seebs

I just gave an example. A true statement is one which accurately describes the thing it is about; if there are inconsistencies between a statement and the thing described, it's no longer true.

Without the idea that some statements are more accurate than others, we have no basis for any kind of science, because we can't make meaningful observations. An observation is a statement about reality; if we cannot distinguish between true ones and false ones, there's no meaning to "observation".

Starboy

seebs, can you tell me if this statement is true?

"This sentence is not true."

Starboy

Starboy

seebs, you ascribe to statements a property you call "truth". You then use the word "accurate" to describe this property. Best I can tell, your meaning is that the statements must match what is observed in order to be "true". Essentially the observer must be honest. Then you say something wacky. That an observation is a statement. It is not clear after that exactly what you are saying but it appears to be about honesty again.

seebs, we have been over this ground already. What you appear to be describing is honesty. Please try to be more concise. I am open to consider your arguments but you must try to make sense.

Starboy

seebs

No, it's not about *honesty*. It's about the question of whether or not "honesty" has any frame of reference. To be honest is to make statements you believe to be true. To have the concept of honesty, we must have the idea of "is this statement about your beliefs true".

Everyone here, but you, knows what truth is. If you wish to play games, you're welcome to, but it's not particularly persuasive.

No... What happens is, I describe something, then you change it until it's something else, and say that's what I'm describing. If you stop changing what I say, you'll do fine.

The reason we keep going over this ground is you keep repeating back *ANYTHING* but what I actually said, and then responding to what you made up, not to what I said.

I have double-checked (because one can never be too cautious), and it appears that what I'm saying does indeed make sense. If you don't understand it, well, there's only so much I can do.

So far as I can tell, you've decided to devote a lot of energy to trying to use any word but "truth", but you still can't escape the basic model. The concept of "honesty" implies that we can say whether or not a statement someone makes is honest, right?

Well, if that's the case, then, if we have a statement that is "honest", it would be true to say "this statement is honest", and false to say "this statement is dishonest". Similarly, if we have a stastement which is *not* honest, it would be true to say "this statement is dishonest", and false to say "this statement is honest".

All of the concepts you think I am "referring to" when I talk about truth are concepts which are *DEFINED IN TERMS OF* truth.

This is like arguing with someone who insists the natural number system has no number "1", and keeps saying "Oh, I see, you mean a half of a two, why don't you just say half of a two instead of using this ambiguous 'one' word."

The mere fact that you are making assertions suggests that, whether or not you are admitting it, you are using the concept of truth all the time. You say "we have been over this ground before". To bring all your favorite near-misses in, if we assume that you are honest, and that your statement is accurate, then the statement is true.

You seem to understand that the concept exists in formal logic. Formal logic, too, was derived from observation of the world.

seebs

Way to go! You've discovered paradox!

WOW!

It's amazing. It's almost like a borderline case where things are neither true nor not true. WOW! That's AMAZING!

And you know what?

It is *ONLY* interesting *AT ALL* because we understand that statements are, in general, capable of being true or false!

To answer the question: The sentence commits a category error of self-reference, and has no defined truth value. So?

"This sentence refers to the number one."

That one's true. No paradox, no problems; it's just true. No observation, no accuracy, no honesty, no nothing; just a true statement.

Sigh. To save you trouble:

"Starboy cannot self-consistently make this assertion."

seebs

I think I finally get it.

You're making straw men again.

When discussing supernaturalist worldviews, you brought up straw men about "cars posessed by demons".

When discussing "truth", you bring up paradoxes, as though they invalidate the concept.

You are trying to show that the various tools people use to understand the world must be bad because they aren't universal; because any given tool does not solve all problems. So, rather than addressing real belief systems involving the supernatural, in which a fairly restricted set of questions are given supernatural answers, you attack ludicrous strawmen where demons and ghosts are used for everything, and used in preference to other explanations. Rather than addressing the ways in which truth forms a basic part of our models of science, logic, math, philosophy, and just about everything else, you try to bring up a paradox, as though that invalidates the entire concept.

I have news for you. There is no universal tool(1). No one is expecting any one method of thought to solve all problems - except you, with your constant talk of a "modern ethos" that miraculously unites everything in "modern thought".

However, real people other than you are not expecting their belief systems to work this way. People who accept the supernatural for some things do not accept it for everything; they only believe that, if you don't accept it for some things, you are likely in error.

People who accept the idea of "truth" do not believe that every statement can necessarily be classified easily as true or false - only that some can, and that if you don't accept the idea of truth for some things, you are likely in error.

It's not supposed to be universal. It's supposed to be broadly useful, or even narrowly useful - or even just plain true. That's what models of the world are for. No one model covers everything; that's why we speak of "models", plural. Even rationality, the meta-model that unites so many, isn't useful for everything. You may not be old enough to legally try some of the things it's not useful for, but they're out there.

(1) Actually, I have a theory about one, but I am not ready to discuss it at this time, and am certainly not naming names.

Starboy

seebs, please do not bring up straw men. Your response includes comments made on completely different threads. You persist in insisting that I claim that "truth" is not applicable for anything even after I repeatedly explain that I only maintain that it is meaningless in regards to science. I give you a paradox regarding truth that has remained unsolved by the best philosophers and mathematicians of the last 2,300 years and you call it straw. When I try to understand what you are saying, you consistently respond to my questions with nonsense or sentences that lack clarity and precision. When I try to get you to present your ideas with clarity and precision you digress into tantrums of straw. As far as I can tell you insist that "truth" is important in science because without it we can't tell what is real. You completely ignore that determining what is real is the goal of science and that by making "truth" statements about reality a priori you assume what you are trying to discover.

Please seebs, if you can't get your point across why don't you just agree to disagree. It is becoming painfully obvious that it is not that you disagree with my point of view; it is that you are incapable of understanding it. I also suspect that I have gotten under your skin. That many of my comments have hit home, something that would be impossible to do if you had the conviction of your own beliefs. Unless you are willing to put some effort into doing your homework and understanding what you are talking about and stating what you understand with clarity and precision there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I have an out for you. If you recall at the beginning of this thread the topic of tolerance came up. In your own way you agreed that a tolerant person would agree to disagree and find common ground. Here is your big chance to demonstrate the efficacy of your Christian beliefs, to show that they do indeed have an effect on behavior. Let us see what you are made of.

Starboy

seebs

If they were your comments, then they're not straw men.

What you said was that the concept was "useless".

And, while science may not *produce* truths, it *relies* on them.

I call it irrelevant. The existence of a statement with no well-defined truth value hardly affects the question of whether or not "truth" is a useful concept.

No. Science is for *explaining* and *understanding* reality, and determining things *not yet known*. It depends on the assumption that the distinction between "a true statement about reality" and "a false statement about reality" is a meaningful one.

It is entirely possible that you have a point of view which I simply haven't understood. I find it unlikely; you use words just like people whose points of view I have been able to confirm (as well as one can) that I understand.

I don't "agree to disagree" because I enjoy debates. As long as you keep using phrases like "truth-mongering" and claiming that science does not *depend on* the concept of truth in some meaningful way, I'll keep arguing.

Suspect all you want.

Your comments haven't hit home; all you've done is misrepresent my position over and over, claim that you never said something you *did* in fact say, and carefully avoid the substance of any arguments you don't have a rebuttal for.

I leave it to the lurkers to speculate as to which of us has done his homework, or is speaking clearly.


I am willing to agree to disagree in the sense that I have no objection to people believing silly things different from the silly things I believe. However, if someone makes a statement that strikes me as verifiably false, I'll generally argue with it unless I have something better to do.

Judging by my PM box, the effect that my beliefs are having on my behavior is adequately understood, and if it's not the effect that would be most convenient to you, that's hardly a demonstration that it doesn't do what *I* want it to do.

Your argument here is bad science. You pick an outcome, and say "either there is this outcome, or no useful effect at all", but the outcome you've selected is hardly the one predicted by the theory you're trying to discredit. One might as well attack evolution on the grounds that, if evolution were true, people who swam a lot would develop gills; it has as much relevance to the theory.

Starboy

seebs, you are a hoot!