Talk:Truth/Archive 3

List of accepted definitions of truth

Following is a list of all the accepted definitions of truth that have been suggested so far.

1. Truth is conformity to fact and actuality. – mixes two distinct definitions. Which is acceptable.
2. Truth is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. – circular True is not the same as truth
3. Truth is sincerity – not propositional: ie, uses a different sense of truth. So change it to truth is the quality of sincerity (Different sense than what?

Used with the illocutionaryforce of a commendation Banno 09:05, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

1. Truth is integrity. – not propositional: ie, uses a different sense of truth Different sense than what

Used with the illocutionaryforce of a commendation Banno 09:05, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

1. Truth is fidelity to an original or standard. – not the sense of truth that is needed Banno doesnt set the standard sense of truth that is needed I'm sure he doesn't claim to "set" the standard sense. But this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. As a TOPIC, truth is something that is applied to things with a subject-predicate structure, such as propositions, sentences, etc. So Banno is right: truth meaning fidelity to a standard is not the sense of truth that an encyclopedia article would be about.
2. Truth is reality – unacceptable to Coherentism amongst others No coherentism requires truth to be acceptable to reality The point is that coherentism makes truth a function of a propositions relations with other propostions, not its relation to reality.
3. Truth is actuality. – unacceptable to Coherentism amongst others You dont understand coherentism (this is perfectly acceptable)
4. Often truth is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. - nonsense no it often is considered in such a way "Truth has the value of existence" makes no sense.
5. Truth is how things are. – Thank you, Wittgenstein. Insipid, but I could live with this. Your own personal preference doesnt prove anything
6. Truth is knowledge which conforms to reality, thus what truth means depends on the corresponding meanings which are used for knowledge and reality. – unacceptable to Coherentism amongst others You dont understand coherentism (this is perfectly acceptable) The point is that coherentism makes truth a function of a propositions relations with other propostions, not its relation to reality.
7. Absolute truth, is certain knowledge of ultimate reality. - nonsense just because you dont get it? Just because it is not intelligible English.
8. For ordinary human purposes, truth is knowledge gained by a reliable method about some aspect of reality which is observable – assumes realism; does not account for logical truths Every word assumes realism you arent proving anything by arguing against reality
9. Truth is accuracy. – too restricted. An accurat lie would count as a truth. This assumes that you have seen another definition - ie. Truth is accuracy when truth is correspondence with reality
10. (Truthfulness) is honesty. – not propositional: ie, uses a different sense of truth No it uses another word not a different "sense"
11. Truth is correspondance with reality. (correspondence theory of truth) – unacceptable to Coherentism amongst others Why must you use coherentism as a rebbutal to everything - you obviously dont understand it
12. Truth is a redundant logical function. Is true on this account means the same as is. To assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. (deflationary theory of truth) - not acceptable to correspondence theorists or Coherentists. No this has nothing to do with correspondence theory or coherentists
13. Truth is a function in a metalanguage. It states that a sentence is true only if its translation is true in the metalanguage. (semantic theory of truth) - thanks, Tarski. This is a good definition, but too formal for use. No this isnt really a definition at all it just examines its use in language. A definition is an association.
14. Truth is coherence with some set of statements (coherence theory) – unacceptable to correspondence theorists No actually if you can define reality with a set of statements you have the exact same theory (perfectly acceptable)
15. Truth is something agreed upon by some social group. – unacceptable to Coherentists and correspondence theorists Your answer to everything (dont use what you dont understand)
16. Truth is the success of the practical consequences of an idea, i.e. its utility.(Pragmatism) - unacceptable to correspondence theorists Have you heard of mechanism (mechanism is reality). Dont give me this same argument again and again.
17. Truth is an (attribute, characteristic, property, or quality) that can be borne by sentences, propositions, statements, ideas, beliefs, and judgments. – not a definition of truth. I agree, but just as much a definition as the metalanguage one
18. For ordinary human purposes, truth is knowledge gained by a reliable method about some aspect of reality which is observable. - Assumes realism and empiricism You have to assume reality (go tell some other page that their definition is unacceptable because it assumes there is reality)
19. In law, truth is a good faith attempt to recount memory of something. When you are asked to testify at law truthfully, this is what is being asked for; not absolute truth. – too limited. Limited to law (have you ever heard of context - see mercury)
20. Objective truth is objective correspondence with reality free of cognition or any such frame of reference. Theories that apply to objective truth are: correspondence theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth, and semantic theory of truth. – simply not true I dont think you even read this (or should I say "simply true")
21. Relativistic truth is correspondence with reality with respect to a frame of refence (ie, a group of statements). Theories that apply to relativistic truth are: correspondence theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth, semantic theory of truth, and epistemic theories of truth. – simply not true I dont think you even read this (or should I say "simply true")
22. Generally truth (also called objective truth or ontological truth) is objective correspondence with reality. It can be a redundant logical function; the statement is truth often is redundant with is. Truth is a function in a metalanguage; a sentence is true only if its translation is true in the metalanguage. – simply not true I dont think you even read this (or should I say "simply true")
23. In some cases truth (also called relativistic truth or epistemological truth) is correspondence with reality relative to the frame of reference that characterizes it. In these cases truth depends on what is known. When the frame of reference is a certain set of statements, truth is coherence with these statements. When the frame of reference is a a community or social group, truth is something agreed upon by this group. When the frame of reference is a particular process or mechanism, truth is defined as a statement with useful application in that mechanism. – simply not true I dont think you even read this (or should I say "simply true")
24. Truth is the only word that can not be associated with a meaning.– simply not true hence the strikethrough
25. Truth is neutrality and factual accuracy (totally disputed message) – simply not true: truth is far from neutral. By neutral it means unbiased - truth is not biased
26. Truth is the belief that language can be used to make meaningful statements about the world. Not a definition yes it is a definition (may not be a good one but nonetheless)
27. See [1]. (Go tell all these dictionaries to remove their definitions)

Working through the impasse

The only way in which I can see the issues here being resolved is if we make explicit in the article itself what it is that is causing the problem. That is, the only way to avoid the accusation of POV is to express each POV in the article in the third person.

The best place to do that is of course on this talk page. We need to focus not on what we see as the solution, but on working out exactly what the problem is.

So I invite each contributor to write what they see as the problem with the article, in the third person and in as few words as possible. Note that I am not asking you to write out how you think the article should start, but what you see as bringing about the present difficulties. Banno 21:58, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that some people think that truth can not be defined, despite the long list of definitions given above. Bensaccount 22:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who holds this view? If you hold this view, please list your name here.

part of the problem is some folk's failure to understand that there is no need to begin the article with a definition, precisely BECAUSE of that long list! That is a list of possible POVs. One can give such a list in the body of the article, but one shouldn't start off the article by taking one or some compromise formulation out of them and calling it THE definition. --Christofurio 23:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Who thinks that there is no need to start the article with a definition?

• Banno, for one.
• Aye, aye. -Seth Mahoney 22:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't slip back into the habbit of simply criticising each other's work. Keep on eye on the goal of working to express the problem.Banno 00:20, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Wiki standard is to have a short definition at the start of an article. If we do not follow that standard, we need to be clear about the reason. Banno 00:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

• What reasons can anyone give for not following that standard?
  • Truth is a slippery subject. Actually, based on the articles I've read it really isn't the Wiki standard to start with a short definition (at least in practice) but with a paragraph that introduces you to the topic. -Seth Mahoney 22:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One type of page that does not have a definition at the start is a disambiguation page.

• What reason can anyone give for truth being a disambiguation page?
  • We already have several articles on various approaches to truth. -Seth Mahoney 22:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• What reasons can anyone give for it not being a disambiguation page?
  • Truth is a big, important topic. -Seth Mahoney 22:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• In order for truth to become a disambiguation page, what would have to change?

Banno 00:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Definitions are not POVs. (Dont delete my comments Banno). Bensaccount 00:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I deleted it because I could not see how it helps us to reach a consensus about what should happen with the page. My apologies if it was important. Banno 00:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Since definitions are not biases there is no reason why giving one or combining some to give a definition should not be done. Bensaccount 02:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

so my new intro will be acceptable to you, since it provides a definition and is therefore NPOV. Good.Banno 03:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I love the new opening. I'm a worshipper of Zarquan myself! By the way, no, I don't think truth should be a disambiguition page. The problem isn't ambiguity, its the difficulty of rendering an ostensive definition in textual form. Some things can only be defined by pointing and saying "there"! In effect, this is what happens with truth in our youth. We learn how to use the word through examples, just as we learn the distinctive smell of burnt toast. This is ALSO the reason why there is no point starting with a definition (except the one about Zarquan). --Christofurio 03:35, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ok let me reword that. Just being a definition alone does not mean it is unbiased, but being an accepted definition does mean it is unbiased. Bensaccount 03:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is it to be 'accepted'? Do you mean definitions you like? Ones we vote for in some forum? Or do you mean we should accept only true definitions of truth? I know that everything that comes out of the mouth of Zarquan is true, because she spat out a clay table last week, and on it was writ: everything that comes out of the mouth of Zarquan is true. So it is an accepted definition. Banno

How long, Ben, until you abandon this feeble line of argument? Banno 10:29, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ben, (p⇒q)&(q⇒r)⇒(p⇒r) is true, No? according to your definition, it must therefore be about some aspect of reality which is observable. In what way is it observable? Banno 11:31, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should use the lack of a universally accepted definition of truth as material. For example, a discussion of circular definitions. Another article could be derived from some of the identity definitions, e.g. truth is reality, and the problems with such definition. Perhaps a header "What is truth", a throwaway link to Pontius Pilate, a statement that there is no universally accepted definition, then a discussion of why, giving definitions and the authority for them and criticisms of them. Fred Bauder 11:52, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Another good compromise position ? well done, Fred. I would be quite happy with this arrangement. Ben, care to respond? Banno 21:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I?ve had a go at Fred?s solution. It is phrased in as insipidly as possible, not even committing to multiple definitions (hence ?may be no single definition?). I?ll refer the other issues to the Philosophy project ? the articles on definition could do with some work. Banno 22:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that basic outline, too. -Seth Mahoney 22:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Zarquan definition is not accepted by anyone except Banno and Christ. The other definitions are accepted by everyone (including dictionaries). By accepted I mean undisputed. Bensaccount 13:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This appears to be the problem. Ben, you think that:

• it is possible to give a definition of truth that is accepted by everyone.
• Furthermore, it is important to give such a definition.

Am I correct? I suspect that you are the only person here who thinks this. So let?s ask the question. If anyone else agrees with these two statements, let us know. Banno 22:04, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is possible to give a definition that is accepted by everyone. I know that the list above may contain some incorrect definitions, but it also contains many correct and accepted definitions. Bensaccount 22:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, Ben. Perhaps we could compromise by leaving the intro as is, and you could present any candidate definitions here. Banno 22:39, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I could, but your most recent intro passage is acceptable by me. Bensaccount 23:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Perhaps now the dispute banner could be removed. Seth, was it you who placed it? Banno 23:23, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. At least, if I did, I've completely blocked it out and can't think of a single reason why I might have done so. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've infrequently monitored this discussion re:intro for some time. From what I've seen so far, I support Banno's latest edit which seems to be going in the right direction. It is not "possible to give a definition that is accepted by everyone". Banno's comments following the definitions listed above show well why it is problematic to characterize those definitions as "accepted" or "correct". It would make more sense to characterize them as "commonly used" meanings/definitions, but whatever... The latest intro obviates the burden of presenting at the beginning of the article an exhaustive list of all the meanings for whtich speakers use the word "truth" or "true". B 16:32, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

No it is possible to give a definition that is accepted by everyone. It is not possible to give a single definition that includes all the meanings of truth because they depend on the different contexts "truth" is used in (permutations). Bannos comments about the definitions above are mostly unintelligible ("simply not true"). Bensaccount 19:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Urm, Ben, you seem to be the only one who thinks that Banno's comments about the definitions above are mostly unintelligible. Perhaps it would behoove you to reread the debate more critically? -Seth Mahoney 21:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, but perhaps it would be appropriate for you to reread the comments, for they are poorly articulated at best. Saying that a definition "simply is not true" is not much of a debate. The coherence theory does not prove that accepted dictionary definitions are incorrect or unaccepted. Those comments do not "show well why it is problematic to characterize those definitions as "accepted" or "correct". " I think that at the very least it would be necessary to use full sentences for such a purpose. Bensaccount 22:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ben is quite right, but the comments are not intended to be counterarguments to each point. I wished only to form some sort of classification of them in terms of the problem they present. But if you wish to pick any particular point, I will be happy to give a more involved account of the objection. Banno 23:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I want to thank Ben for drawing my attention to two difficulties. The first is the two distinct uses of truth ? with the illocutionary force of a assertion, and with the illocutionary force of a commendation. I have incorporated this into the article. Banno 23:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The other was that the misunderstanding he expresses of coherentist theories leads me back to an unhappiness I felt when I wrote that body of the present version of that article. In the last section, it attempts to deal with the relationship between coherence and correspondence. In doing so, it mixes terms from both, and so it is possible for the philosophically naïve reader to think that one of the goals of coherentism is correspondence. Of course, it isn?t, but this is not as clear in the article as it should be. I?ll go back and re-write that section. Banno 23:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I?ve now attempted to integrate the misunderstanding expressed by Ben into the Coherentism article. In essence, if the article is written correctly, it should not be possible for someone to think that Coherentists could define truth in terms of correspondence. Comments welcome. Banno 00:41, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

relativistic truth

What about relativistic truth? Wikiwikifast 14:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wiki, I don't see how your material on relativistic truths fits were you have placed it. It expands a bit on the material on epistemological truths, so wouldn't it be better in ==Theories of truth==? Also, I have not seen the term relativistic truths used in this context befor. Can you cite an example? thanks. Banno 01:19, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I had copied and pasted it from the old 'truth' archives. I thought you were the one who had written it. Also, I don't like the definition of relative truth you added underneath it — relativistic truth != subjective truth. Moreover, the relativist fallacy does not refute relativism. See relativist fallacy. --Wikiwikifast 02:51, 26 Apr 2004

(UTC)

No, I don’t think it is mine – unless I was editing someone else’s stuff. I don’t see how you read what I wrote as equating subjective and relativistic truth, or are you saying that you claiming they are the same? And finally, the article does not say that the relativist fallacy refutes relativism. I was very careful to word it so that a reader would be tempted to check out the link, and possibly be surprised by what they find – as it appears you were. Anyway, B. might have a point. The article was looking good until we (I ) started on this section. Perhaps we should just delete it.Banno 04:51, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've had another go at editing this section. There are still issues here, and I’m a bit surprised that an edit war has not erupted over the various meanings of the many terms. I would not object to the removal of this section – it links mostly to general epistemic theories that a reader would find by following other links, and the linked articles are for the most part brief and not especially useful. Banno 22:57, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

misuse of language

Muse (or rather Misuse) of language, mourn the multiplying of obfuscating and duplicative terms: "relativistic truth", "objective truth", "subjective truth", "absolute truth". Ugh. B 03:21, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

1. Clarity requires terms for different uses.
2. You should be specific in your complaint. If you have a problem, try and explain clearly and exactly what it is (dont give an "obfuscating" poem). Bensaccount 04:04, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between objective and absolute truth, but 'subjective' has different connotations from 'relative'. Subjectivism doesn't seem to require coherency. --Wikiwikifast 04:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)