What is Truth?

[Scarletfox]

51 minutes ago, Truthless of Shinovar said:

In my opinion, yes. It receives the most scrutiny, people have been studying it for millenniums, and generally across all civilizations (now at least), science is regarded as fact. We reached the conclusion that it is factual by experimenting and testing over and over and over and over again, looking for the little details, sequences, anomalies that make up existence. We compare and contrast, try to catch nature by cross examination, all using very logical and straight-forward methods; namely, the scientific method.

Why do we use the scientific method? Why is it good? 

52 minutes ago, Truthless of Shinovar said:

More or less. I’m saying that we, as limited beings whose sight is oh so constrained, who see just what is in front of us and nothing else, who are deceived by a perception of time, and who are part of the universe but don’t understand it have a very odd understanding of things like truth. We typically live for less than a century, and our knowledge of space, time, and matter is riddled with unknowns that we can’t explain and don’t have the truths to. So yes, faith is required to believe that there is truth, firm and definite, and that we may never known it.

Alright. So what you're saying, is that we have no proof that truth exists, but we should believe that it will come someday?

53 minutes ago, Truthless of Shinovar said:

In regards to the pain question, if somebody else lived through what you lived through, felt the pains, worries, and overall suffering, as well as felt the joy of life and experienced the good, they would understand you so completely and wholly that your truths would become their truths as well. Mortals are incapable of this, however, and so your truths remain tied to you. Because you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pain that your felt at 1:40 PM today was the absolute worst you’ve ever felt in your life, and other people, they just can’t know it. They may have 100% faith that it’s true, but without the direct transfer of emotion, that truth is yours alone. So no, that pain would not be true for everyone else in the world, only yourself.

So what we believe determines truth?

54 minutes ago, Truthless of Shinovar said:

I would say accept it in faith, but I want to answer this logically... It would be to my knowledge that truth will either come with time or it won’t. One of these two things will happen without a doubt. Faith is required for us to believe that truth will eventually come. Otherwise, we may believe, with no faith, that answers will never come over time, and that truth will forever be unknown since complete knowledge of something is unattainable, simply because we are mortals, third-dimensional beings who do not have the capability to be intimately aware of the truths of the universe. Similar to how no mortal can truly feel what you have felt, because they cannot know exactly how you feel.

Do you believe it's possible for us to know the truth now, or will we have to wait to see if what we believe is true or not? 

[Scout_Fox he/him]

4 hours ago, Scarletfox said:

Ok, I think I understand now. Am I understanding correctly to assume that your presented claim is: We cannot know the truth, but we can only know what we perceive truth to be.

Yeah that's pretty much how I've been taught it! You can't ever be sure that what you know is a full (objective) truth because everything we know is filtered through our subjective senses and logic.

So what we know is a subjective, rather than objective, truth. We accept this though as our "truth" because things can't (realistically) function without it!

Edited October 14, 2020 by Scout_Fox

[Scarletfox]

4 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

Yeah that's pretty much how I've been taught it! You can't ever be sure that what you know is a full (objective) truth because everything we know is filtered through our subjective senses and logic.

So what we know is a subjective, rather than objective, truth. We accept this though as our "truth" because things can't (realistically) function without it!

This is reminding me a lot of Immanuel Kant's teachings, who said that we kant know the truth. (I'm so funny, aren't I?)

So, the proposed claim on the table is as follows: "It is impossible to know the truth" 

My questions is this: Is that true? Is is true that it is impossible to know the truth?

Edited October 15, 2020 by Scarletfox

[Scout_Fox he/him]

46 minutes ago, Scarletfox said:

This is reminding me a lot of Immanuel Kant's teachings, who said that we kant know the truth. (I'm so funny, aren't I?)

*facepalm* *double facepalm* *triple facepalm* *sigh* YES! The funniest! 

48 minutes ago, Scarletfox said:

So, the proposed claim on the table is as follows: "It is impossible to know the truth" 

My questions is this: Is that true? Is is true that it is impossible to know the truth?

Well, how would we verify it beyond using our subjective senses, logic, or interpretation? So then right back at you , is it true that it is impossible to know objective truth?

[Condensation she/her]

14 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

*facepalm* *double facepalm* *triple facepalm* *sigh* YES! The funniest! 

Well, how would we verify it beyond using our subjective senses, logic, or interpretation? So then right back at you , is it true that it is impossible to know objective truth?

No, I don't believe that it's impossible to know objective truth. After all, we know that there is no air breathable by humans in the area of space around Earth.

[Experience he/him]

14 minutes ago, Condensation said:

No, I don't believe that it's impossible to know objective truth. After all, we know that there is no air breathable by humans in the area of space around Earth.

Well. The thing is we don't know that. There is a very, very small chance that there is a small, small amount of breathable air that we just don't know about and don't know exists. We just won't ever know for sure.

[Condensation she/her]

Just now, Experience said:

Well. The thing is we don't know that. There is a very, very small chance that there is a small, small amount of breathable air that we just don't know about and don't know exists. We just won't ever know for sure.

Okay, well, I know that I am wearing a hat.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Condensation

[Experience he/him]

1 minute ago, Condensation said:

Okay, well, I know that I am wearing a hat.

Technically to be wearing it, it would have to be touching your head. It is, impossible for one thing to touch another, so you are technically not wearing it. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Experience

[Condensation she/her]

Just now, Experience said:

Technically to be wearing it, it would have to be touching your head. It is, impossible for one thing to touch another, so you are technically not wearing it. 

Really? Or do we accept the state of almost touching as touching, so I am wearing the hat?

If we don't accept that, then I can say that I'm not touching anything.

[Experience he/him]

Accepting falsity does not make it truth. 

Hmm. Ummm. I need to think on this a little longer...

[Condensation she/her]

7 minutes ago, Experience said:

Accepting falsity does not make it truth. 

Hmm. Ummm. I need to think on this a little longer...

Yes, I think you do. It's a complex question to answer.

[Scout_Fox he/him]

55 minutes ago, Experience said:

Well. The thing is we don't know that. There is a very, very small chance that there is a small, small amount of breathable air that we just don't know about and don't know exists. We just won't ever know for sure.

Experience is bringing up the exact dilemma here in that we can't ever know with absolute certainty, anything. There is no way to verify to an absolute certain degree anything is true. Our senses could be misleading us, tools could be inaccurate, we have no objective way of verifying anything.

So yeah I think this is perfect:

51 minutes ago, Experience said:

Accepting falsity does not make it truth. 

We recognize that we can't ever know an objective truth and so we accept a subjective one to function. Doesn't mean it is right to any degree, but it is accepted. Good thinking!

 

[Experience he/him]

3 minutes ago, Scout_Fox said:

Experience is bringing up the exact dilemma here in that we can't ever know with absolute certainty, anything. There is no way to verify to an absolute certain degree anything is true. Our senses could be misleading us, tools could be inaccurate, we have no objective way of verifying anything.

That's what I was trying to say. I just couldn't get it into words.  

 

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

9 minutes ago, Scout_Fox said:

Experience is bringing up the exact dilemma here in that we can't ever know with absolute certainty, anything. There is no way to verify to an absolute certain degree anything is true. Our senses could be misleading us, tools could be inaccurate, we have no objective way of verifying anything.

Can we know that with any certainty? ;-)

Even if, as you argue, we can't be sure we can know reality, do we all still agree that reality exists? Something we see dimly, as though through a glass darkly?

[Experience he/him]

3 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Can we know that with any certainty? ;-)

Even if, as you argue, we can't be sure we can know reality, do we all still agree that reality exists? Something we see dimly, as though through a glass darkly?

Well, technically reality is just our perception of what we believe to be true... 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Experience

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

3 minutes ago, Experience said:

Well, technically reality is just our perception of what we believe to be true... 

But what are we perceiving? And upon what substrate is our mind operating?

...

[Experience he/him]

1 minute ago, Ixthos said:

But what are we perceiving? And upon what substrate is our mind operating?

...

Ya... Lets just go with reality exists.  

[Scout_Fox he/him]

42 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

But what are we perceiving? And upon what substrate is our mind operating?

...

Exactly. We don't know, that's why we can't ever know with absolute certainty anything. And if that statement is right then you can't ever know with absolute certainty anything. And if the statement is wrong then that just proves that you can't ever know with absolutely certainty anything cuz you would have just failed in knowing something with absolute certainty 

You're bringing up the "how do you know that you can't know cuz then you wouldn't know that" argument and while true, in reality whether or not it is correct you either prove that you can't know by being right or prove that you can't know by being wrong cuz you would have just got something wrong.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Scout_Fox

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

33 minutes ago, Scout_Fox said:

Exactly. We don't know, that's why we can't ever know with absolute certainty anything. And if that statement is right then you can't ever know with absolute certainty anything. And if the statement is wrong then that just proves that you can't ever know with absolutely certainty anything cuz you would have just failed in knowing something with absolute certainty 

You're bringing up the "how do you know that you can't know cuz then you wouldn't know that" argument and while true, in reality whether or not it is correct you either prove that you can't know by being right or prove that you can't know by being wrong cuz you would have just got something wrong.

What it means is that you can't be certain you can't be certain - which means you should hold the possibility that you can be certain. If you can't question your scepticism then you are saying your scepticism is ultimately a knowable truth, meaning there are things that are true - it undermines and destroys itself. It is one half of the lairs paradox. It cannot be true because if it is true then it would mean it is false, and if it is false then it means it isn't true. Or, to put it in other words, can you say with absolute certainty that you cannot know anything with absolute certainty?

[Edit: To be clearer:

"Is the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' something we know for sure?"

• If No, then there is no issue - the statement is either false or we aren't sure about it, and so we know there are things we can know for sure - there are things that are certain OR at least we know there are potentially things that are certain, as we are allowed to doubt our doubts
• If Yes, then that means we know that the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' is a certain statement
  • But if we know that the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' is a statement we are sure of, that means we are sure of something
    • therefore the statement is false, and we flow back to no
      • so No, thee statement is false, and so we know there are things we can know for sure - there are things that are certain

]

 

In any event, the main point is this - is there something out there, whether or not we can know anything about it?

Edited October 15, 2020 by Ixthos

[Scout_Fox he/him]

True, true I just don't think that gets us particularly far either.

"I'm certain it's possible to be certain"

Well if you're certain it's possible to be certain then you're uncertain if you can be certain and if you're uncertain if you can be certain then you can't be certain about anything. Either way I don't think you get anywhere new but I do agree neither is an ultimate answer. That is why "there is no objective truth (perhaps "that we can find") beyond our subjective reality" is a better way of phrasing it maybe?

And from earlier: "Well, how would we verify it beyond using our subjective senses, logic, or interpretation? So then right back at you , is it true that it is impossible to know objective truth?"

 

Edit: Realized you're not following the thread lol @Ixthos

Edited October 16, 2020 by Scout_Fox

[Orlion Blight he/him]

You guys need to define your terms. You're conflating epistemology with alethiology (nature of knowledge/what can be known vs nature of truth/what can be true).

You should also sort out what is meant by "subjective" and "objective". The connotative meanings are being used instead of the philosophical and that will just confuse matters. 

As a starter and my only contribution to this: objective does not mean "absolute", "nomena" or "thing-as-it-actually-is".

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

6 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

Edit: Realized you're not following the thread lol @Ixthos

Don't worry, while I'm not following this thread with the notifications I am keeping tabs on it :-P I did have to go to bed though.

6 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

True, true I just don't think that gets us particularly far either.

"I'm certain it's possible to be certain"

The issue comes in with making absolute statements. "All ravens are black" is an absolute statement, as is "All ravens are white". A single white raven if we say all ravens are black, or a single black raven when we say all ravens are white, means those statements are wrong. However, the statement "some ravens are black" is true if there exists a single black raven, no matter if the rest look like an artist's studio. "All ravens are black" and "All ravens are white" are absolutes - "I know we can't be sure of anything", "I know we can be sure of everything" are both absolutes, and if their internals contradict themselves then they are wrong by their own logic, which applies to knowing we can't know. Saying there are things we can know is free from this, because it also means you can say there are things we don't know - the problem comes in when looking at the edges, not the centre. 

"I'm certain it's possible to be certain" doesn't mean you are uncertain on any given topic, only that you accept it is possible to be certain. "I'm certain cars use fuel" means that you reject the idea cars don't use fuel, not that you think they might not need anything.

6 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

Well if you're certain it's possible to be certain then you're uncertain if you can be certain and if you're uncertain if you can be certain then you can't be certain about anything. Either way I don't think you get anywhere new but I do agree neither is an ultimate answer. That is why "there is no objective truth (perhaps "that we can find") beyond our subjective reality" is a better way of phrasing it maybe?.

That version is again an absolute statement:  "there is no objective truth (perhaps "that we can find") beyond our subjective reality" is nevertheless an objective statement, much like the raven question, because it is making a declaration about objective and absolute truth (truth being fact in this definition). A better one would be: "It might not be possible to find an objective truth beyond our subjective reality" as it doesn't make a straight declaration about absolute truth, but rather deals in possibility, and doesn't try to make a claim about how reality actually is, only how it might be. Basically, any statement that says both:

• This is a fact about reality (A)
• You can't state facts about reality(B)

Doesn't work because it becomes:

• The bottom statement is true (A)
• The top statement is false (B)

It destroys itself. You can have one, [This is a fact about reality] that can then be evaluated to be true or false (true meaning fact) by how well it stands, but the presence of the other undermines itself. 

6 hours ago, Scout_Fox said:

And from earlier: "Well, how would we verify it beyond using our subjective senses, logic, or interpretation? So then right back at you , is it true that it is impossible to know objective truth?"

Oh, I agree with the first part :-) to use the go to example in modern fiction, if we were all stuck in the matrix, all believing the simulated world was reality, it wouldn't change the fact that what be believed to be real was not the fundamental reality. And if we were never unplugged, or our brains were wired in, it is probable we could never figure it out. But it wouldn't change the fact that our bodies would still be somewhere, or our brains somewhere, even if they could never detect that place - it isn't ultimately a question as to whether we can or can't know it, but rather as to whether it exists.

As to the second, I'll answer your question with a question - is that statement itself an objective truth? :-P 

 

42 minutes ago, Orlion the Platypus said:

You guys need to define your terms. You're conflating epistemology with alethiology (nature of knowledge/what can be known vs nature of truth/what can be true).

You should also sort out what is meant by "subjective" and "objective". The connotative meanings are being used instead of the philosophical and that will just confuse matters. 

As a starter and my only contribution to this: objective does not mean "absolute", "nomena" or "thing-as-it-actually-is".

That was kind of my point in my first post - that there are two possible ways of taking the question, being as whether it applies to belief or fact, and the second interpretation being the question as to whether facts exist or only beliefs.

[Scout_Fox he/him]

1 hour ago, Orlion the Platypus said:

You guys need to define your terms. You're conflating epistemology with alethiology (nature of knowledge/what can be known vs nature of truth/what can be true).

You should also sort out what is meant by "subjective" and "objective". The connotative meanings are being used instead of the philosophical and that will just confuse matters. 

As a starter and my only contribution to this: objective does not mean "absolute", "nomena" or "thing-as-it-actually-is".

Interesting contribution. It would seem Kant would tend to disagree with you on what objectivity is. Here's a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy published by Sonoma State University to illustrate: "Immanuel Kant used the expression “Ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”) to designate pure objectivity. The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it." So, it would seem that, at least to some, objectivity does actually mean "thing-as-it-actually-is" or "as it is in itself" to quote their words exactly. Although, of course, you may not agree with that interpretation.

29 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Don't worry, while I'm not following this thread with the notifications I am keeping tabs on it :-P I did have to go to bed though.

That version is again an absolute statement:  "there is no objective truth (perhaps "that we can find") beyond our subjective reality" is nevertheless an objective statement, much like the raven question, because it is making a declaration about objective and absolute truth (truth being fact in this definition). A better one would be: "It might not be possible to find an objective truth beyond our subjective reality" as it doesn't make a straight declaration about absolute truth, but rather deals in possibility, and doesn't try to make a claim about how reality actually is, only how it might be. Basically, any statement that says both:

Lol all good just had a moment of "wait, should probably ping so I'm not discussing with someone who ain't here" 

Hmmm ok I think I can grasp what you are saying here. I was more arguing from a "we can't know" rather than an "it can't exist" perspective here so I'm seeing the confusion. Yeah, I do think you are right that this statement does undermine itself as being an objective statement. My critique would be it could be a subjective statement but that's weak here. Your correction here allows it to exist while not guaranteeing you can find it, I like it. I still have the same argument of: "this statement is declaring an objective truth while also admitting it may not exist. If it in fact doesn't exist, how could you have made this statement" but it does hold up slightly better than the other.

38 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Oh, I agree with the first part :-) to use the go to example in modern fiction, if we were all stuck in the matrix, all believing the simulated world was reality, it wouldn't change the fact that what be believed to be real was not the fundamental reality. And if we were never unplugged, or our brains were wired in, it is probable we could never figure it out. But it wouldn't change the fact that our bodies would still be somewhere, or our brains somewhere, even if they could never detect that place - it isn't ultimately a question as to whether we can or can't know it, but rather as to whether it exists.

As to the second, I'll answer your question with a question - is that statement itself an objective truth? :-P 

Yeah ok lol I think this is where that distinction needed to be made. I do agree that it may exist. I don't agree that we can find it, but it is possible it exists. As to your last statement in that paragraph. I think it would actually be two questions lol. Whether it exists and whether we can know it. I think they are both equally important. A few more quotes from their paper illustrate my view quite well:

"One should, in other words, agree that the idea of some objective reality, existing as it is independent of any subjective perception of it, apparently makes sense even for one who holds little hope for any of us knowing that there is such a reality, or knowing anything objectively about such a reality."

And:

"One cannot get out of one’s subjective impressions, it seems, to test them for reliability. The prospects for knowledge of the objective world are hampered by our essential confinement within subjective impressions." Them being markers of reliability for objective truth.

So yes, for me whether it exists and whether we can find it are different things. Does it exist: possibly. Can we find it: it would seem not.

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

@Scout_Fox That's a fair take on it :-) I think we probably have views that are fairly similar on this, its just where we disagree that makes the point of friction. I would content the scientific knowledge we have gained about the world probably indicates that we can gain at least shades of the truth from observation of the world, if not the entire picture, or else the modern world wouldn't be able to function, but I also think it is important to remember that, as in the matrix and in the cave, someone could in theory be removed from the system, unshackled from the wall or given eyes to see and hands to touch by someone who lives in the real world and sees it as it is, and then returned to the system now with knowledge. Within the cave or the matrix we can't know truth, but when truth comes from outside and touches us, then we can know - just as we live in a world of subjective experience, so to could there beings of objective reality - I am not making a case that they do exist, only that they could - which could bring that experience to us. A 2d creature could never imagine a 3d world, but a 3d creature could bring knowledge of the 3d world to the 2d creature even if the 2d creature can't directly understand it.

And, after all, maths, while initially proven with our eyes, is still something we can intuit within our own minds such that even without externel validation I think one could devise its rules even if one never learned of the existence of real world objects to count. Mathematics - for any given axioms and interactions of axioms - at least seems to transcend the physical, and might well apply across worlds, and that then is something that can be known and work in both the subjective bubble of the mind and the objective world those minds exist in.

[Scout_Fox he/him]

Well said @Ixthos. I most definitely agree that we can get shades of this truth. It's also a truth we have grown to accept out of necessity as you said as the world wouldn't be able to function without it. 

Most definitely Plato's allegory of the cave and the Matrix examples do apply. We could be released from our subjective reality and enlightened with this objective knowledge. I do think this very much still applies though because this isn't something we would find but would be brought to, yes "when truth comes from outside and touches us, then we can know." And yeah not that it does exist, but that it could, and it could potentially be brought to us. Nicely put.