Truth, Logic & Empiricism
Is logic solely dependent on empiricism. If so, then truth cannot be represented abstractly (symbolically); if not, then we should be willing to accept what is beyond our senses and experiences. I think any philosopher will agree with the second proposition, that is, logic is not dependent on empiricism and thus truth can be represented abstractly (conceptually) and still be valid. For example, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Such an assertion is not a product of complete scientific investigation, it is merely a generalisation from deduction of possibilities, probabilities and characterisation of the aspect of reality we infer and refer to by the term energy.
So, now the question becomes, how do we define truth/truths and how does logic characterise it?
And, what makes an assertion (statement, comment, etc) representative of truth or possess truth value?
So, now the question becomes, how do we define truth/truths and how does logic characterise it?
And, what makes an assertion (statement, comment, etc) representative of truth or possess truth value?
Comments (26)
Truth should be based on reoccurring incidents. We can't hold ourselves accountable for what we haven't found to be true based on reoccurring events and also we should regard what is told to us to some extent.
Whatever we make money at we should trust the leaders in our field. Whatever we treat as a hobby we should trust experience.
questions or comments?
see my profile or click on my name. No wrong answer.
This takes us back to truth being based on experience. Personally, I think the truths we assert should be based on perception or conception. Experience does mould the representation of truth in our awareness but we always understand that it existed even before that experience.
Quoting christian2017
I'm not questioning accountability or regard, my aim is to discover how we uncover truth whether it is by our own efforts or acquired from others. How do we determine truth? What is the mark or character that defines or determines truth? And before that, how do we define truth? Or what is truth?
In regards to the second quote, we can only hold ourselves accountable to our own notions of reality and in addition to that we should hold dear what we have been taught from our youth.
For a hypothetical higher power, that power should not hold us accountable for information we never had access too. That being said most people use some guess work in any decision they make even if it is insignificant.
Or more fully, "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities"
Logic is the way that we think--specifically an abstracted way of thinking about certain kinds of relations.
Truth, by the way, is a judgment about the relation of propositions to something else, such as states of affairs.
Is truth subjective, objective or perhaps even absolute. If truth was subjective then it would correspond to personal judgements. If truth is objective then it would correspond with the governing rules, regulations, practices, and rationale of the collective. However, if truth is absolute, then it exists whether there are life-forms or not, whether it is appreciated or not.
I'm not sure i know how to answer this correctly. I follow a specific religion or belief system. It seems your guess is as good as mine. I personally don't think we should discount something just because we can't guarantee it as absolute truth.
And when our thinking is wrong or deficient in some manner, is it still logic or logical? I think what you are defining is reason. To me, logic is an expression of the application of the laws/principles which govern phenomena in reality. That way, when our mental capacities can't grasp the workings of those laws/principles then it implies a lack of logic.
Quoting Terrapin Station
But judgements can be misleading, and states of affairs can change. Can truth be either? So far, I don't think so. For me, truth is something absolute. Perhaps the term 'fact' can better describe a state of affairs and, even then, tenuous at best.
Is truth something we determine so as to give others an assurance or guarantee? We are limited in every way possible in comparison to the ideal of absoluteness, so how, or why would we be the measure of truth? Isn't it supposed to be vice-versa, that truth determines our measure? But first, we must know that truth or some truth, before we can realize the measure that the truth has bestowed upon us, right...?
Quoting BrianW
In other words, you don't accept that either are defined by thought, and you're positing some sort of abstract, extramental existent instead.
With out consciessness truth can't be figured out. I believe truth should be built off simple concepts and simple concepts are added together to form complex concepts.
Yes. Otherwise there would be no truth beyond people's thoughts and the truth we assert would have their limit of existence as the birth and death of humanity.
So, for you truth is a mental construct and is limited within our minds?
I'm not sure. I believe it is only justified to judge someone on the basis of the resources that nurture/nature has provided that person. I'm hoping for good things for people not because i'm good but because just like many or most people i've suffered and suffering is something to be avoided. I'm tired buddy. Don't work too hard.
To which I say, "Yes, that's correct. There's no truth beyond people's thoughts . . ."
Isn't the absoluteness of reality a truth that has been present even prior to the existence of humans and their thoughts?
In analytic philosophy, it's standard to see "the way the world is" (aka "states of affairs" (aka "facts")) as distinct from truth. Truth is taken to be a "property of propositions." (And propositions are taken to be "the meaning of statements" (where statements are claims about facts, aka claims about the way things are, or they're the sorts of sentences that can be true or false).)
What you're asking about there are facts. But per the above, facts are something distinct from truth.
I agree that facts are states of affairs but truth is the expression of the fundamental(s) of reality. Truth, for me, is not a property of propositions, firstly because propositions could lack truth(s) without losing their identity. Truth(s) can/cannot be expressed in propositions.
The key to truth(s) is that they don't change. States of affairs change but truth(s) are constant.
Re this, falsehood is a property of propositions, too. "Truth is a property of propositions" isn't saying that all propositions are true. It's instead similar to "11th chords are a property of music." We're not saying all music has an 11th chord.
Re this: "I agree that facts are states of affairs but truth is the expression of the fundamental(s) of reality." "Fundamental(s) of reality" that somehow aren't states of affairs?
Therefore, truth(s) isn't always a property of propositions. So, what relation between truth and propositions are you expressing?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Truth(s) is a part of reality and of everything. But we don't designate the relative as the absolute manifest within. Therefore a fact by its limitation is distinctly different from a truth even though facts (and everything else) are limited expressions of truth(s) in some manner.
It's not a property of all propositions. But it's a property that only propositions have. It's not a property of something else.
Again, re the analogy, not all music has an 11th chord in it. But when something has an 11th chord in it, it's music. That's only a property of music. You're not going to find an 11th chord in the grass or something like that.
Quoting BrianW
What in the world is that? I haven't the faintest idea what that's saying.
What I was asking in this second part is how it would make sense to say that something i a "fundamental of reality" but not a state of affairs.
Not solely, no. But it is dependent on it in the sense that you won't get very far at all without it. You'll inevitably encounter a premise which requires empiricism in order to be true, or to be known to be true.
There is logic at the heart of basic chemistry, inferences on geology, people accept the world is round without 'first hand' empirical experience or the existence of nations they have never been to... As such no matter what kind of skeptic you are there is an axiomatic basis of rationale... So long as one believes in the existence of India without having been there, no word soup will stop the fact that clear assumption has been made. I think there are very good reasons for making such axiomatic assumptions...
As such we can say some kind of assumption is
a) necessary to life
b) exists in a world with Order and distinguishable constants...
This cannot be dependent on empiricism so long as one is willing to use a microscope to validate microscopic worlds or a telescope to validate an astronomic world... To say this is still 'sense dependent'' is meaningless garbage the stage has been set to take human knowledge and its limits beyond its basic senses for a long time.
As for Truth I am just suspicious of Universals, especially with no predeclared definition or intention... What about Truth belongs in that same kind of Meaning of Life nothing question.... That without setting up a criterion cannot be hoped to be answered in an individuated formulation through prose much less meaningfully discussed.
Logic is a good assessment of causal agents, formalization of practical and meaningful contexts, principles and laws... But Logic alone is not Truth or even close to it, examining false premises, looking for evidence, examining the competing hypothesis, debating and such... All show how we meter logic in a myriad of forms and contexts to come to the truth, certainty, consensus or whatever the fuck else you want to call adopting an axiom proper. Where a concept leaves a hypothetical and becomes a truism or a basis for action, policy and so on.
In particular within the context of Science it is not so much Logic alone but Logic + Mathematics it is the combination of Logical Principles/Applications and Meter of Truth(probability) that I would say is our best descriptor of the world in most principle certainty.
Then we're back to truth being limited to humanity (in concepts, ideas, etc) which I refute. Because, again I ask, wasn't there truth before the rise of humans?
Quoting Terrapin Station
We don't define relativity by the absolute which manifests them. Whether it's an atom, a human, planet, solar system, etc, neither is the whole of reality. Each is just an expression of reality, albeit a limited one in one way or other.
Quoting Terrapin Station
In a matter of speaking, we could say that "truth expresses the state of affairs of reality". However, that state of affairs is different from any other state of affairs because it is absolute compared to others which would be relative. That, to me, is the difference between truth and fact.
Then it's our own understanding which necessitates the use of empiricism as crutches when we are unable to walk the path of logic without such assistance... right?
No, not on my view.
Quoting BrianW
Well, I'd say each is a part, but not the whole. The whole is the atom + the human + the planet, etc., plus the dynamic relations those things are in. Re "absolute," are you using that simply to refer to the whole as such? I don't know. I don't understand how you're using "absolute."
Right.