The Definition of Truth

[Shi Huangdi]

Just a survey on what people believe truth is. Do you agree with the Correspondence Theory of Truth (i.e., truth is that which corresponds with reality) or do you believe that truth is relative (my truth can contradict your truth)?

[Atatürk]

Truth is what corresponds with reality. But not everyone knows reality so there are conflicting ideas of the "truth".

[Poach]

Truth corresponds with reality: if a man performs an action it is truth to say that he performed it, this cannot vary according to individual perception, the man performed the act.

The concept that "truth" can vary according to one's one view on life came about due to the corruption of the word "truth", what people really mean by that statement is that one's perception or opinions on the life and thus the way they live their life can be different from those of another.

[ACEnglish]

Truth corresponds with reality: if a man performs an action it is truth to say that he performed it, this cannot vary according to individual perception, the man performed the act.

The concept that "truth" can vary according to one's one view on life came about due to the corruption of the word "truth", what people really mean by that statement is that one's perception or opinions on the life and thus the way they live their life can be different from those of another.

Pretty much. Well, exactly.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Truth is what corresponds with reality. But not everyone knows reality so there are conflicting ideas of the "truth".

I agree with this. Our only debate over what is true stems from our ignorance of what is really real. We may hold different opinions, but that is because we feel our opinion is the true one, not because all opinions are equally true.

*Sigh* wish i had more time, alas i can only shortly state my opinon and not expand upon it.

Truth is very relative, through our society, we give it meaning and definiton. This is because, it make things able to run. If we all had different definitons, society would not be able to run. Thus we create our own truths, simply to make ourselves happy, and we give them meaning.

In actuallity though, there are no absoelute truths, because an absoelute truth means it must apply to the whole universe. And there is no universal truths.

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth? If there is, then you have just affirmed that an absolute exists, discrediting your whole argument. If not, then you haven't affirmed any position at all. Truth cannot be relative. Our opinion or perception of the truth may differ, but that is from lack of information, as we are persuaded our position is the correct one--yet we may well be wrong.

[Sebdeas]

Here's my opinion, from my thread a few weeks ago:

After thinking for about religion and politics, I've come to a personal realisation that the truth might not always be the truth. This might be very cynical or nihilistic, but it is the truth (mine at least).

For instance, if someone is religious, than the existence of God and all the other things is their truth. Non theistic people might say it, but they can't proof it doesn't exist and you can't prove it does. In politics the same situation appears. One country might claim the moral high ground, but the enemy will disagree.

A fact is something you have proof for and the truth is different.

[Poach]

Here's my opinion, from my thread a few weeks ago:

This is exactly what I'm getting at Seb: this "truth" they speak of is an incorrect use of the word truth, taking your example of religion: that is merely an opinion, it is not a truth in the proper use of the word.

The word has been butchered for all sorts of reasons by romantics who like the implications of the word being used in certain (incorrect) contexts like that one.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here's my opinion, from my thread a few weeks ago:

I think you're confusing belief with truth.

[handsome pete]

the truth of how we see a mind, the atoms and molecules that make it up is not the same as the truth within the mind.

we have one way (one truth) of seeing the mind as emr fields and another of seeing a mind from within.

[handsome pete]

all the most clever mathematical models of the world never mention sadness or a piercing pain.

the above mentioned most fundamental reality, leads us to three kinds of obvious truth. that relate to and correspond with reality.

there is the truth of where we can make objective observations/realisations regarding another mind, which may be more consistent and clever than the other mind it's self. attempting to determine whether or not it corresponds with reality.

we can try to discover whether or not what another person tells us as objective understanding is in fact their understanding.

and finally we can only hope to empathise, with what the internal experience of a different emr/brain is likely to be. this is usually done with reference to our own potential.

therefore as a direct result of the correspondence theory of truth, the theory of the existence of relative truth can be deduced.

[vecordia]

the truth of how we see a mind, the atoms and molecules that make it up is not the same as the truth within the mind.

we have one way (one truth) of seeing the mind as emr fields and another of seeing a mind from within.

That's why truth cannot be the completed definition of everything. Logically - it must be absolute, universal, real, but that's far away from human's mind to understand and paradoxically subject (man) which examines the meanig of truth is itself part of it.

Truth as the absolute meaning of everything including myself is purely transcendent.

[GuineaPig]

Truth is absolute.

[Alba gu Brath]

Of course truth is what corresponds with reality.

[Ummon]

And reality is what corrsponds with truth?

Someone said: true is that which is useful. As such, truth is present only where minds are present.

[Juvenal]

The poll is insufficient in its options.

Truth is indeed equivalent to correspondence with reality, but that doesn't make it absolute. We may have absolute truth in mathematics because mathematics is rigidly defined. But even in mathematics it is possible to have statements whose truth cannot be determined, or even more strangely, statements which are known to be true but are nevertheless unprovable.

The problem with Reality is that we don't know with certainty what Reality is. Therefore we have to adopt a consensus approach to both reality and truth. This is what the scientific method is all about. Scientific truth is provisional (it is open to later disproof) and must be independently verifiable.

Given these restrictions, it can be seen that scientific truth is a subset of all truth. But it is also the most reliable part. Non-scientific truth suffers from the fact that it cannot be identified with certainty.

I can see four approaches to discerning non-scientific truth: empiricism, insight, faith, authority. Of these, authority seems weakest since we cannot be sure of the reasons an authority has for telling us something is true. Faith implies certainty without explanation, we are clearly going to believe our own faith, but someone else's faith falls under the heading of authority and must therefore be suspect. Insight is interesting because it implies a justification for the identification of truth which is below the level of consciousness. The only way you are going to convince anyone else of the truth of your insight is with a proof (making it scientific), by being an authority (i.e. telling people to "trust you") or building a body of supporting evidence.

This leaves empiricism. It seems to me that most truth we recognise is of this type. Science is able to prove a surprisingly small number of things, many of them trivial, so the vast majority of what we recognise as undisputed truth is actually empirical.

So, in conclusion, I think that truth as we understand it is generally provisional, we hope that it corresponds with reality (knowing it would be worthless if it didn't), but we can't be sure.

[Playfishpaste]

And reality is what corrsponds with truth?

Someone said: true is that which is useful. As such, truth is present only where minds are present.

It's interesting that the implication there is that minds are the only things which matter.

[Time Commander Bob]

Poll options are too limited as one may be an anti-Realist about some truths and a Realist about others. For example, I may hold the view that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 m/s to everyone but on the other hand think that morality is relative to the individual. Truth doesn't just include statements that can be proven (either through logic or experience) but concepts that we have created ourselves (or some may say "discovered").

[Ummon]

It's interesting that the implication there is that minds are the only things which matter.

Actually, obviously, minds are one of the things which matters, because for something to matter, a mind is required, and surely, a mind is the only thing accessible to itself.

But on the other hand, necessarily not the only thing which matters (although the foremost one), given that some thing happen to remain useful in time for all minds. This hints to a reality. Infact, reality is what many here intend as truth.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Truth is perfection, and as such, we can never really reach it. We will always, or at least should always, try to, however.

[Ummon]

And empiricism is infact, the road to useful solutions. Isn't knowledge only through action? How do you know water boils? How do you know the earth rotates?

Which knowledge ever would be possible without action? Or without anyone to see that action.