Witt

Witt :
No analytic proposition is factual.
No factual proposition is analytic.
No proposition is both.

John:
I don't agree with this because you have created a contradiction by making an analytic statement about facts! (or a factual statement about your analysis).

Of course, there are many analytic statements that involve facts.
(It's raining or It's not raining) is tautologous independent of the fact that it is raining or not.

The valid syllogisms are instances of necessary truths involving factual propositions.

John:
My POV is that unless you deliberately want contradictions (which must surely arise under some circumstances if you have more than one way of telling the truth) you need one "system" for determining the truth.

Truth is determined by the system that shows it.
Knowing is showing.
For example:
The rules of arithmetic determine if an arithmetic statement is true or false.

These truths are not dependent on any one mind, rather, any mind that can apply the rules of arithmetic can confim its truth.

John: One is free to select one's version of the truth - which is basically why I am a relativist and I subscribe to a POV that embraces an (conceptually) infinitely valued logic.

I don't agree that one is free to choose any version truth at all.
Not if we want to remain consistent with aprior knowledge.
Our collective understanding that '2+2=4' is testable, but subjective opinions eg. '2+2=5' are not testable.

The value of truths systems lies in the generality of application.
eg. we are not likely to revert to the physics of Aristotle, ever.

How is decision made with an (conceptually) infinitely valued logic?

Witt

John Page

But the system that shows it is the mind! I do not deny that systems are replicable so that "many minds think alike". Of course, though, some may think differently.

So if the mind uses the meta-system of arithmetic then arithmetic truths will result.
Degree of raining is a function of Saturated Vapor Pressure. Set thresholds for Rain and ~Rain. In between you have gradations of the truth of it raining from drizzle through cats and dogs to stairrods. In other words, the degree of truth comes from the degree of correspondence with the facts but, since a thing can only be itself, there is no absolute truth.

Cheers, John

Witt

Witt:
Truth is determined by the system that shows it.
Knowing is showing.

For example:
The rules of arithmetic determine if an arithmetic statement is true or false.

These truths are not dependent on any one mind, rather, any mind that can apply the rules of arithmetic can confim its truth.
---------------------------------------

John:
But the system that shows it is the mind!

The mind is where these systems reside, but, mind is not system.

John: I do not deny that systems are replicable so that "many minds think alike". Of course, though, some may think differently.

That we can each confirm a particular logical truth, by the system that shows it, demonstrates the objectivity of logical truth.
Ditto for empirical truths.
All truth is objective and it is not subjective.
Opinions are not truths unless they can be confirmed.

That opinion is truth is an illusion of subjectivity.
Opinions, without support as to its truth, have no value.

Thinking does not make it so!

Belief is *assumed* truth. Belief is not truth.

All systems of truth contain *beliefs* at their foundation: axioms rules of procedure, etc..

Witt:
(It's raining or It's not raining) is tautologous independent of the fact that it is raining or not.....
How is decision made with an (conceptually) infinitely valued logic?

John:
Degree of raining is a function of Saturated Vapor Pressure. Set thresholds for Rain and ~Rain. In between you have gradations of the truth of it raining from drizzle through cats and dogs to stairrods. In other words, the degree of truth comes from the degree of correspondence with the facts but, since a thing can only be itself, there is no absolute truth.

I see no degrees of truth. Raining comes in degrees but truth does not.

It seems that, the more we understand about each other's views the more we agree to disagree.

Cheers, Witt

John Page

How do you otherwise define mind?
....and truths can only be confirmed by employing axioms relevant to that system of truth-telling. Ergo, truths are not absolute - they are relative to the axioms and the propositions under study.

IMO the debate then proceeds to the topic of absolute objectivity as a necessary condition for any truth to be undubitable. This position is not available to us because we cannot get outside our own mind/brains.
For any proposition there will be some logics for which that proposition is true and some in which it is false. Take a look at Contraditions and Dialetheism , on the second page of which I propose the Law of Non-Identity etc.

True!

Cheers, John