Truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2017, 01:45 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:38 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  And you also have to consider that observation here means direct observation. We do not directly observe light waves.

In that sense we can't directly observe anything as long as there are transducers in the way doing what transducers do.

It's really an arbitrary distinction on what is observable. It's just for convention.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:51 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It does keep philosophers busy. And please make no mistake of my intention. I'm simply inquiring about the nature of science. I think it's interesting and helpful to try to fully understand a method used so frequently. But true here refers to a correspondence with actual reality.

Sorry if I'm being a jerk. Philosophers tend to grate my carrot, 'cos a lot who wear that label with pride are a bunch of bullshit artists IMO. It seems you're sincere.

So, correspondence with actual reality huh? Tell me, are numbers "real" or not, and can statements about them be true or false? If they are real, point me to a number that exists in external reality. If not, your definition of truth needs modification.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-04-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: Truth
Also if "true" means "corresponds with actual reality", please tell me how you determine what corresponds with actual reality.

For example I heartily believe without needing to test it, that jumping out of a tall building without a parachute will very likely result in death. This despite that until the very moment that I were to try it, I don't strictly know whether or not magical angels will lift me up on their wings and not let me fall.

Is it *true* that if I jump out of a tall building - let's make it 1000m tall for argument's sake - without a parachute, then I will die or at the very minimum suffer serious injury.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 02:06 PM
RE: Truth
I see he is talking the talk but not walking the walk yet, aka. still didnt jump from the 50th floor just to make a case against those silly materialists. He rather crapped on the floor for another page.

Hmmm, i wonder why.

Maybe testing his own claims is not his strongest point.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 02:35 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 02:06 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I see he is talking the talk but not walking the walk yet, aka. still didnt jump from the 50th floor just to make a case against those silly materialists. He rather crapped on the floor for another page.

Hmmm, i wonder why.

Maybe testing his own claims is not his strongest point.

Umm... what?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 02:37 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It does keep philosophers busy. And please make no mistake of my intention. I'm simply inquiring about the nature of science. I think it's interesting and helpful to try to fully understand a method used so frequently. But true here refers to a correspondence with actual reality.

Sorry if I'm being a jerk. Philosophers tend to grate my carrot, 'cos a lot who wear that label with pride are a bunch of bullshit artists IMO. It seems you're sincere.

So, correspondence with actual reality huh? Tell me, are numbers "real" or not, and can statements about them be true or false? If they are real, point me to a number that exists in external reality. If not, your definition of truth needs modification.

Well if by "real" you mean they exist with substance, then no. But they do exist as concepts without substance. They are an abstraction that we take from our observation of physical reality, specifically in relation to quantity. We can make true statements about numbers because they have a set nature.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 02:41 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 02:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also if "true" means "corresponds with actual reality", please tell me how you determine what corresponds with actual reality.

For example I heartily believe without needing to test it, that jumping out of a tall building without a parachute will very likely result in death. This despite that until the very moment that I were to try it, I don't strictly know whether or not magical angels will lift me up on their wings and not let me fall.

Is it *true* that if I jump out of a tall building - let's make it 1000m tall for argument's sake - without a parachute, then I will die or at the very minimum suffer serious injury.

Well your question is essentially how we come to know things. And using a justified-true-belief model of knowledge, we can see that this boils down to what types of justification exist. For that I have a link because it would take way too much time to explain that: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#SOU

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 11:59 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 02:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 02:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also if "true" means "corresponds with actual reality", please tell me how you determine what corresponds with actual reality.

For example I heartily believe without needing to test it, that jumping out of a tall building without a parachute will very likely result in death. This despite that until the very moment that I were to try it, I don't strictly know whether or not magical angels will lift me up on their wings and not let me fall.

Is it *true* that if I jump out of a tall building - let's make it 1000m tall for argument's sake - without a parachute, then I will die or at the very minimum suffer serious injury.

Well your question is essentially how we come to know things. And using a justified-true-belief model of knowledge, we can see that this boils down to what types of justification exist. For that I have a link because it would take way too much time to explain that: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#SOU

My point is that these concepts a. get very tricky if you look too closely at them b. always end up being circular, because we are using language words to define other language words. For example that thing with the numbers. You just made up a whole bunch of extra words. WTF justification do you have now for "We can make true statements about numbers because they have a set nature." It sounds like "We can make true statements about God because he has a set nature".

I don't need to go down squirelly rabbit holes of philosophy, tyvm Wink IMO there's nothing at the bottom of them anyway.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
20-04-2017, 01:25 AM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 12:55 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 09:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Science's job is to empirically demonstrate whether evolution is real or not.

So you take a view of science that attains truth?

I take the view that only an indolent person or an ignorant person would ask if I take that view.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
20-04-2017, 05:53 AM
RE: Truth
(20-04-2017 01:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 12:55 PM)Naielis Wrote:  So you take a view of science that attains truth?

I take the view that only an indolent person or an ignorant person would ask if I take that view.

Drinking Beverage

Not at all. It's a hotly debated topic in the philosophy of science. The question is whether we can say that science says true things about unobservable reality or if it merely aims to do this. I think I'm leaning to a scientific realist approach where science can attain truth in limited situations.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: