Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM
—“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott
Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.
1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it.
2) define truth.
This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).
—“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott
^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. )
I can speak truthfully. (adverb)
You can speak truthfully. (adverb)
What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)?
When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully?
A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation.
A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed.
All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent.
One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits.
There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony.
So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’.
If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective).
So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits.
So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’.
Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Št?pán:
1. The universe exists.
2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist
3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns.
The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence.
1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism).
2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists.
3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them.
We therefore must invent:
(a) a means of naming and describing them,
(b) a means of discovering them.
(d) discoveries of each of them
(b) a means of continuously improving them.
1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism)
2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism)
3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions.
And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.