Francois Tremblay

"True" means that a proposition corresponds to reality. "False" means that a proposition does not correspond to reality.

As for how to attain money or good feelings, I'd say that'd be more in the province of ethics. To understand what values to use to attain anything, you need to understand how to find knowledge first, obviously.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Franc, you said
"True" means that a proposition corresponds to reality. "False" means that a proposition does not correspond to reality.

But earlier you wrote
Obviously an epistemic method cannot be proved true or false, since any proof requires an epistemic method. Much the same is true for any other method. You need to check if the premises are correct and validate the method in question.

These two statements appear to me to contradict each other. Obviously, if you take truth to be "producing reliable knowledge about reality," then if you can test an epistemic method against reality, you can determine whether it is true or not.

Further, without an epistemic method, how can you check if the premises are correct?

Since science uses are number of epistemic methods loosely grouped under "the scientific method," it seems clear that epistemic methods can be used to check each other.

Michael

Draygomb

Definitions are known by defining them. Truth is known to be true by definition. Logic is logical by definition. But some definitions are false. A contradiction of definitions indicates that one of the contradicting defintions is false.

The Method of Definition is valid by definition.

jpbrooks

This seems to bring us back to the question of "self validation". Can an epistemic method be broad enough in scope to include a way to test the "correctness" of its own basic assumptions?
Each statement that we assert as true assumes that we know how to differentiate what is true from what isn't. But it seems strange that, given this state of affairs, we cannot know whether the means by which we (assume that we) know truth is itself "correct".

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Vorkosigan

We have already established that. If you adopt as "truth" a test against reality, then the answer is "yes."

Each statement that we assert as true assumes that we know how to differentiate what is true from what isn't. But it seems strange that, given this state of affairs, we cannot know whether the means by which we (assume that we) know truth is itself "correct".

That depends on what standard of "truth" you adopt.

Michael

NialScorva

So, I can define your definition to be false, and we have conflicting definitions without a means to resolve them because I reject yours out of hand. A proposition is both true and false, and any means of resolving the conflict is both valid and invalid. How do you resolve this resolution problem?

Draygomb

NialScorva

Everyone would of course have to use the same definitions to get the same results.

Francois Tremblay

If I understand what you are saying correctly, that is circular. How may one prove a method of proof ? Any notion of proof is based on some kind of method of proof. Furthremore, to test a method against reality would presume knowledge of reality without a means to have knowledge, which is a contradiction.

To give you an example, let's say I pretend to have divine revelation, and that's how I come to know everything. If I am asked for proof, what can I say ? God told me I was right ? That's circular. I must validate my method by metaphysical means (which in the case of revelation is of course impossible).

Vorkosigan

If I understand what you are saying correctly, that is circular. How may one prove a method of proof ? Any notion of proof is based on some kind of method of proof.

Sure, but once you've adopted as your standard of truth "reliable and useful knowledge of the world" your methodology becomes provable......

Furthremore, to test a method against reality would presume knowledge of reality without a means to have knowledge, which is a contradiction.

Not at all. The "proof" of an empirical method lies in its ability to consistently produce the same result for the same experiment/observation, and the intersubjectivity (as Nialscorva is fond of pointing out) that enable researchers to validate each others' results. "Reliable and useful knowledge of the world" is a provisional standard of truth, lower than the one you are apparently demanding. You seem to be asking for the kind of proof that is available only in mathematical constructions, were the axioms are assumed. Perhaps we should be discussing levels of proof...

Michael

Francois Tremblay

No it doesn't. I've already told you why - it is circular to prove a method of proof. You can only validate a methodology, not prove it.


No, you are the one who is proposing some kind of transcendent notion of what is true, as a standard ("testing against reality"). I have repeatedly emphasized (especially to Adrian) that this is quite unrealistic to say the least.