Talk:Criteria of truth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
A fact from Criteria of truth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 31, 2007. |
 |
[edit] Comments on the article's content and name
I find this article very painful to read. I don't mean that nastily, it just gives me the most awful headache - literally! It seems to me to contain a mixture of theories of justification or knowledge, theories of perception and and theories of truth. It also contains phrases that are painful to philosophers ears, for example:
- Something is described as "most true" - how could something be more or less true?
- 'Naive Realism posits that only that which is directly observable by the human senses is true', when naive realism is a theory that claims that our perceptions tell us facts about an independent reality. It doesn't say that perceptions are the only guide to facts about the world, it also doesn't way that every perception we have is an accurate depiction of a person independent reality. The most you could say to relate it to the subject of this article is that naive realists believe that statements that accurately reflect their perceptual experiences when they are in unproblematic sensory circumstances are true. But that is just my OR way of trying to turn a theory about perception into a statement about a criteris for truth.
A couple of minor points:
- There are already a number of theories of truth described in the truth article, and in their own individual articles. If there is a point in having this article, it is probably sensible for you to have a few 'main' links to the articles on each of the theories, for example 'coherence theory of truth'.
- The ibids in the article need to be changes if this is tp be an article that people are going to develop and edit.
I do not want to make changes to this article myself. As I said, it really does give me a headache, and my strength of disagreement wth some of the claims makes me not want to be bold. Sorry to be so obnoxious. Anarchia 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- It will hurt less if you take the article in context. That is, it addresses test models not theories. This is basic introductory level stuff, with similar lists and overviews in common philosophy textbooks. While there is the concept of absolute truth, very few philosophies fail to address "lessor", or incomplete, truth. Nearly all philosophies take into account the fallibility of human faculties and the impossibility/improbability of human omniscience, resulting in varying degrees of truth. To be honest, I'm a bit baffled at your bafflement on that count, as it is basic intro level philosophy. This article is based on a well-regarded text written by the (then) chair of philosophy of Suffolk University and a lecturer from Northeastern University. Certainly, it is an exceedingly reliable source, as such. Ibids can be changed if additional sources are included without great difficulty. I'm really at a loss over your objections, which make little sense to me. Vassyana 07:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fallibilism is a theory about knowledge, not a theory about truth. This matters quite a lot. The idea behind it is not that truth comes in degrees or is more or less reliable, it is that claims to knowledge can be justifiable even though we don't know that some statement is true. This is not a minor point, and I guess two things follow for me from it. First, could you please check that the author of the book you are quoting from describes things in terms of "most true"? Second, I hope you can start to see one of the points that I am trying to make above, about the distinction between the different types of theory.
- For what it is worth (which is admittedly not much - and probably nothing!), I have never seen an intro level philosophy book that depicts "criteria for truth" in the way that they are explained here. You are clearly a remarkable editor, and, again, I hope you do not take these comments personally. Anarchia 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Single source
This is a good start for the article, but it relies solely on one source. While the article is a good summation of the topic, there are other sources that could provide a more well-rounded view. A quick Google search turned up not only the source used for the initial drafting of the article, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, by William S. Sahakian, Mabel Lewis Sahakian, but Criteria of Truth and Error by Henry Sidgwick, Criteria of Truth by T.E. Burke, The Field of Philosophy by Joseph Alexander Leighton, A Brief Introduction to Epistemology by Jonathan Dolhenty and The Catholic Encyclopedia (text written by Leslie J. Walker). Anyone who has seriously studied epistemology will probably have other sources available as well. Is there anyone who is knowledgeable in the field who would be willing to flesh out the article so that it presents more than just the Sahakian's summation? 152.16.59.190 05:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Dolhenty source is a very good overview. I am altering the article to include the source. Vassyana 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
