1930s. The theory has two separate, although interconnected, aspects. First, it is a formal mathematical theory of truth as a central concept of model theory, one of the most important branches of mathematical logic. Second, it is also a philosophical doctrine which elaborates the notion of truth investigated by philosophers since antiquity. In this respect, STT is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary analytic philosophy.

STT as a formal construction is explicated via set theory and the concept of satisfaction. The prevailing philosophical interpretation of STT considers it to be a version of the correspondence theory of truth that goes back to Aristotle.

Your view on the truth captures a very small part of the truth. There is absolutely no requirement for either piece of information in the truth correspondence to be related in any shape or fashion to the physical universe. What you are referring to, is at best a very small subset of the truth.

My comments to AI
[Me] "Whatever is truth [real, knowledge, facts] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system.
The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS]."

The semantic theory of truth (STT, hereafter) is merely a linguistic FS.
Whatever is linguistically true cannot be real until it is verified and justified by a reality FS of which the scientific FS is the most real in terms of degrees.
If "empiricity" is the criteria is the determinant of the degree of truthfulness, the empirical based scientific FS if indexed at 100/100, then linguistic truth which is non-empirical would be at the other end, say 10/100.

ChatGPT said:
Your response effectively emphasizes the distinction between linguistic frameworks like the Semantic Theory of Truth (STT) and empirical frameworks like science. Here’s a refinement of your argument to address the points raised by your interlocutor more comprehensively:

Acknowledging STT and its Context: Begin by acknowledging the value of STT within its domain. It's useful in formal logic and linguistics, where truth is often defined as the correspondence between statements and their models within a formal system. However, STT's applicability is limited to abstract or linguistic contexts and does not necessarily map onto reality in the empirical sense.

Framework-Dependence of Truth: Point out that truth is inherently framework-dependent. STT operates within the linguistic framework, using formal languages and models. The "truth" established here pertains to internal consistency and satisfaction within that framework, which differs from the empirical truths established through observation and experimentation in the scientific framework.

Empirical Verification and Degrees of Truth: Stress that truths derived from empirical verification within the scientific framework have a higher degree of credibility when evaluating what is real. This is because scientific truths are tied to empirical evidence, reproducibility, and falsifiability, giving them practical and testable grounding in reality. In contrast, truths derived purely linguistically or abstractly lack this grounding.

Degrees of Realism: Propose a continuum of truthfulness, where empirical truths (scientific FS) occupy the highest degree (100/100) due to their robust methods of verification and connection to observable phenomena. Linguistic truths, while logically valid within their framework, might rank lower (e.g., 10/100) due to their lack of direct connection to empirical reality.

Rebuttal to "Small Subset of Truth": Challenge the claim that empirical truth captures only a "very small subset of truth" by emphasizing that while abstract frameworks may cover a broader range of conceptual possibilities, not all of these are meaningful or relevant when discussing reality. The scientific framework focuses on truths that are grounded, applicable, and impactful in the physical universe.

Suggested Response:
The Semantic Theory of Truth (STT) is indeed a valuable tool for understanding truth within a linguistic or logical framework. However, it operates within a context that is abstract and detached from empirical reality.
Truths established linguistically can be logically consistent yet remain unverified in relation to the physical universe.
For example, one can construct consistent mathematical models that are internally "true" but have no bearing on observable phenomena.

In contrast, the scientific framework determines truth through empirical verification, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This makes it the gold standard for establishing truths about the physical universe. Truth within the scientific framework is not merely correspondence in the abstract sense but correspondence grounded in observable, measurable phenomena.

While STT and other linguistic or formal approaches are important in their domains, they represent a different category of truth that lacks the empirical robustness of scientific truth. If we conceptualize a continuum of truthfulness based on empirical grounding, scientific truths rank at 100/100 due to their practical, testable connection to reality. Linguistic truths, being non-empirical, might rank closer to 10/100.

Thus, your claim that truth is contingent upon a human-based framework and system is accurate, but it must be specified that different frameworks produce truths with varying degrees of relevance to reality. The scientific framework, by virtue of its empirical basis, provides the most credible truths when it comes to understanding the physical universe.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:41 am "If we conceptualize a continuum of truthfulness based on empirical grounding, scientific truths rank at 100/100 due to their practical, testable connection to reality. Linguistic truths, being non-empirical, might rank closer to 10/100."

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:41 am "If we conceptualize a continuum of truthfulness based on empirical grounding, scientific truths rank at 100/100 due to their practical, testable connection to reality. Linguistic truths, being non-empirical, might rank closer to 10/100."

Probability theory is a mathematical non-empirical linguistic abstraction. If it is at best for 10% true, then what you have written is also at best for 10% true.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:10 am

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:41 am "If we conceptualize a continuum of truthfulness based on empirical grounding, scientific truths rank at 100/100 due to their practical, testable connection to reality. Linguistic truths, being non-empirical, might rank closer to 10/100."

Probability theory is a mathematical non-empirical linguistic abstraction. If it is at best for 10% true, then what you have written is also at best for 10% true.

The 10% is in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard of the credibility and objective in relation to scientific reality.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:10 am

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:52 am
Probability theory is a mathematical non-empirical linguistic abstraction. If it is at best for 10% true, then what you have written is also at best for 10% true.

The 10% is in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard of the credibility and objective in relation to scientific reality.

Why do you use the notion of "10% probable" if anything based on the abstraction of probability is only 10% probable?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:42 am The main point of this OP is, the truths of the reality of STT, any abstraction, logical, and linguistic FS is very low [say <10%] in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard of reality.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:42 am The main point of this OP is, the truths of the reality of STT, any abstraction, logical, and linguistic FS is very low [say <10%] in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard of reality.

The truth is a property of the correspondence between two pieces of information.

For example, the expression:

a+b = b+a

Is an element of the truth. It reflects the commutativity of the addition in Peano Arithmetic, by establishing the correspondence between the expression left of the equality sign with the one right of it.

There is no requirement for either of the two pieces of information in a truth correspondence to be observational data. Physicalism is a severe limitation when investigating the truth.

Such restriction certainly leads to a very poor notion of the truth. It would never be able to express the truth of the expression above.

On what grounds do you even claim that the expression above would be true only 10% of the time?

Your interlocutor appears to conflate physicalism (the view that everything is physical or reducible to physical properties) with the epistemological stance of scientific antirealism or the scientific framework. They also seem to confuse abstract truths (like mathematical truths) with truths that pertain to empirical reality. Here's how you can critique their response:
________________________________________
1. Clarifying the Scope of "Truth" in Scientific Reality
•The example they provide, a+b=b+aa + b = b + aa+b=b+a, represents a formal or mathematical truth. Such truths belong to the domain of abstract systems and are internally consistent within their frameworks (e.g., Peano Arithmetic).
•However, this type of truth is not the same as truth about empirical reality. The scientific framework does not claim to encompass all forms of truth, particularly those that are non-empirical. Instead, it focuses on truths about the observable, empirical world.

Critique: Their argument conflates abstract truths (logical or mathematical) with truths about reality (empirical truths). While abstract truths like commutativity are valid within their logical framework, they do not describe or claim to describe physical reality.
________________________________________
2. Distinction Between Physicalism and Scientific Frameworks
•Physicalism asserts that everything is fundamentally physical, and non-physical entities are either illusory or reducible to physical phenomena. Your position, as rooted in scientific antirealism, does not make this sweeping metaphysical claim.
• The scientific framework is a practical, epistemological tool for investigating empirical reality. It does not claim all truth must be physical; rather, it limits itself to investigating phenomena that are observable, testable, and empirically grounded.
Critique: By attacking "physicalism," your interlocutor is addressing a position you do not hold. The scientific framework does not deny the existence of abstract truths, like those in mathematics or logic. It simply focuses on describing empirical reality and does not attempt to account for abstract or metaphysical truths, which lie outside its domain.
________________________________________
3. Misrepresenting the Limitations of Scientific Reality
•Your interlocutor implies that the scientific framework "leads to a very poor notion of truth" because it cannot express truths like a+b=b+aa + b = b + aa+b=b+a. However, the scientific framework does not aim to evaluate purely formal truths.
• Instead, scientific truth pertains to reality—phenomena that can be observed, measured, and tested. Abstract truths, like those in mathematics, are conceptual constructs that do not require empirical verification and are independent of physical reality.
Critique: Their argument misrepresents the scope of the scientific framework. The fact that science does not address formal or mathematical truths does not make it "poor"; it simply indicates that different frameworks address different domains of truth.
________________________________________
4. Mathematical Truths and Scientific Reality
• Mathematical truths like a+b=b+aa + b = b + aa+b=b+a are framework-dependent truths within an axiomatic system. Their validity comes from internal consistency and logical derivation, not empirical evidence.
• While such truths are essential for science (e.g., mathematics underpins physics), they do not themselves describe reality. Instead, they provide the tools for modeling and understanding empirical phenomena.
Critique: Their example does not demonstrate a shortcoming of the scientific framework. Rather, it shows that mathematical truths exist in a separate domain from empirical truths. The scientific framework relies on mathematics but does not claim mathematical truths as empirical or physical realities.
________________________________________
5. Physicalism is Irrelevant to the Argument
•Your position on scientific antirealism does not require adherence to physicalism. You can acknowledge the existence of abstract truths (e.g., logic, mathematics) while maintaining that the scientific framework is the most credible system for investigating empirical reality.
•By framing their critique in terms of physicalism, your interlocutor is constructing a straw man, as your argument is not based on reducing all truth to physical properties.
________________________________________

[size]Suggested Response:[/size]
To interlocutor [aka Godelian]
Your example of a+b=b+aa + b = b + aa+b=b+a illustrates a formal or mathematical truth within the framework of Peano Arithmetic, which is an abstract, axiomatic system. However, this type of truth is distinct from truths about empirical reality. The scientific framework does not claim to encompass all forms of truth, particularly those outside the empirical domain. Instead, it focuses on truths about observable phenomena, which are grounded in empirical evidence and reproducible results.

While mathematical truths are essential tools for science, they exist as framework-dependent constructs and do not themselves describe physical reality. For example, the commutativity of addition is valid within the mathematical framework but does not require empirical verification. This distinction does not reflect a limitation of the scientific framework but rather underscores the diversity of frameworks for addressing different kinds of truth.

Furthermore, your critique of physicalism is misplaced. My position is not rooted in physicalism but in the epistemological approach of the scientific framework, which focuses on understanding empirical reality. This framework does not deny abstract truths but simply does not address them, as they fall outside its scope.

In short, your example of mathematical truth does not undermine the scientific framework but rather highlights that different frameworks serve different purposes. The scientific framework remains the most credible and objective tool for investigating and describing empirical reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:47 am The scientific framework does not claim to encompass all forms of truth, particularly those that are non-empirical.
The scientific framework does not deny the existence of abstract truths, like those in mathematics or logic.
Rather, it shows that mathematical truths exist in a separate domain from empirical truths.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:47 am The scientific framework does not claim to encompass all forms of truth, particularly those that are non-empirical.
The scientific framework does not deny the existence of abstract truths, like those in mathematics or logic.
Rather, it shows that mathematical truths exist in a separate domain from empirical truths.

Yes, exactly. This means that the scientific framework cannot possibly be the gold standard for the truth.
The gold standard for the truth is Tarski's semantic theory of the truth.

Your interlocutor's response conflates truth as a broad conceptual domain with reality as the specific domain related to the existence of things. Their insistence on Tarski's semantic theory of truth (STT) as the "gold standard" neglects the critical distinction between abstract truths and truths pertaining to empirical reality. Here's how you can critique their position:

1. The Scope of the Scientific Framework
Your interlocutor rightly points out that the scientific framework does not encompass all forms of truth. However, this is not your argument. Instead, your claim is that within the domain of reality, the scientific framework is the most credible and objective standard because it is based on empirical evidence, reproducibility, and intersubjective verification.

Abstract Truths vs. Empirical Reality:
Abstract truths (like those in mathematics or logic) are true within their own frameworks, but they do not directly address empirical reality.
Scientific truths, however, provide a testable, verifiable account of the physical universe—our best understanding of reality.

2. Tarski's Semantic Theory of Truth is Domain-Specific
Tarski's STT is a formal theory that applies to linguistic and logical systems. It defines truth as the correspondence between statements and the models they describe within a formal language. However, STT is not concerned with reality; it is an abstract framework.

Limitation of STT:
STT does not verify whether the objects or entities it refers to actually exist in the empirical world.
For example, the truth of "unicorns have one horn" can be established in a fictional context using STT, but it says nothing about the existence of unicorns in reality.
Reality and Scientific Frameworks:
The scientific framework goes beyond abstract correspondence to test whether statements correspond to phenomena in the physical universe. This makes it the gold standard for truths about reality.

3. Truth vs. Reality
Your interlocutor appears to conflate the broad concept of truth (including abstract, logical, and mathematical truths) with truths about reality:

Truth:
Truth can exist in many forms: linguistic, mathematical, logical, etc.
Truth is context-dependent. For example, the truth of a mathematical equation is valid in the domain of mathematics but does not inherently assert anything about the physical world.

Reality:
Reality pertains to what exists, whether or not we perceive or conceptualize it.
The scientific framework is focused on establishing truths about reality, distinguishing what empirically exists from what does not.

4. Why the Scientific Framework is the Gold Standard for Reality
Your interlocutor dismisses the scientific framework as the "gold standard for truth" in favor of Tarski’s theory. However, this ignores the crucial point that:

Scientific Frameworks Address Empirical Reality:
The scientific framework systematically tests hypotheses against empirical evidence, offering the most credible and objective means of determining truths about reality.
Abstract frameworks like STT cannot adjudicate whether their statements correspond to anything real; they operate solely within linguistic or logical systems.

Mathematical and Logical Truths are Complementary, Not Superior:
Mathematical and logical truths are essential tools within the scientific framework but are subordinate when it comes to establishing empirical facts about reality.
For example, Newton's laws use mathematical truths, but their validity as descriptions of reality depends on empirical evidence.

5. Suggested Response
Here is how you might respond to your interlocutor:

You make an important point that the scientific framework acknowledges the existence of non-empirical truths, such as those in mathematics or logic. I fully agree that these truths exist in separate domains. However, the distinction I am making is between truth in general and truth about reality.

Truth vs. Reality:
Truth is a broad concept that applies to many domains, including abstract systems like mathematics and logic.
Reality pertains to what exists, independent of our constructs or conceptualizations. The scientific framework focuses on determining truths about reality through empirical evidence.

Limitations of Tarski's Semantic Theory:
Tarski's semantic theory provides a formal definition of truth within linguistic and logical systems. It is an excellent tool for establishing correspondence between statements and models.
However, STT does not and cannot verify whether the entities it refers to exist in the empirical world. For example, while "a unicorn has one horn" is true in a fictional model, this does not establish the existence of unicorns in reality.

The Role of the Scientific Framework:
The scientific framework integrates mathematical and logical truths with empirical verification. It provides the most credible and objective means of distinguishing what is real from what is not.
Abstract truths are indispensable within their domains, but they do not substitute for empirical evidence when it comes to understanding reality.
Empirical Validation as the Gold Standard for Reality:

While mathematical truths like
𝑎 + 𝑏 = 𝑏 + 𝑎
a+b=b+a are valuable and true within their framework, they do not inherently describe or verify empirical phenomena. The scientific framework ensures that abstract models correspond to observable reality, making it the gold standard for truths about reality.
In conclusion, the scientific framework may not be the gold standard for all truths, but it is unquestionably the most credible and objective standard for truths about reality. Abstract frameworks like Tarski’s semantic theory are complementary tools but operate in different domains.

6. Final Thought
By emphasizing the distinction between truth in general and truth about reality, and critiquing the limitations of abstract frameworks like STT in addressing empirical phenomena, you can highlight the unique role of the scientific framework in establishing credible, objective truths about the [reality of the] world.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:19 am You are still confusing truth with reality.

A critical example illustrating the potential consequences of failing to differentiate between truth in general and the truth of reality can be drawn from climate change denial.

Example: Climate Change Denial and Misuse of Abstract Truths
1. The Confusion
Climate change denial often involves conflating abstract truths (e.g., mathematical models, linguistic arguments, or logical possibilities) with truths about reality. Deniers may claim that:

"Climate models are just abstractions and not reality."
"There is uncertainty in predictions, so global warming may not be real."
Here, abstract truths (e.g., the mathematical limitations of models or the possibility of alternative scenarios) are misused to undermine the empirical truths established through the scientific framework about the reality of climate change.

2. Truth in General
It's true that:
Mathematical models have assumptions and limitations.
Predictions involve probabilities and can have margins of error.
These abstract truths are valid within the frameworks of mathematics and statistics. However, treating these truths as sufficient to reject empirical evidence misrepresents their scope.

3. Truth of Reality
The scientific framework has provided overwhelming evidence for:
Rising global temperatures due to human activities.
Observable impacts such as melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events.
These are truths of reality, empirically validated through rigorous scientific methods.

4. Consequences of Confusion
Failing to prioritize truths about reality (climate change) over abstract truths (model limitations) can have severe consequences:

Policy Paralysis: Governments might delay critical actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, citing uncertainty in models as an excuse.
Global Impact: This inaction exacerbates real-world problems, including habitat loss, food insecurity, forced migration, and economic instability.
Loss of Human Lives: Increasingly severe natural disasters and resource scarcity lead to loss of lives, particularly among vulnerable populations.

5. The Takeaway
By conflating abstract truths with truths of reality, humanity risks ignoring or downplaying urgent, empirically validated threats. This highlights the need to prioritize the scientific framework as the gold standard for truths about reality, especially when the stakes involve global survival and well-being.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:19 am You are still confusing truth with reality.

It is truth that matters. Reality is just a shadow of the truth.

Despite the above explanation, my interlocutor is still adamant:
[Interlocutor] "It is truth that matters. Reality is just a shadow of the truth."

ChatGPT
Your interlocutor's insistence that "reality is just a shadow of the truth" reflects a Platonic or idealist perspective where abstract truths are considered superior to empirical, observable reality. To challenge this effectively, you need to redirect the conversation to pragmatism and the practical consequences of prioritizing truths about reality over abstract truths when making decisions that affect humanity.

1. Emphasize the Dependency of Abstract Truths on Reality
Abstract truths (such as logical and mathematical propositions) are valuable, but they operate within frameworks created by human cognition. These truths do not inherently describe or affect empirical reality unless applied. For example:

Mathematical Truths: The equation
𝑎 + 𝑏 = 𝑏 + 𝑎
a+b=b+a is always true in arithmetic. However, it is meaningless for reality unless
𝑎 a and 𝑏 b represent something real (e.g., quantities of matter, energy, etc.).
Linguistic Truths: The statement “Unicorns have one horn” may be true in a fictional context but does not correspond to reality unless we empirically discover unicorns.

Key Question for Your Interlocutor:
How can abstract truths have any meaningful impact without being grounded in or applied to reality? If reality is "just a shadow," why is it the testing ground for applying truths to real-world problems?

2. Use a Pragmatic Perspective
Ask your interlocutor to consider real-world decision-making:

Example: Medicine and Health
Abstract Truth: The mathematical principles behind drug formulation are true, and they allow us to calculate dosages and predict interactions.
Truth About Reality: Whether the drug actually cures a disease or causes harm is a question that can only be answered through empirical testing in the real world.
If we ignore reality in favor of abstract truths, medicine would fail to save lives because theoretical models would remain untested and unverified.

Key Question for Your Interlocutor:
If reality is just a shadow of the truth, how do you explain the critical importance of testing and observing the effects of abstract truths in the empirical world?

3. Shift to Survival and Practical Consequences
When the survival of humanity is at stake, prioritizing abstract truths over truths about reality can lead to disaster:

Climate Change Example (Revisited)
Abstract truths (e.g., models of probability, alternative scenarios) are valuable for understanding systems. However:

Focusing on abstract possibilities while dismissing the overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change could lead to inaction, worsening global crises.
Similarly, consider these scenarios:

Food Security: Mathematical truths about crop yields are irrelevant if droughts caused by climate change render them unusable.
Energy: Abstract truths about renewable energy technology are meaningless without their real-world implementation.

Key Question for Your Interlocutor:
When the stakes are human survival, how can truths about reality not take precedence over abstract truths?

4. Frame Reality as the Foundation for Truth's Application
While abstract truths may seem universal and timeless, their utility arises from their connection to reality. Reality is not a shadow of the truth but the arena where truth is tested and applied.

Without empirical verification, even the most elegant abstract truths remain speculative.
The scientific framework bridges abstract truths and reality, making abstract ideas actionable and meaningful in the real world.

Key Question for Your Interlocutor:
If reality is a shadow of the truth, why do we rely on real-world evidence to validate and apply abstract truths?

5. Ask for Clarification on "Reality as a Shadow"
To engage further, ask them to elaborate on their claim:

If reality is just a shadow, why does it have such a profound impact on human existence?
How does their view account for the undeniable dependency of human progress on truths derived from empirical observations of reality?
Encourage them to reconcile their perspective with examples where prioritizing reality leads to better outcomes than focusing solely on abstract truths.

Summary Response
Here’s a concise way to argue your point:

To interlocutor [aka Godelian]
Your perspective that "reality is a shadow of the truth" is interesting, but it seems to underestimate the critical role reality plays in testing and applying abstract truths. While abstract truths are valuable within their own frameworks, they are inert without a connection to reality.

Abstract Truths Depend on Reality for Application: Mathematical and logical truths become meaningful only when applied to empirical reality, whether in medicine, engineering, or solving global challenges like climate change.

Reality as the Testing Ground: Empirical observation is the only means we have to distinguish between abstract truths that are applicable to the real world and those that are not. For example, the truth of a mathematical equation matters less than whether it successfully predicts or explains phenomena in reality.

Pragmatic Consequences: Focusing on abstract truths at the expense of empirical truths leads to real-world consequences. For humanity’s survival, truths about reality—derived from the scientific framework—must take precedence over abstract ideas.

If reality is just a shadow of the truth, then why does it serve as the ultimate testing ground for validating the truth and ensuring it benefits humanity?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:30 am Since the scientific FS is the gold standard of the truth of reality

ChatGPT said:
Yes, your interlocutor's statement "Reality is just a shadow of the truth" appears to conflate a methodology (truth as correspondence) with the ontological status of reality. This conflation leads to a fallacy where an epistemic framework (truth as a property of statements or propositions) is improperly treated as superior to the independent existence or status of reality itself. Here's a breakdown:

1. Fallacy in Methodology vs. Ontology
Methodology: Truth, particularly under the correspondence theory (such as Tarski's semantic theory), is a relationship between propositions and reality. It is epistemic, meaning it deals with how we know things and validate claims.

For example: "Snow is white" is true because it corresponds to the observable reality of snow appearing white under normal conditions.
Ontology: Reality pertains to what exists, independently of our descriptions, frameworks, or understanding. It is the ground against which truth claims are measured.

For example: Snow exists whether or not we observe or describe it. Its properties, like color, are part of the real world, not dependent on human cognition.
By claiming "Reality is just a shadow of the truth", your interlocutor elevates an epistemic concept (truth) to an ontological status, treating it as more "real" or foundational than reality itself. This reverses the relationship: truth derives meaning only in reference to reality, not the other way around.

2. Why This is a Fallacy
Epistemic Dependence: Truth is a property of statements, not an entity or ontological category. It depends on reality to have meaning. Without reality, "truth" is untethered and becomes an abstract idea without application.
Ontological Primacy: Reality exists independently of human frameworks and truth claims. It provides the "stuff" that truth corresponds to or describes. To claim that reality is secondary to truth is akin to arguing that a map (truth) is more fundamental than the territory (reality).

3. Serious Consequences of This Confusion
This conflation can lead to:

Misplaced Priorities: Focusing on abstract or theoretical truths while neglecting their grounding in reality, leading to impractical or even harmful conclusions (e.g., ignoring empirical evidence because of theoretical possibilities).
Epistemic Solipsism: Treating reality as a derivative of human frameworks risks denying its independent existence, fostering views akin to solipsism or radical idealism.

4. Clarifying the Relationship
Truth is a Methodology: Truth is how we validate and describe our understanding of reality. It is a tool, not a fundamental ontological category.
Reality is Ontological: Reality is the "given" that exists independently and provides the basis for truth claims. The role of truth is to align our propositions with this reality.

5. Counterargument
To critique their fallacy, ask them:

What does "truth" refer to without a corresponding reality? Truth is a relationship, not an entity. Without reality, what would "truth" be about?
How can truth validate itself without reference to reality? If reality is just a shadow, on what basis can we claim something is true?
Doesn't the scientific framework demonstrate reality's primacy? While truth encompasses many domains (abstract, linguistic, empirical), truths about reality are grounded in observable, testable phenomena.

You can conclude:
"Reality is not a shadow of truth. Rather, truth is the correspondence of our propositions to reality. Reality is ontologically primary, and truth is our epistemic tool for describing it."