1) —“Are you saying Truth does not exist?”—

Well, I claim that without perfect knowledge of the universe it is quite difficult to know if we speak the Truth (the most parsimonious description possible). We may in fact speak truthfully and ‘the truth’ but we can never know so other than under reductio (trivial and irrelevant) criterial.

(See Popper: Critical Rationalism, Critical Preference, and the analytic movement’s discovery that closure all but doesn’t exist.)

2) —“Discredited”—

You state that something I’ve said is discredited but not what. As far as I know I *cannot* err by asserting this series of statements above: that testimony can only insure that it’s warrantied against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit. One can testify truthfully because of due diligence, but one can never know he speaks ‘the truth’ (an ideal).

Means, motive, opportunity, method of argument.

3) SPEECH: TRANSACTIONS (Phrases, Sentences) PRODUCING CONTRACTS FOR MEANING (Stories).

Speech is only consequential in a contract for meaning with others. Speech only evolves as a consequence of the search for contracts of meaning with others.

4) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) IS A MATTER OF LAW.

Truth is a matter of law, and the grammars we call logics, mathematics, science, description, and narrative only assist us in the process of creating associations, followed by the process of disambiguation and deflation so that we can then eliminate ignorance error bias and deceit.

Religious ‘truth’ and “philosophical truth’ are not in fact ‘truth’ but methods of either asserting a falsehood by justification (philosophical) or by authority (religious). As such they are universally statements of COMMAND FOR CONFORMITY (obedience).

Or stated more pejoratively: Law asks we warranty our words or face restitution and punishment. Religion and Philosophy make excuses (deceits) such that speakers can AVOID warranty of their words (liability for deceits).

There are only three means of coercion available to man:
force, trade, and speech(deception).

5) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) SPECTRUM

[T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

[A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

[I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

6) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY

True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
True enough for me to feel good about myself.
True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

7) WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?)

Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality.

One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly.

To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech.

So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence.

Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite.

But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be:
– categorically consistent (non conflationary)
– internally consistent (logical),
– externally correspondent (empirical),
– operationally possible (existentially possible),
– coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests)
– fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence)
And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal):
– rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices
– reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality.

We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

8) CLOSING
And given that I have been doing this for a very long time, I’m more than certain that you would have actually constructed some form of argument by now if you could – because capable people do so.

I am a scientist (prosecutor) and philosophers and theologians are nothing more than snake oil salesmen selling harmful products that we have not yet outlawed from the market.

Which is easily fixed.

Advertisements