Talk:Truth/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Theories of truth in the intro

Please stop adding theories of truth, such as the one below, to truth:

Truth is a statement proven to be or accepted as true, and which conforms to fact or reality.

Let's hash this out here, rather than having an edit war. Here's what's wrong with this particular addition:

  1. It is a particular theory of truth (and, actually, it conflicts with the other theory of truth you added to the introduction). No one theory gets to be privileged that way.
  2. It is a circular definition (truth conforms to fact; what's a fact?)
  3. Truth is not a statement.
  4. etc.

-Seth Mahoney 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to [1] and [2]. P.S. Should we not have this discussion on the specific talk page for the article, so other users can refer or make comment? --nirvana2013 23:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
1. This is not wikitionary. This is wikipedia.
2. Dictionary definitions do not make an adequate base for philosophy (and this article is primarily about philosophy).
3. That doesn't address the following problems:
a. It is a circular definition.
b. Truth is not a statement.
c. It is a particular theory of truth, and thus does not belong in the intro.
-Seth Mahoney 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Seth, I think it would be useful for the reader to have a simple and general definition of the word "truth" in the introduction prior to getting into philosophical/ethical/spiritual explanations. --nirvana2013 00:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The usefulness of a simple and general definition of the word truth isn't in question. I totally agree with you. The problem is that there isn't a simple and general definition of the word truth that also doesn't accord to one or another particular theory of truth, and privileging a particular theory of truth by putting it in the introduction is POV. -Seth Mahoney 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, you might well consider looking at the several archives to this article. they concern, for the most part, a search for your "simple and general definition ". Banno 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Any of these help? [3] Surely we can come to some consensus of opinion (if necessary we can have a vote) --nirvana2013 12:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Consensus of opinion would correspond to a particular theory of truth, and therefore can't be used to privilege a given theory of truth. I'm not kidding! This is how difficult this problem is. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I am reminded of Leo Tolstoy's quote at the end of the article, which is probably one of the few things in this article that all of us agree is true: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Maybe there should be more than one article, as in "Truth (philosophy)" and "Truth". --nirvana2013 14:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
What content would you have in truth? I mean, what's left when you take all the philosophical content from truth? -Seth Mahoney 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Truth pervades all subjects from simple ethics to our own existence. Many disagree within these subjects what is truth, but at least it would be a more expansive debate/article than the philosphical one into the meaning of the word "truth". --nirvana2013 20:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, well, maybe, truth pervades all subjects from ethics (which is far from simple) to existence (although I suspect where you say "truth" you mean "true statements"). But these topics are ones that particularly fall under the domain of philosophy. You're not making a case for a separate article here. -Seth Mahoney 02:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, the article will remain a key part of the philosophy section of the Wiki; get used to it. You are welcome to include anything of a non-philosophical nature in the article, but don't pretend that your own particular philosophical position is in some way neutral. All that will result is an edit war. So, what exactly is it that you think is missing from the article? Banno 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems strange that most philosophers over the last few millennia get a mention in the article on their interpretation of truth, but there is no mention of Buddha, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth or Muhammad. All these individuals also had a take on what is truth. The detail on these mens thoughts do not have to be included, as it's included elsewhere on wikipedia, but to me the article looks for only an atheist take on truth, when billions in the world (either rightly or wrongly) think otherwise. --nirvana2013 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between presenting a theory as to the nature of truth, and a theory as to what particular statements are true. Can you give an example of a theory of truth presented by any one of these folk? Nor is it fair to describe the theories presented in the article as "Atheist". Few of the philosophers named were atheists. Banno 11:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be mistaking "what is truth?" with "what is true?" (or abiding by a very particular notion of what truth is). And actually, I think you've got just the wrong idea about what should be in this article: If you're saying that, say, Abraham had a particular theory of truth (not, mind you, of what is true), then a mention of his name just won't do - the article needs to explicitely outline the theory you're claiming he had. -Seth Mahoney 02:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Ten Commandments or The Golden Rule, for example. I am not sure what you mean by theory or nature, but many people believe these to be the truth in terms of human ethics. Whether they actually practise what they preach is a different matter. This article is titled "truth", not "theory of truth". Do we need two articles? Anyway going back to my question, why are none of these spiritual men from my previous post included in the article or, if the philosophers named were not atheists, at least referred to in a philosopher's search for truth/meaning? If the article is truly NPOV then surely they would be. --nirvana2013 14:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. So the article "truth" should list everything that someone has said is true. Good idea. Just set the page to re-direct to here, end of problem. Banno 07:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, in no other article do we list everything that falls under the term that titles the article. There is no reason to list things that are true (such as the ten commandments or the golden rule), or are believed to be true, in truth, except as examples to illustrate what people are talking about when they present a given theory of truth. As far as what a theory of truth is, its really fairly simple - a theory of truth attempts to explain exactly what truth is. It may or may not give a means to determine what statements are true. But, it does try to get at the essence of what is truth (or Truth). Now, as Banno has stated, if you can show us where any of the people you have listed have presented a theory of what, exactly, truth (or Truth) is, that's great. If you're just trying to add some statements that you, or some people, or most people, or even every person, believes to be true, then no. That said, if this is what you're hoping for, there are religious theories of truth. Research them and add them if you want. -Seth Mahoney 02:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana2013 may have a point concerning NPOV. As Einstein keenly observed, "Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience." --Ehrlich 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixing drift

People try to fix the section Major philosophers who have proposed theories of truth from time to time, but it has the property that whenever someone who likes some philosopher looks at this list, they have the itch to add that philosopher, whether or not they made acontribution that could seriously be called a significant contribution to the theory of truth. I propose that we make this a list of pairs of list, eg.:

This won't fix the problem, but following WP:CITE it should make the section more self-policing. --- Charles Stewart 15:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Planning the lead section

This debate about the introduction has gone on for years (literally).

Perhaps it would help if we sat back and looked at what is needed in a good introduction.

The perfect Wikipedia article... ...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.

For this article, it is not possible to provide a definition that is neutral, precisely because of the self-reference involved in providing a true definition of truth.

From Wikipedia:Lead section

The lead should briefly summarise the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article

What are the most important points covered in the article? From the TOC, it is clear that the article looks at:

  • what sorts of things can be true?
  • robust, deflationary and formal definitions of true
  • Subjective, objective, relative and absolute truth
  • Some other aspects, not directly philosophical in nature

Wikipedia:Lead section suggests a lead of one or two paragraphs. It should be possible to do this by writing a one-sentence summary for each of these main sections.

To this we should add that the lead should link to a few key articles - Philosophy and Epistemology at the least.

Do we all agree that this sort of lead section is what is needed? If not, what is it missing?

An if so, can I suggest that we develop a set of guidelines for the introduction, and place them at the top of the talk page to explain the reasoning to any would-be editors who inadvertently "simplify" the introduction by making it POV, as happens every few weeks, throwing the article into turmoil?

Banno 21:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Nate Ladd 04:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

For the intro to this article it seems to me that the best way to preserve NPOV is to simply summarize developments chronologically. JimWae made a good start at this. Why not just elaborate on his version, keep it neutral, don't presuppose that 'true' is a predicate, etc.? Have you thought about how you would summarize developments prior to the 20th century? --Ehrlich 16:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A chronology would not preclude the need to introduce the topic that the chronology is about, so it would just be an extra intro in addition to the non-chronological one. Banno's version is NPOV and it follows wiki recommendations. (By the way, it was me who tried to do a historical intro, not Jim. He just shortened it to only the 20th century. But I now think Banno's approach is better.) --Nate Ladd 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A chronology would be as long as the article itself, not an introduction to the article. Nat is correct - a chronology would be another part of the article, not an introduction. Banno 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about "deflationary theories" & all, but the opposition between an objective definiton of truth and a more romantic subjective definition should certainly be in the intro, as well as the opposition between relativism and the universal conception of truth (which, in some cases - Plato for example - overlap with the objective definition - Ideas are eternal for Plato). Lapaz 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics, not epistemology

It strikes me as odd that epistemology is referred to in the intro. Truth is part of metaphysics, not epistemology. (Of course truth has some bearing on epistemology, but also to various other topics too.) Ben Finn 14:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Truth belongs to both domains. Actually, metaphysics as well as epistemology or political philosophy are all sub-fields of philosophy, and truth is important enough a question to be included in the general sense of philosophy. Do you know one philosopher who hasn't spoke about truth? Lapaz 01:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotations section

Why do we need a quotations section when we already have a wikiquotes page? Seems more or less redundant. Sasquatcht|c 00:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for deleting it, and all other quotation sections on the Wiki. But this should be discussed as a general policy, I guess. Banno 07:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I also favor deleting it. --Nate Ladd 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm for deleting it, so far as all quotes not duplicated at wikiquotes (which are also verifiable) are copied over there. -Seth Mahoney 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
My first reaction to the pair of quotations A, ~A was outrage. But I am learning that there is actually a mathematical approach to this: Dempster-Shafer theory. It looks like there is more to be learned and that the subject of the fusion of paradoxical and indeterminate knowledge with reliable knowledge is growing, quickly. See: category:evidence. Ancheta Wis 16:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anyone bothered copying the quotes to wikiquotes (while checking for any duplications) before deleting. Please explain. --nirvana2013 10:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Telling it like it is

I have removed (for the second time) the sentence: "truth is telling it like it is". First, this is unhelpful and the notion that true statements "tell it like it is" is covered in the theories section. Second, truth is not telling it like it is. Telling truths might be telling it like it is, but truth as a concept is considered distinct from linguistic action. If you would like this sentence to be in the article, please discuss it here before returning it to the article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible DotSix Puppet? Banno 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Or just the return of Howard Cosell? --Christofurio 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent article

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best Wiki articles I have read. Rick Norwood 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

occult definitions of truth

I think the occult is utter nonsense, but in an effort to bend over backwards to maintain NPOV, should we allow occult theories of truth in this article? I don't know. Rick Norwood151.141.47.3 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not without properly documenting them, and I'd be hesitant if the theories didn't have a demonstrable impact upon the debate amongst philosophers. See my Fixing drift suggestion above: if we adopted it and a link to an explanation of the theory of truth was not available on WP, I would delete the link. --- Charles Stewart 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what an "occult definition of truth" would be, but NPOV does not require that we take seriously or even mention every single POV on a subject. We are entitled to exclude mention of idiocy. --Nate Ladd 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I firmly think that the occult definition of truth should be left out. Not because of POV issues, but because it's too dangerous. It is well-known that the occult definition of truth can drive the uninitiated to madness.
I suspect that what you have in mind, Rick, is something like the double truth theory, which is already in this article. You could make an explicit mention if you wish that "Some contemporary occultists, in their distinctions between esoteric and exoteric 'truths,' have in effect returned to the medieval position that truth is double." Or isn't that what you mean at all? --Christofurio 14:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
My comment was sparked by the deletion of a link to an occult web site. I'm happy with the article as it stands -- in fact, see my comment in the section above. Rick Norwood 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Laws of Form

Those of us who are interested in the truth are referred to Talk:Laws of Form for the names of the editors who have improved that article. I would nominate it for FA except it would get shot down immediately, realistically (no pictures). BTW, as a user/bystander, I appreciate that the truth article has stabilized. Congratulations. --Ancheta Wis 16:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. Amazing how long that mess went on. --Coolcaesar 06:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
If all we need is a picture, how about a video clip of Jack Nicholson saying "You don't want the truth. You can't handle the truth." : ) Rick Norwood 14:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia is truth, all hail wikipedia

Merger of Absolute Truth

It would be a big mistake to merge the article [Absolute truth] into this one for several reasons:

  1. It is too long.
  2. It is badly, and pretensiously, written. The second sentence, for example, is unreadable.
  3. It cites no sources. It appears to be entirely someone's original research filled with neologisims.

--Nate Ladd 03:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with your concept, see that talk page for a rejoinder. More work is needed, on that page only. There is no need to tamper with an existing stable article. The issues can fit nicely there alone. --Ancheta Wis 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Instead, absolute truth needs a re-working and should then be linked as a main article from the relevant section here. Banno 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolute is relative; but relative is not absolute = dialectic

When a synthesis is advanced from a thesis and antithesis; the synthesis then becomes another thesis through spacetime. This is a progressive process - not a defiance of spacetime that is critical to the equation. Charged patterns, or patterned Charge? Such is paradox. --Dialectic 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Absolutism/Absolute truth needs it's own article. An article on absolute truth needs to express how the idea is the total opposite of relativism and the dialectic, because (simply enough) that's what it is. The three ideas (absolutes, relativism and the dialectic) are irreconcilable, because to include the other two is to eliminate absolutes. To be an absolute relativist is like being a carnivorous vegetarian or maybe undead. --   NERD42    EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Support merger. Absolute truth should either be merged here or in Universality (philosophy). I agree that it is not well written, but that's irrelevant concerning the merge discussion (just erase everything if it's that's bad). More importantly, "absolute truth" is in no way different from universal truth, which is valid in all times & places. So it should me merged here or there. Lapaz 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. On further review, the Absolute Truth page is pretty much a waste of wikispace. Ig0774 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

neither support nor oppose. To "merge" suggests that the other article should be more or less entirely encorporated into this one. Rather, I think, anything that can be salvaged from the other article should be incorporated here, and then the other article deleted. Rick Norwood 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. The Absolute truth article should be classified as original research and speedy-deleted! --Coolcaesar 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Divine truth

Searching for an area to speak about truth outside the Bible would seem most suitable to go here. Thomas Schaeffer would say that there is no absolute truth existing outside the realm of the Bible. The idea would be that God redeems us to the point of realizing what actual truth is. Arthur Holmes on the other hand would say that all true, whether stated by Believer or not is then all in all God's truth. For example, water boiling at over 200 degrees is truth. Did I need the Bible, not really, nor would being illuminated by God really bring that out. Both of these men share great points when it comes to understanding truth. Perhaps someone could share what they percieve about the revelation of truth. (The Mule 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

The new section needs supporting citations, wikifying and editing to avoid systemic bias towards Christianity. But apart from that, it is welcome. Banno 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A truth too far

I like the first part of the recent edit -- the second part, sadly, doesn't quite work. First, it doesn't quite say what it intends to say. Second, this famous paradox needs to be formulated in some formal language, and is therefore inappropriate for the introduction.

The arguement is this: If no statement is true, then the statement that no statement is true is true, a contradiction. The problem is that this assumes that the set of statements is non-empty. A postmodernist would argue that the set of statements is empty. That is, that sequences of words are just that, sequences of words. Such "signs" produce a reaction in the person who observes them, but have no "meaning" -- that is, the sole content of "signs" is the reaction they produce. Therefore, even the statement "There are no true statements." is not true, because it has no content. It is mearly a sequence of signs that produces a reaction.

Now, personally, I think this is horseshit, but I am forced to acknowledge that assumptions are required before any theory of truth can begin to be developed. One of these assumptions is the assumption that words have meaning. Rick Norwood 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

conformity of the mind?

How does a mind conform to reality? Doesn't that mean that "truth" is something that minds do, rather than statements? I don't see this phrasing as helpful. Banno 21:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I edited the introductory paragraph from (1) to (2):

  1. When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, they are claiming that it is the truth. Epistemology, the study of knowledge, seeks solutions for the many philosophical problems associated with truth.
  2. Truth is the characteristic that one ascribes to an assertion when he or she sincerely agrees with that assertion. A naïve (which is not to say incorrect) definition of truth is: the feature that a sentence or proposition has just in case it portrays (part of) reality correctly. It is impossible to define truth in a way that will be satisfactory to everyone, but perhaps the best attempt to give such a universally acceptable definition is still the one made by Aristotle over two millenia ago: "To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true" (Metaphysics, Γ, 7.27).

My changes were reverted by User:Nathan Ladd, who found them to be "wordy" and "pretentious". They may well be wordy and pretentious (unfortunately, I am not immune to these sins), but two problems with the introduction remain:

  • it is (arguably) ungrammatical, using "they" as a singular pronoun (admittedly this is relatively trivial, and maybe I'm just a fuddy duddy, but it irritates the heck out of me);
  • it gives the impression that the nature of truth is primarily an epistemological issue, when it is primarily a logical/metaphysical one. (Accounts of the nature of truth generally do not make any reference to knowlege or belief at all--though, obviously, all branches of philosophy are in some sense concerned with the nature of truth.)

Anyway, I'll leave the intro alone for now, since I have no interest in getting into a revert war over something so trivial as Truth.  ;) Anyone else want to take a stab at rewriting the intro in a succinct and unpretentious but also grammatical and philosophically accurate way? 'Twould be much appreciated. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Nathan Ladd! I think the current introductory sentence satisfies all four criteria.  :) Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bearers of truth

I am not happy with the section "Bearers of truth", especially with its position so high up in the article. It seems to me to be original research, and less sound than the rest of the article. Comments? Rick Norwood 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see it moved down lower in the article, too. But it is not original research. It is a nice little summary of the various candidates for the title of truth bearer. I don't think any philospher would disagree with it. It doesn't cite anyone, but you could cite the Kirkham book since it is a highly summarized version of that book's 2nd chapter. There's nothing unsound about it that I can see. --Nate Ladd 05:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious categories

I find some of the category choices for this article to be dubious, namely:

  • Category:Core issues in ethics
  • Category:Ethics
  • Category:Political philosophy

The nature of truth doesn't seem to be a major or "core" issue in ethics or political philosophy per se. Does anyone want to defend placing the article in these categories? Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Core issues in ethics was the contribution of banned user:EntmootsOfTrolls who had the POV that if you subscribed to his core issues (perhaps understood as values), then you were acceptable, but if you didn't then you were fair game for retribution. As you can tell, he had a soft spot in his heart for trolling. "All Hail the Troll" was his POV. Thus at the time, if you had felt that Truth were not to be a core issue then you would also have been a potential target of the Entmoots. But that was then. This is now. Are you arguing that Truth (or perhaps devotion to the Truth) is not an ethical (etc.) property? I personally am steering clear of this minefield. Is this section a troll, BTW? --Ancheta Wis 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally can detect a political component in even the supposedly most neutral of institutions, such as the Royal Society. See history of science. In other words, there is something to the categorization; perhaps it has to do with human nature. But if this encyclopedia were to embody truth then perhaps that would give the lie to the listed categorization. However even the Wikipedia:Five Pillars can be viewed as a policy/political statement. Note that the statement "Wikipedia contains only truth" is manifestly false. 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Truth is of course a major issue in political philosophy as much as in metaphysics. Just think about all the debates lifted by how is it possible to achieve objectivity or the controversy between followers of the Enlightenment conception of universalism and relativism. Relativism has, as shown by the sophists, many political implications. AFter all, that actually may be one of the primary reason for Plato's idealist philosophy... Lapaz 01:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

subjective vs objective

I think the statement "But at the least it claims that we cannot have direct knowledge of the real world" somehow indicates that there is a "real world" out there. I suggest adding something like: "However, most believers of this theory thinks there are no 'real world' whatsoever, but that all is just subjective interpretations" or something similar? Trangius 13:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your statement is too strong. Not only do I doubt that "most" believers in this theory think there is no "real world", a true believer in this theory would be forced to be agnostic on the existance or non-existance of a world he maintains we can know nothing about. I have, however, slightly modified the sentence in question to allow for the possible non-existance of an objective universe. Rick Norwood 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You are corrrect, I have nothing to prove that "most" believers think so. It was mostly a bad word-selction from my, my english is not that superb. I think your changes are good :) Anyway, I'd say that many of the post modernistic thoughts on truth (no absolute truth/relativistic truth) indicates that there are nothing but subjective perceptions (or interpretation of the perceptions, or whatever) - and hence no "real world". To clear this out, and to make the article more coherrent, I think there should be a clearer connection made between the subjective and relativistic viewpoints (and the objective and absolute viewpoints). --- Also (just a stupid little comment), I think the sentence "when most people believed the earth was flat, it was flat." is a good description in this case, but it could be critized by people claiming it to be false, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth Trangius 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nathan Lane has given an entirely different meaning to the phrases "subjective truth" and "objective truth". I have no evidence to support one useage being more common that the other, but in his edit summary he confuses a statement such as "I like brocolli." which is either true or false, with "brocolli" which is neither true nor false. There are, it seems, at least four points of view to be considered. I will attempt to cover them in the article. Rick Norwood 13:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but "when most people believed the earth was flat, it was flat." is a good description in this case, but it could be critized by people claiming it to be false is only objectively false, not subjectively false. : ) Rick Norwood 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear. It is disputed weither people really did believe that the earth was flat (as mentioned in the wiki-article i linked to), not weither it's a subjective or objectiv truth that the earth is(or was) flat. (When most people believed that people had believed the earth was flat, the people had believed the earth was flat :p)Trangius 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You made yourself clear, and I agree with you. I was trying to be funny. Rick Norwood 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Anchita removed some of Lapaz's edit. I've reverted the rest of it. Lapaz, your intentions are good, but you need to think more about what you write. For example:

Usually the standard cited is the tenets of one's own culture, and thus refers to ethnocentrism.

This should read either "standards are tenents" or "standard is one's own culture". But the "standard" does not refer to ethnocentrism. Rather, to cite the standards of one's own culture is ethnocentrism.

"Relativism entails that what is true varies across cultures and eras."

The word you are looking for is not "entail" but "assert".

I could go on, but you get the idea. Rick Norwood 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I was about to do it myself. But my reasons are that everything Lapaz added is not really about Truth. They are philosophical doctrines about justification, belief, epistemology, and (mostly) metaphysics; but they are not about truth. Kant's metaphysics, for example, is not a theory of truth. --Nate Ladd 08:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. You should know... Beyond my grammatical or language errors (which you can fix, as you just proved), I don't understand why you have so much trouble in writing an introduction to the article, while they are some obvious things that any philosophy student learn in his first year. I really wonder how you distinguish truth from "philosophical doctrines about justification, belief, epistemology, and (mostly) metaphysics"? Truth is, of course, a philosophical concept, which concerns all philosophical sub-fields, including metaphysics, epistemology, and even political philosophy (see historical revisionism to see what truth can mean in history & politics, if you have some doubt about it). It is not an illusion, but a big mistake to talk about truth without talking about metaphysics, epistemology, etc., and this is why this article needs improvement. "Kant's metaphysics, for example, is not a theory of truth." What do you mean exactly by that? That Kant didn't have in mind writing three critiques to create a "theory of truth"? What is a "theory of truth" exactly? Do you mean that Kant does not deal with the concept of truth in his work? Or that Kant is irrelevant to a discussion about the notion of truth??? Now, I can also give examples for my edits (I'm not claiming they were perfect, but I can assure you that they are not as irrelevant as you appear to believe...). The current article states:
"for the Kantian, "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" forms an absolute moral truth"
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. This Kantian maxim is a categorical imperative, not an "absolute moral truth". You don't even need to actually read Kant to know that, I'm sure reading Kant will be enough. Of course, I also could give more examples... (ps: thank you for so much honor, but I changed the subsection title, hope you don't see anything against it:) Lapaz 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote what above, but since part of it seems to be addressed to me, "I" don't distinguish anything in this article. I quote sources. The whole point of my rewrite was to replace original research with referenced information. Rick Norwood 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On a sort of sidenote, I agree with the idea of replacing original research with referenced information (in fact, I'm maybe a little too hardcore about it), but I'm not seeing any explicit references. One example: The article says, "Saul Kripke contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction.", but gives no indication where Saul Kripke makes any such argument. All statements of this sort, and any controversial or POV statements, quotations, or paraphrases should be explicitely sourced to a book, article, speech, or whatever. -Seth Mahoney 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger and Truth

I'm not sure what counts as positing a theory of truth for this page, but my recent addition of Heidegger as a philosopher who proposed a theory of truth was deleted. I'm not quite sure why this is, since, aside from his numerous remarks on the nature of truth in Sein und Zeit as (αληθεία), he also wrote a paper entitled (in English) On the Nature of Truth (Vom Wesen der Wahreit). While, admittedly, the idea of truth that Heidegger advanced is not found on this page, I am unsure how it can be denied that he developed a theory of truth. Could someone please enlighten me? Ig0774 06:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite his writings on truth in English in the References section, then you can put him back on the list. Lots of philosophers wrote things whose titles might suggest they were about truth, but they really aren't. In many cases, they turn out to be about justification, not truth. I'd like to read the Heidegger stuff you mention so I can verify that it is really about truth. --Nate Ladd 09:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo's edit

Stevertigo considers the old intro to be "crap" and offers the following:

"In arguments, the term truth is used for the concept of affirmation rather than contradiction of a statement —where a "statement" can refer to any postulated or presented claim. Statements which are contradicted are typically referred to by the term "false."
+ This basic binary usage is found in logic and philosophy as well, although these areas are typically interested in abstracting the binary concept of "true and false" to greater aspects of human thought.
+ Hence, in philosophy and religion, truth typically refers to all elemental and fundamental truths in a general way, as complete collection of life's intrinsic aspects, as they have come to be understood within reality. "

I respectfully disagree. To begin with "In arguments..." is to consider the special case before the general case. To say statements which are contradicted are false is to disallow the common example of someone contradicting a true statement. I don't understand what his next two sentences mean. Areas are interested in abstracting the binary concept. I would have thought that binary truth is about as abstract as you can get. Truth refers to fundamental truths. Isn't there are rule against using the word you are trying to define in the definition?

I reverted his edit. He rereverted back to his edit. We need a third opinion. Rick Norwood 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the new intro doesn't make much sense to me. Truths can be contradicted (I can deny that 2 + 2 = 4) and falsehoods can be affirmed (I can assert that 2 + 2 = 5), so it seems wrong to identify truth with affirmation and falsehood with contradiction, as the new intro appears to do. (Note: I am going with the pre-theoretic interpretations of "truth", "contradicted", "affirmed", etc. that seem most natural to me in this particular context; other interpretations are of course possible.) And I, too, have trouble making sense of the second and third sentences, for essentially the same reasons Rick mentions. That's just my very humble opinion, for whatever it may be worth. By the way, kudos to Rick for taking the issue here and avoiding an edit war. dbtfztalk 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Both intros have some merit - but true/truth and false are not applied only in "arguments", and "binary" is unnecessarily abstract --JimWae 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest intro by JimWae is not bad, but could still be improved. For what it's worth, here's how I would write the intro:

Truth is a feature of certain sentences, statements, or propositions. While there is no widely accepted definition of truth, it is generally agreed that truth is a kind of correctness, and is the opposite of falsity, which is a kind of incorrectness. The nature of truth is an important issue in philosophy.

dbtfztalk 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Whether or not truth even has a "nature" is open to debate though, as is what can be a truth-bearer. --JimWae 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything is open to debate, especially in philosophy. That does not strike me as a legitimate objection. If there are important theories of truth (i.e. ones that would be discussed at length in the article) that are inconsistent with my suggested intro, that would be a legitimate objection. I don't know of any, but I may be a bit ignorant or narrow-minded in this respect. Anyway, that's all I have to say on the issue. Have fun.  :-) dbtfztalk 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is about attempts to define truth. As a result, attempts to give a meaning for truth in a few words in the intro have resulted in extended edit wars. The old version, "When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, he or she is claiming that it is the truth" has the merit of being about the pragmatics rather than meaning of truth, which is I think why it has lasted so long. What is problematic with this approach and with this old intro? Certainly it seems to me to be better than the present wording: "Philosophy seeks answers for certain questions about truth and the word truth", which is a definition of philosophy rather than of truth. Banno 20:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is taking something simple, which everyone understands, and making it much more difficult that it needs to be. Therefore, I'm going to BE BOLD and give it a shot myself. Rick Norwood 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

  • Well, the one there now takes sides in favor of the correspondence theory. Here's a similar try that goes to lengths not to mentin philosophy: --JimWae 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    There is no generally accepted definition of truth that is uncontroversial, though there are numerous contrary theories. Most theories agree that saying that a statement is true can sometimes be simply a way of agreeing with the statement, but some maintain that truth can mean more than that. Theories of truth also have differences about what sorts of utterances can properly be called true or false.
  • The problem with the "when someone sincerely agrees..." is that it reads a bit like the start of a novel - very conversational, and sincere. It does not define truth, though it does give an example of its use. It does not really introduce the article - it does not present what is coming next - UNLESS it is interpreted as partial to the deflationary theory. -- But it is preferable to much of the stuff that has appeared here --JimWae 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "Truth is a statement that corresponds with reality" is both ungramatical (truth is not a statement) and POV - clearly expressing the correspondence theory at the expence of the various others mentioned in the article. Banno 07:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't have any trouble at all with the correspondence theory, they use the word to mean a statement that corresponds with reality. If I say "I was not speeding," then that statement is the truth if I was in reality not speeding and a falsehood if I was. Yes, the article does need to mention that there are more complex theories of truth, but I certainly think we can begin with plain English.

that most people have a certain view does not mean that the Wiki support only that view. Have another go at the intro if you like, but the present version is NPOV. Banno 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the grammar. "Truth" is a noun, "is" is a verb. Your objection is not to grammar but to meaning. Is "truth" a kind of statement, or does it have some higher, or lower, calling? In everyday use, "truth" is a kind of statement, distinguished from other kinds of statements, notably falsehoods, opinions, and nonsense. When a witness is asked "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," the witness is being required to swear to make certain kinds of statements, and to avoid making other kinds of statements. Rick Norwood 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a long stretch. At the least, it is poorly worded. Banno 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Truth is not a statement, though some statments may be true. Put the old one back if you like, Banno --JimWae 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your recent edit looks like disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Philosphers do not mostly say truth has no meaning -- they collectively say it has MANY meanings - and you have included only one test of one meaning --JimWae 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Assume good will. I moved the statement that some philosophers believe that truth has no meaning from a later point in the article. Far from wanting to prove a point, I was bending over backwards to be NPOV. I think the meaning of truth is perfectly clear. Rick Norwood 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


  • There is no single definition of truth that is not also controversial; rather there are various complementary and contrary definitions. Most theories agree that saying that a statement is true can sometimes be simply a way of agreeing with the statement, but some theories maintain that truth can mean more than that. There are also differences between theories regarding how to test claims of truth, and also about sorts of utterances can properly be called true or false. --JimWae 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To what "fact" or "reality" does 2+2=4 correspond? What facts make "I promise to pay you $50" a true promise? Correspondence theories do not have simple answers for such questions.--JimWae 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 4 is true if properly applied. I take two jellybeans. I take two more jellybeans. I count -- yes I have four -- the statement is true. Grade school kids amuse themselves improperly applying 2 + 2 = 4, and discover something about hidden assumptions. Two rabbits plus two rabbits, etc. The statement "I promise..." is an interesting case, because it corresponds with its own reality -- in making the statement, you make the promise. You can promise falsely, but you cannot falsely say "I promise..." (even if you have your fingers crossed behind your back). On the other hand, the statement that the promise is true is a prediction of a future event. Its truth of falsehood can only be known at some future date. But the same is true of "It will snow in Miami in July some time in the future." The fact that we may never know if a statement corresponds to reality or not does not change the fact that correspondence to reality is what most people mean by truth most of the time.
I do not, however, claim that the correspondence theory is the only theory of truth. I do claim it is the most generally understood idea about truth, and that all other theories must take the correspondence theory into account, either to accept it or deny it. It is the natural place to start. Rick Norwood 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bearers of truth

Do we really need this rather twee section? Rick Norwood 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, but with perhaps a bit less prominence - moved to further down the article. Banno 06:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing style, semantics, reverts, and...

Someone I once heard, said
every war is about the definition of a word,
every argument is about the suffering of the herd.

I must first state my apologies to Rick for using pejoratives, perhaps based on a assumption bad faith, but more likely due to my prejudice toward making the herd suffer a little sharp criticism rather than make them suffer poor writing. Reverts, it should be noted, are likewise incivil. Anyway the apology is sincere.

With that out of the way, I do understand the nature of this debate as being one of definitions, and in that regard the nature of understanding "truth" rests on other words. Better said, the nature of explaining truth is understanding it. Whatever "it" is. Truth, perhaps.

Rick made his initial revert no doubt due to being frustrated with the futility of wordy rewrites, and mine appeared to be no different. I cant say I disagree with frustrated sentiments, though its unclear if he noticed the night and day difference between the first version and the last one. In which I used the word validity. This of course doesnt suffice for spiritualists, and spiritualist diatribes are just unbearable to science fundamentalists.

So since we all appear to be looking for the perfect words to describe truth. We can start here. Validity and affirmation are two. Any others?

I want to work to make the article a better article, and while the correspondence theory of truth is not the last word on the subject, it should be the first word, becasue that is how the vast majority of people understand truth, and that is how dictionaries define the word. (Actually, the first dictionary I picked up defines "truth" as "the quality of being true", which is not very helpful.) But this is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary, and the purpose of the introduction is to introduce an article about the various standard views of truth. I still maintain that correspondence between words and reality is the most common idea about truth, and so is the best place to start. But we can talk about it. Rick Norwood 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/u/Talk%7ETruth_Archive_9_6583.html"