Truth vs Fact.

[KCfromNC]

Based on the big mess they are making here the truth is self evident, wouldn't you say?

Wouldn't I say that it is your opinion? Yes, of course.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wouldn't I say that it is your opinion? Yes, of course.

Except for those pesky facts which assembled in one place yields the (gasp) godawful truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just like the big mess than guns are making means that it is a truth that they should be taken away from people. Simple, really.

No, the truth of the matter is that certain people should be taken away from society, not guns.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are an atheist, which is, to me, another name for humanist.

They're not quite the same, although I do consider myself a humanist by nature (but I'm not a Humanist, the explicit philosophical stance).

So whatever you take as a truth, I can always argue against it with a sound logic and reasoning.

I think it is true that I'm an atheist; it's true that I wrote this post; it's true that gravity is a force of attraction between masses; it's true that you said, "whatever you take as a truth, I can always argue against it with a sound logic and reasoning".

So what's your sound logical argument and reasoning against the truths above?

But you have to admit that your truth must be based on statistics. To you, it is not possible to have a 100% truth.

No, that's 100% false ; at the very least, analytic truths are 100% true by definition. But there are varieties of synthetic truth (as above) that I think are also 100% true.

For example, a murder for the benefit of the majority is not a crime, but is a heroic action.

That sounds like idealistic Utilitarianism. For me, whether I considered that to be true would depend entirely on the individual circumstances - and whether I considered it true or false I would be prepared to be persuaded otherwise by rational argument - there may be evidence I'm unaware of, or arguments I haven't considered.

Hilary Putnam suggested our truths are dependent on the way our personal and cultural conceptual schemas filter our experience of reality, but they are also constrained by the reality from which they are sourced (Joseph Margolis described it as, "Language is "worlded" and the world is "languaged""); however, this is not strict Relativism if the person or culture can recognise alternative conceptual schemas that are superior by its/his own criteria, and adopt them (the Relativist would simply say, "it's true/false for me, and that's an end to it"). Truths are dependent on the interpretation of fields of evidence, and so can be contradictory if the evidence or the interpretation differs between views.

I also agree with Margolis that, outside of analytic truths, the classical binary true/false analysis isn't sustainable, we need weakened truth values like 'probable', 'likely', 'possible', and qualified opinion. In particular, when we talk about human activities there may be many valid but differing views and truths concerning the same elements - for example, take art criticism, or sporting activities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who decides; "the way things out to be"?

Often it's the wrong people.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Often it's the wrong people.

Well, I'm glad you realize your truth-program is a big failure.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, I'm glad you realize your truth-program is a big failure.

Not so. The wrong people often take the wrong action based on an agenda or ideology, not the truth. The truth often 'hurts', and those people have an aversion to pain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not so. The wrong people often take the wrong action based on an agenda or ideology, not the truth. The truth often 'hurts', and those people have an aversion to pain.

'Fraid so. You defined truth like this:

Truth: The way things ought to be

Someone asked who decides the way things ought to be. You answered:

Often it's the wrong people.

So you're saying the wrong people are often deciding what the truth is. That doesn't sound good, and you don't even like it.

Of course, what you really mean is that the way things ought to be is the way that you, OldWiseGuy, want things to be. This of course, is pretty much the definition of an opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Often it's the wrong people.

Who decides, if it's the wrong people or not?

 

[juvenissun]

I think it is true that I'm an atheist; it's true that I wrote this post; it's true that gravity is a force of attraction between masses; it's true that you said, "whatever you take as a truth, I can always argue against it with a sound logic and reasoning".

This thread is perfect for this moment. What you said are FACTS. They have nothing to do with truth.

 

[juvenissun]

That sounds like idealistic Utilitarianism. For me, whether I considered that to be true would depend entirely on the individual circumstances - and whether I considered it true or false I would be prepared to be persuaded otherwise by rational argument - there may be evidence I'm unaware of, or arguments I haven't considered.

That is the best you can do. You may get a lot of support on that thought, but you definitely will get some oppositions. That is the quality of truth you can have. In other words, you can never have any absolute truth unless you abandon atheism.

Being a Christian, I enjoy a lot of absolute truth. They are not the truth I considered. They are the truth given. For example, "thou shalt not steal" is an absolute truth. No consideration or argument is needed.

 

[lesliedellow]

A proposition is both true and a fact if what it claims to be the case actually is the case. That is not always easy to determine, of course.

Something is a putative truth or fact if there is strong evidence that it is a putative truth or fact.

In determining whether something is a fact, conscious or unconscious presuppositions may be at work. Claiming that something is immoral, for example, presupposes the existence of some moral code. Failing to realise that they have unconscious, but different, presuppositions is a good way for people to end up talking past each other.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Facts are truths and truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This thread is perfect for this moment. What you said are FACTS. They have nothing to do with truth.

Seriously? But isn't truth commonly defined as, "in accordance with fact or reality" or even just "fact"?

E.T.A. as in the swearing in of witnesses: "I swear ... to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...". What is this if not swearing to recount only the facts?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Being a Christian, I enjoy a lot of absolute truth. They are not the truth I considered. They are the truth given. For example, "thou shalt not steal" is an absolute truth. No consideration or argument is needed.

That sounds pretty confident. Perhaps then you can respond to the Euthyphro Dilemma (paraphrased) - is it absolute truth because God says so, or does God say it because it is absolute truth? in other words, is the word of God absolute truth by definition, or are the absolute truths independent of God?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

'Fraid so. You defined truth like this:

Truth: The way things ought to be

Someone asked who decides the way things ought to be. You answered:

Often it's the wrong people.

So you're saying the wrong people are often deciding what the truth is. That doesn't sound good, and you don't even like it.

Of course, what you really mean is that the way things ought to be is the way that you, OldWiseGuy, want things to be. This of course, is pretty much the definition of an opinion.

I want things to be right, and that's the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Usually there is little difference between truth and fact when closely examined. Here I present what I consider to be an example of the difference.

It is a fact that immigrants seek a better life in America because of problems in their native lands.

It is the truth that they should stay and work to solve those problems in their native lands.

Note that the truth statement contains a moral element.

Comments or other examples?

You're confusing the "truth" for your opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's another.

Fact: The way things are (and so often sadly so).

Truth: The way things ought to be, i.e."We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

The problem is that in your examples of "truth" you cannot demonstrate them to be true. So how do you know?

 

[bhsmte]

I want things to be right, and that's the truth.

Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, others may not agree with what you think to be right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, others may not agree with what you think to be right.

That's probably why we're in the pickle we're in.