I am interested in finding out what Rat Skeps think "truth" is.

I would have liked to make this thread a poll question but then I imagined a myriad possible answers and decided to leave it to you to define your own meaning of 'truth.' I always thought of it as a simple enough question, but I have encountered some answers that I would have never considered. So, IN YOUR OWN words, please tell me what "truth" means to you. In lieu of a poll, I'd like to suggest we use the "Like" icon if we agree with a posters definition. In this way we don't keep repeating the same definitions. Once you have either contributed a definition or "Likes", I'm hoping you'll have comments about the various definitions that have been posted. I also hope to see a discussion breaking out whether or not it diverges.

I'll start us off with my definition:
truth - knowledge that is consistent with reality

Feel free to Like and amend as many definitions with which you agree.

And no, "A temporary ceasefire between enemies," is not a truth.

Horrid word ....should be banned entirely.

What ever is wrong with the word knowledge.

The unobtainable.

Indiana Jones said it best; "I deal in facts, if you want 'truth' the Philosophy department is down the hall."

BlackBart wrote:Indiana Jones said it best; "I deal in facts, if you want 'truth' the Philosophy department is down the hall."

And so the question was asked in the philosophy forum.

VazScep wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Indiana Jones said it best; "I deal in facts, if you want 'truth' the Philosophy department is down the hall."

And so the question was asked in the philosophy forum.

Is that a fact?

And when we have a reasonable definition of "truth," we can then move on to "Truth" and "Absolute Truth," as I am led to believe these are quite different.

Truth is that which can be shown to be "true" in so far that it is concordant with observable facts and data.

If you can't show something to be true, then there is no basis for considering something to be true.

Macdoc wrote:Horrid word ....should be banned entirely.

What ever is wrong with the word knowledge.

Why is it horrid?

If you think knowledge is a suitable replacement for 'truth', whatever makes truth 'horrid' would make 'knowledge' equally horrid.

surreptitious57 wrote:
One should understand the difference between objective and subjective truth as they are not the same

If truth to you is "objective and subjective," would you mind defining them?

Animavore wrote:The unobtainable.

So, you would say a 20 year old is 'truth?'

Arnold Layne wrote:And when we have a reasonable definition of "truth," we can then move on to "Truth" and "Absolute Truth," as I am led to believe these are quite different.

Fucking pessimist!

J/K

I know what you mean, I maybe should have put this topic in the debunking forum because that is likely what the thread evolves into... which was my goal.

I watched a video of a street epistemologist's encounter with a believer (several interviews actually) that clearly had some confusion as to what is and isn't truth. I wondered how many other 'definitions' were out there being misapplied. I hope you voted for a definition with a "Like?"

'Knowledge that is consistent with reality' seems like a pretty good definition. Perhaps 'appears to be consistent with reality' might be even better, since it might allow for subjectivity.

Another interesting one is the definition of knowledge as 'justified true belief'.

Though this can be said to be flawed in certain scenarios:

"After arranging to meet with Mark for help with homework, Luke arrives at the appointed time and place. Walking into Mark's office Luke clearly sees Mark at his desk; Luke immediately forms the belief 'Mark is in the room. He can help me with my logic homework'. Luke is justified in his belief; he clearly sees Mark at his desk. In fact, it's not Mark that Luke saw; it was a marvelous hologram, perfect in every respect, giving the appearance of Mark diligently grading papers at his desk. Nevertheless, Mark is in the room; he is crouched under his desk reading Frege. Luke's belief that Mark is in the room is true (he is in the room, under his desk) and justified (Mark's hologram is giving the appearance of Mark hard at work)."

In this case, Luke doesn't actually know where Mark actually is, even though he is correct that he is in the room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_p ... rue_belief

archibald wrote:'Knowledge that is consistent with reality' seems like a pretty good definition. Perhaps 'appears to be consistent with reality' might be even better, since it might allow for subjectivity.

Another interesting one is the definition of knowledge as 'justified true belief'.

Though this can be said to be flawed in certain scenarios:

"After arranging to meet with Mark for help with homework, Luke arrives at the appointed time and place. Walking into Mark's office Luke clearly sees Mark at his desk; Luke immediately forms the belief 'Mark is in the room. He can help me with my logic homework'. Luke is justified in his belief; he clearly sees Mark at his desk. In fact, it's not Mark that Luke saw; it was a marvelous hologram, perfect in every respect, giving the appearance of Mark diligently grading papers at his desk. Nevertheless, Mark is in the room; he is crouched under his desk reading Frege. Luke's belief that Mark is in the room is true (he is in the room, under his desk) and justified (Mark's hologram is giving the appearance of Mark hard at work)."

In this case, Luke doesn't actually know where Mark actually is, even though he is correct that he is in the room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_p ... rue_belief

So, a false perception that coincidentally happens to be consistent with reality is a truth?

PensivePenny wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:And when we have a reasonable definition of "truth," we can then move on to "Truth" and "Absolute Truth," as I am led to believe these are quite different.

Fucking pessimist!

J/K

I know what you mean, I maybe should have put this topic in the debunking forum because that is likely what the thread evolves into... which was my goal.

I watched a video of a street epistemologist's encounter with a believer (several interviews actually) that clearly had some confusion as to what is and isn't truth. I wondered how many other 'definitions' were out there being misapplied. I hope you voted for a definition with a "Like?"

Yep, pessimist!

I know what these metaphysical types are like, as slippery as a slippery eel can be.

I'm quite happy with the general definitions of truth. I don't think we seriously have a problem with it. It's just when these "types" come along saying ok, but you are making assumptions about the True Nature Of Reality when you define that "truth" that we start to have problems. That is basically saying that you think you know what truth is, but you can't prove it, and you may be wrong, which opens the door for any old shit.

Arnold Layne wrote:
Yep, pessimist!

Good! I was hoping you would take that as a compliment!

I know what these metaphysical types are like, as slippery as a slippery eel can be.

I agree. I may yet post the video that inspired this thread. It wasn't particularly illuminating, nor was it a proselytizer. It was just a woman that seemed very confused by what truth actually is. It wasn't something she'd thought about to any depth at all, yet her entire core view of the world and life relied on it! I know some believers will do all kinds of deliberate verbal gymnastics conflating words etc, but she wasn't doing that. A possible simple remedy occurred to me, that we teach the definition of "truth" in schools, especially comparing and contrasting it with 'belief'. The inability to differentiate between truth and belief seems like a severe failing of second grade education.

I'm quite happy with the general definitions of truth. I don't think we seriously have a problem with it. It's just when these "types" come along saying ok, but you are making assumptions about the True Nature Of Reality when you define that "truth" that we start to have problems. That is basically saying that you think you know what truth is, but you can't prove it, and you may be wrong, which opens the door for any old shit.

So am I (emphasis above). I started the thread because I wanted to see how far the definitions deviated from the dictionary. I didn't expect too much deviation considering the site's demographic, but there are some members who I anticipated providing me with some variations of 'truth.'

PensivePenny wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:
Yep, pessimist!

Good! I was hoping you would take that as a compliment!

I know what these metaphysical types are like, as slippery as a slippery eel can be.

I agree. I may yet post the video that inspired this thread. It wasn't particularly illuminating, nor was it a proselytizer. It was just a woman that seemed very confused by what truth actually is. It wasn't something she'd thought about to any depth at all, yet her entire core view of the world and life relied on it! I know some believers will do all kinds of deliberate verbal gymnastics conflating words etc, but she wasn't doing that. A possible simple remedy occurred to me, that we teach the definition of "truth" in schools, especially comparing and contrasting it with 'belief'. The inability to differentiate between truth and belief seems like a severe failing of second grade education.

I'm quite happy with the general definitions of truth. I don't think we seriously have a problem with it. It's just when these "types" come along saying ok, but you are making assumptions about the True Nature Of Reality when you define that "truth" that we start to have problems. That is basically saying that you think you know what truth is, but you can't prove it, and you may be wrong, which opens the door for any old shit.

So am I (emphasis above). I started the thread because I wanted to see how far the definitions deviated from the dictionary. I didn't expect too much deviation considering the site's demographic, but there are some members who I anticipated providing me with some variations of 'truth.'

I'd be surprised if you get them to engage. They are happy with it being "woolly."

Arnold Layne wrote:
I'd be surprised if you get them to engage. They are happy with it being "woolly."

You're probably right. I suspected as much, but I thought I'd try. I was hoping a non-confrontational approach might gain a response. Looks like I'll have to join a theist site and ask them to define truth.

PensivePenny wrote:So, a false perception that coincidentally happens to be consistent with reality is a truth?

Yes, I think that's the idea. And it's a justified true belief.

But is it knowledge? That type of example (and other similar ones*) suggests not (because Luke doesn't know where Mark is).

This seems to distinguish knowledge from truth.




* Such as the sheep scenario starting at 2:00 mins in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxgeQ9Jw-mk