Talk:Truth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archived Banno 21:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Consensus Theory of Truth

I just de-Larrified (I hope) the entry on the Consensus Theory of Truth.

A couple of things bother me, though:

1) I cannot think of any academic who seriously advances any strong version of this theory of truth, especially as regards the physical world. Could someone point me to some, if they exist?

It is reasonably common amongst social theorists (no surprise there, perhaps...) see http://www.rechten.unimaas.nl/metajuridica/verheij/teaching/defarg/discourse/sld025.htm) Banno 20:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I believe Ludwig Wittgenstein advanced a "consensus" theory of truth in his Philosophical Investigations. To me, the consensus theory of truth seems to be a subset of the relativistic theory of truth. Wikiwikifast 00:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aphorisms of the Later Wittgenstein:

"So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?"—It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life (PI #241).

If language is to be a means of communication there must be agreement not only in definitions but also ... in judgments (PI #242).

--Wikiwikifast 23:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some variant of this view is popular among sociology undergrads (and sociologist in general, I am afraid), first year philosophy students, and the pop culture in general. But is there anyone who actually subscribes to this view by this name?

2) I am unhappy with my explanation of how other theories of truth allow fallibilism but do not imply it. If someone can clean that part up I will be very happy, and will buy you an espresso should you ever come to the Ottawa area. --Michael Voytinsky

First impression

When I came to this page I wanted to know what is truth. What did I get? The page asked me what is truth. This is useless. I answered the question so that other users wont be similarly frustrated. Bensaccount 13:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what constitutes 'truth' - so this article presents different views of truth. A statement in the form of 'Truth is X' is not likely to be NPOV.

Your addition - "Truth is correspondence to reality" - is not actually very helpful, unless you can explain what contitutes correspondence to reality, not to mention what reality is. Otherwise this seems a lot like a circular definition.

Is it true that the square root of -4 is 2i? Of course it is, but what is the reality that this corresponds to? Is it true that most cats have four legs? Sure it is, but that seems to be a very different kind of truth, corresponding to a different kind of reality.

If you want to be helpful, try something like, "A common view of truth is that truth is correspondence to reality. However, since there is no agreement on what constitutes a correspondence to reality, or what precisely is reality, this view does provide much of an answer." - Michael Voytinsky 14:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Correspondence to reality

Firstly, reality is everything that exists. Reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that there is, whether or not it is observable, accessible or understandable by science, philosophy or any other system of analysis.

I dont think I need to define correspondence do I?

Therefore "Truth is correspondence to reality" is not a circular definition. (If reality were truth it would be).

Secondly, I dont want a common views I want to know what truth is and I want it in the opening. Bensaccount 14:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "correspondence to reality" definition of truth corresponds most closely to the truth as descriped under the Correspondence Conception of Truth heading in the article. There are other, equally prominent, conceptions of truth discussed as well. It is highly non-NPOV to select one of them as being "The Truth about Truth", as you seem to be doing here.

As to your question, yes, you do need to define correspondence. The reason there are different conceptions of truth is because there are different ideas about correspondence and reality.

Let me give you some examples in a Quixotic attempt to correct your naive realism:

1) "Orcs hate elves"

Is this a true statement? It certainly does not correspond to reality, since orcs do not really exist. Yet I hesitate to say that it is a false statement.

2) The square root of negative four is 2i.

What exactly does this correspond to?

3) "Most dogs hate cats"

This is an unproblematic statement from naive realism perspective, and it is undeniably true.

Now if we assume that statement #1 is also true, this implies that dogs and orcs orcs are capable of hate - which means that imaginary and real beings are both capable of hate. Imaginary beings are capable of hate? Huh?

So it seems that there is more to "truth" than "correspondence" to "reality". - Michael Voytinsky 18:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. There is more to truth than correspondence to reality. However saying that truth is correspondence to reality is better than saying that the meaning of truth has been "debated". Use what you have, not what has been debated. Later on you can get into that which is debated. Bensaccount 19:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right in in that an article should start with a definition of some sort, even if there is no agreement on a precise definition.

How about starting the article with:

Truth is correspondence with reality. What constitutes sufficient correspondence, and well as the question of what is real, is much debated by theologians, philosophers, and logicians. - Michael Voytinsky 19:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. Bensaccount 20:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it won?t do, either. If this is to be a serious philosophical article, then it must acknowledge and not give preference to any of the theories of truth. Virtually all theories of truth since the Tractatus have combined consistency with coherence. And what of T-sentences, pragmatism, and so on?It is certainly not NPOV to have the correspondence theory used as the definition of truth.

There is no point in putting in a definition at the beginning if there is no general agreement on what that definition might be.

What about : the quality of being consistent with the facts. Or, more in keeping with Tarski: Something is true if and only if it is the case?Banno 20:53, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

There is agreement on what truth is. Do you think that nobody who uses the word truth knows what they are talking about? If its a word, it has a meaning. Bensaccount 22:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you want to use facts instead of reality then you have to go to fact and fix the definition (fact is truth). I would stick with reality unless you have a reason not to. Bensaccount 22:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason was given above ? in the examples from Michael. That orcs hate elves is true, and it is consistent with the facts. But explaining how it corresponds to reality is problematic.

A more common example in the literature is ?Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker St?. This is a true statement. Yet if one were to go to 221b Baker St, one would find that it does not correspond to reality.

Now, we could enter into a long discussion of the merits or otherwise of the argument, but if this is needed in order to support the definition in the article, wouldn?t it be simpler to give a better definition.

And, if, as you claim, there is agreement on what truth is, then why bother including a definition at all?

This is basic epistemology. The article itself lists more than a half-dozen theories of what truth is. Only one of these claims it is correspondence with reality. It is simply POV to give that one definition at the head of the article. Surely that is all there is to this discussion?

Banno 02:49, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

You have to put these so called truths into context for them to be truth. In a fictional novel, Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker St. This is true. Saying that there was a detective named Sherlock Hokmes who lived at 221b Baker St is not true.

Just because something is agreed upon does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Go delete multiplication.

Truth is correlation with reality. Bensaccount 03:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You appear to be in the middle of an overhaul of the page. I was disappointed to see that you have removed so much without explanation. But on the assumption that you will explain yourself, I will be courteous and refrain from editing for a while.

However, I have replaced the NPOV banner you removed. This should remain until the dispute is settled. Please, since it was not you who placed the banner, have the curtesy not to remove it unilaterally.

Your initial paragraphs are not NPOV. You present the correspondence theory as if it were established. It is not. The encyclopaedia is not the place to decide this issue, but merely to report it. Until the article is written in such a way that it does not favour one of the numerous theories of truth, the banner should remain. Banno 21:18, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Do not refrain from editing. If you think you can make a contribution or argue a point go right ahead and stop me in my tracks. I would much prefer this to waiting until im done and then reverting.

My initial paragraphs are NPOV. I do not present a theory, I define truth. There may be numerous theories but there is only one definition. Bensaccount 23:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV problem #1: To say that truth is correspondence with reality is to implicitly accept the correspondence theory of truth. Yes, you present a definition of truth, but one that is compatible only, or at least primarily, with the correspondence theory of truth. This of course biases the article

POV problem #2: To say that truth is correspondence with reality is to implicitly accept realism. Again, your definition of truth is compatible only, or at least primarily, with realism. Again, this biases the article.

The only way to resolve this that I can see is to admit that there is no received definition of truth, and point the reader to the various theories. Banno 05:44, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there is no meaning to associate with the word truth. Good thing you pointed that out, a lot of people use the word thinking it has a meaning. I will put that in the intro. Bensaccount 15:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What? Banno 21:15, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Two contexts for truth

Relativistic and objective truths are used in different context. Objective is the one generally used.

In some cases truth is correspondence with reality relative to the frame of reference that characterizes it. (eg. colour is objective truth for most people but is non-existant for color-blind people, so it could be considered a relativistic truth.)

I so agree with this. Well said. However, I don't think it makes sense to have a wikipedia article on 'truth'. Maybe the 'truth' page should say something like, "See philosophy of truth." and have all these theories under "philosophy of truth"? Wikiwikifast 00:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just because something is agreed upon does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Bensaccount 02:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean not agreed upon? I find it bemusing that there is an article on 'truth' because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV, and the concept of NPOV assumes there is such thing as objective truth. --Wikiwikifast 16:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not assume that there is such a thing as objective truth (which is just as well, since there isn?t). To be NPOV is not to state the truth, but simply to report what people claim is the truth. Banno 23:18, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didnt mean that at the time because you made it seem like it was agreed upon. NPOV is not about truth its about bias, make your point a little clearer. Bensaccount 16:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is one NPOV problem that I see: The article is biased if it only shows objective truth and leaves out relativistic truth. Bensaccount 17:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Now that the article has been changed, it seems NPOV to me. --Wikiwikifast 17:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Generally truth (also called objective truth) is objective correspondence with reality. (eg. gravity is objective truth because everyone perceives it the same.)

Huh? I, for one, don't know what it means to say that everyone perceives gravity the same. If the word "perceive" is taken literally, as a phenomenon involving both physiology and psychology, then the statement seems to be false. Astronauts in orbit don't "perceive it" the same as they did while accelerating in the seconds after lift-off, and those of us earthbound sots don't perceive it either way. Furthermore, small creatures -- bugs capable of skimming across the surface of water, for example, may be said to be "perceiving" gravity in a way that us larger folk can only dimly imagine.

If by "perceive" you actually mean "conceive," then subsequent to Einstein the conceptions of gravity have been somewhat different than what they were in the earlier period. Newton conceived gravity in a way different from those before him.

Furthermore, I'm not at all sure what all of this has to do with objectivity and/or relativity. The two are not properly contrasted with each other, BTW. The opposite of objective is subjective, the opposite of relative is absolute.

--Christofurio 20:20, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

They are different but not opposite contexts. Objective truth is accepted by everyone in its frame of reference. Relativistic truth is accepted by some of the people but not all of the people in its frame of reference. I know the definitions and examples I gave arent the best, but the point is that there is a distiction to be made between the two types of truth, and the one generally used is objective. Bensaccount 22:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A proposition can be "objectively" true only pursuant to some specific frame of reference, and consequently is "relative" to that. I don't see the distinction you're trying to make here. Are you trying to say that all scientists now alive accept a single post-Einsteinian conception of gravity, which is why you call the law of gravity objectively true? That is a very grand and POV title to give to the mere (and possible very temporary) fact of consensus!

I agree. The only other way "objective" truth could mean is that it is outside any POV, outside any frame of reference. Which is nonsensical. Gravity is an "objective" truth only because of "consensus" in science. There is no objectivity in science; only inter-subjectivity. --Wikiwikifast 17:05, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clarity

I clarified this article. After seeing this article im slightly biased towards deflationism. Bensaccount

Assuming there is reality

Just because something assumes there is reality is no reason why it should not be defined. Bensaccount 17:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definition

In defining truth one invariably takes sides on epistemological and ontological issues. - Banno

If you can provide the two definitions that take the two different sides then do so, and those are the definitions that should be displayed. If you can not, this statement is incorrect. Bensaccount 17:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You will find several examples of theories that do not assume realism in the article. Is that what you seek?

No; all these theories are based on a given definition of truth and do not dispute it. They merely describe components of truth.

Don't understand the use of a given definition here. Do you mean that they agree with your given definition of truth, (they don't) or that they each agree with their own definitions of truth? Banno 22:43, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

You put them in definiton form. Excellent edit. Major improvement in clarity. Now I will rethink my argument. Bensaccount 22:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Banno 22:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you might do me the curtesy of explaining what you found objectionable in the introductory paragraph of mine that you removed? Then we might be able to work towards a mutually acceptable position. Why do you insist on ascribing to me a position that I do not hold?

Two things:

1. In defining truth one invariably takes sides on epistemological and ontological issues.
2. The reality issue (see above)

Your overall editing reduced the size of the article and the topic much clearer. Well done. Banno 21:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks & thanks for your input. Bensaccount 22:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Intro

A commonly held view is that objective truth is objective correspondence with reality. But this common-sense notion of truth makes at least two assumptions: firstly, that there is something real that is external to the observer ? an assumption that is denied, for instance, by phenomenology. And secondly, that there is some sense in which a statement or other truth bearer can be said to correspond to that reality ? an assumption that has faced criticism by many philosophers.

What exactly is the second assumption? Bensaccount 22:10, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is: What exactly do you mean by corresponds? The problem of correspondence is related to the problem of reference. One might say, for example, that the statement ?resembles? the fact. But clearly the statement ?I am sitting on a chair? does not resemble me sitting on a chair ? they are completely different. To put it another way, how is it that a fact differs from a statement of that fact? For a detailed account, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#9.2 Banno 22:58, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Truth is a quality that can be attributed to sentences, propositions and statements.

Noooooo! Truth is not a property. --Wikiwikifast 05:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Wikiwikifast, why do you keep changing my "?" into "?"  ? Not that I mind, I am just interested... Banno 05:38, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC))

I'm not doing it on purpose. Maybe it's my browser or something that doesn't recognize the special quotation characters? --Wikiwikifast 01:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, it happened again! I can do "`" because it's on my keyboard... Hmm, I'm using Opera (browser); I wonder if that's the reason... --Wikiwikifast 01:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Correspondence

Correspondence is a word for comparing two things that each can vary. When they vary in the same way then they correspond.

Written language corresponds with reality. When reality varies, written language can vary in the same way or in a different way. When it varies in the same way, there is correspondence between it and reality.

Your reference doesnt mention correspondence it only does the "first assumption". Bensaccount 23:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You still havent said what the second assumption is. Bensaccount 23:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have said what the second assumption is, twice, but perhaps I am making too many assumptions of background knowledge. Thanks for asking for clarification.

The first assumption is the ontological one ? that there is a real world.

The second is the epistemological one. That is, it has to do with knowledge. It is both stronger and more widely accepted than the ontological objection. ?Truth is correspondence with reality? assumes that, to quote from the Stanford article cited above, ?(w)e would... access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it?. This is certainly an epistemological assumption of the highest order. The article continues with the opinion (which is not widely questioned by philosophers and psychologists) that ?this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition?.

Clear enough? Banno 23:56, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Actually it has become clear to me that epistemological truth is the same as relativistic truth, it depends upon a frame of reference (be it human, or a group of statements). I will probably wake up tomorrow and wonder what I was thinking, but now it makes perfect sense to me. Bensaccount 00:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conflation

Don?t like these new edits, Ben. The structure is gone. Conflating the theories just makes the article unclear. Banno 00:02, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

So fix the structure and clarify it. (dont just say its unclear say how its unclear) Bensaccount 00:05, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kind of takes the fun out of philosophy when everything fits together so well doesnt it. Bensaccount 00:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You choose to confound rather than conflate. If you realize that your explanations are based on confounding people so they cant argue, you should go back to talk:truth/insults? Bensaccount 03:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These are not difficult arguments. OK, the banner stays, but I was happy to remove it for that last edit ? which was substantially due to you, not me. I?m a bit tired of the discussion. I though we were making progress, and you had certainly improved the article, but your last few edits are devoid of any structure or sense. I?ll leave it for a while; why don?t you take a look at some of the related articles in wiki and other stuff that is on the net? Banno 03:37, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Objective Truth?

Objective truth is objective correspondence with reality free of cognition or any such frame of reference. Theories that apply to objective truth are: correspondence theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth, and semantic theory of truth.

My God, I go away for a few days and this is what happens!? Gag me with a chainsaw!

For one thing, if we are to start with a definition of truth at all, we should start with one definition. In case of 'objective' and 'relative' truths, the definition should include that which they have in common. Great Ghu, doesn't anyone read Plato anymore?

Reality free of cognition and any such frame of reference? What in Anubis' name is that? Will we start seriously discussing the pros and cons of the Brain in a Vat hypothesis next? This view of reality and truth is so problematic and contraversial that it is not useful as a summary definition of truth, or even a kind of truth. Goddess have mercy on us!

I have just taken a look under 'truth' in my Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996 paperback edition). There is no entry there under 'truth'. There is 'truth-apt', 'truth-condition', 'truth-definition', etc. Perhaps this is the right approach. Maybe the WikiPedia truth page should be merely a disambiguation page, pointing to different pages, each with its own meaning of truth.

It is possible, after all, that the word 'truth' has many different meanings some of which are so distant from others that putting them under the same heading causes more confusion that it could possible resolve.

As to the earlier statement that since everyone uses the word 'truth', everyone clearly knows what it means. This is just silly. How many corporate managers that use the word 'paradigm' know what it means? How many people blithely talk about God but could not give you a workable definition if their lives depended on it? People talk about morality a lot, but ask them to define it, and if you are lucky, they will provide a list of moral and immoral actions instead. Tell them that you asked for a definition, not a list of actions, and they will look at you blankly like a bunch of retarded cows.

Bleah. - Michael Voytinsky 17:34, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Banno 21:01, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Silly would be to argue that the word "truth" has no meaning. Words always have meaning. It is their inherent nature. I agree that this should be a disambiguation page because there are more than one meanings to associate with truth. Bensaccount 18:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When a group of business executives talk about paradigms, do they know what that word means? (This is a rhetorical question.) So it is obviously possible to use a word without knowing its meaning.

When believers talk about God, how many of them could actually provide a definition? They might be able to list connotations of the concept, but most religious people are quite incapable of providing a reasonable definition of the concept.

So I am not sure if it is strictly speaking accurate to say that words always have meaning - unless you include "vague notion" to be a kind of meaning. - Michael Voytinsky 05:43, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Saying that some people dont know what they are talking about really doesn't prove anything. Sure I can use the word "paradigm" without knowing what it means, but my ignorance does not prove the word has no meaning. Words always have meaning. It is their inherent nature. Bensaccount 14:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What does this discussion have to do with the articel? Banno 20:27, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation

Since the consensus appears to be that there is to be no defn of truth in the first sentence of the article, as is the norm, I suggest that we place the disambiguation message at the top. Althought this is not normal practice, doing so explains why there is no defn. It also gives the article a better structure. Banno 20:27, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Banno to English translation: There is no definition for truth so we should place the disambiguation message at the top.

That's not what I said. I said: 'there is to be no defn of truth in the first sentence of the article'. That is not the same thing. Banno 21:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Better B2E translation: Since the definition isn't at the start of the article we should place the disambiguation message at the top.

No we shouldn't invent a new form we should modify the article to follow the existing form (put the definition at the top). Bensaccount 21:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I second a disambiguation message, though I prefer it to be a disambiguation page. --Wikiwikifast 01:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the Totally disputed message: Truth is neutrality and factual accuracy. Perhaps it could be used. Bensaccount 04:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that if we do change this to a disambig page, it should have more content than most, maybe covering various approaches to truth or something, but connecting them all in a semi-article. -Seth Mahoney 02:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Defining truth

1. Truth has many meanings.
2. Listing one is better than listing none.
3. Truth is correlation with reality. Bensaccount 15:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Listing none is better than listing one. But listing some is better than listing none. :) --Wikiwikifast 20:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Listing one is better than listing none. Is it biased to do this? Maybe if there are meanings that confict with the one given. But in this case the meanings do not conflict. Bensaccount 20:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Truth is how things are. This definition derives from Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, aphorism 137. He defines a proposition as something that one can place the words ??is true? after. He then equates this with placing the words ?This is how things are:? before the same proposition. I think it is about as neutral with regard to the various epistemological theories as we are ever likely to get. If a definition must be given, in order to satisfy Ben, then let?s use this. Banno 20:58, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

That is not as good as having all the definitions given and put into their correct contexts, but it is a start. Bensaccount 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We don't really even have to try to cover all the possible definitions of truth, just some major approaches to it. Unless there is a major, major, major revolution in philosophy, we aren't going to decide any time soon on any one definition, so trying for just one would be bad news (worse than trying for none, I think), but there are several approaches that should be covered. The only thing is that most of them seem to have their own articles, so maybe this page should be here to tie those approaches together, like a sort of fleshed-out disambiguation page? As far as format goes, we could maybe use a historical or field-oriented (law, sociology, philosophy, logic, etc.) overview or something like that. -Seth Mahoney 02:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, one definition is obviously better than no definition. There are many reasons why but the most basic is that it is necessary to define if you ever want to understand. Bensaccount 02:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. Wikiwikifast 18:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But you can't possibly understand if you don't start with a good definition. Also, just having one definition is misleading - there is no one approach to truth, nor one agreed-upon definition. Even such a basic statement as "truth is that which is factual" is contested. -Seth Mahoney 19:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One definition may be misleading but no definition is more misleading. This is the second reason why one definition is better than no definition. There are many reasons. Bensaccount 20:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, one definition - saying this is what truth is - is more misleading than saying "we don't have a definition of truth that is entirely satisfactory to everyone". Besides, what one definition might you be suggesting? Also, if you have many reasons, go ahead and share them. -Seth Mahoney 21:46, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Encarta definition of misleading: likely or deliberately intending to confuse people or give them a false idea of something.

The statement "don't have a definition of truth that is entirely satisfactory to everyone" is delibrately trying to confuse people (nothing is entirely satisfactory to everyone). It tries to give people the false idea that there is no definition of truth (there are many). How might giving any one of the many definitions of truth be more misleading than this? Bensaccount 22:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ben, I would say that noting "no definition of truth is entirely satisfactory to everyone" indicates that truth is a word about which people disagree concerning meaning. Which is true. Saying that "truth is X" where X is any definition of truth indicates that there is general agreement about the meaning of truth. Which is false. So in the interests of the truth, something needs to be said that makes it clear that there is no one definition of truth that is mutually acceptable to experts in this field. That's my truth. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But there isnt disagreement about the meaning of truth. There may be many meanings but there is no disagreement. Bensaccount 22:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you contending that all the proposed meanings for the word "truth" are not contradictory, but are in fact congruent? That's my understanding of your comment. Jwrosenzweig 23:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not congruent but not contradictory. The meanings depend on context, just like the meanings of the word mercury. Bensaccount 23:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Argument against definition

There is an unhealthy obsession with definitions revealing it self here. The statement: you can't possibly understand if you don't start with a good definition is simply false. A child understands and uses Mum, Dad and so on, yet certainly could not provide a good definition. Banno 21:58, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

True. -Seth Mahoney 22:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, the child could give a definition just not a very good one. Secondly, the understanding of a child is not what we are looking for in an encyclopdia. Bensaccount 22:17, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. The later Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations warned against definitions, and argued our obsession with definitions obscures the true meaning of a word. Moreover, in my opinion, you cannot define truth because human language is based the assumption that there is (objective) truth. We all know what truth means, but we cannot define it in terms of other words in our language. We can say what is true and what is not true, but that is all. The meaning of truth is in its use. ;) Trying to say something about the ontological status of truth is fruitless, if we try to say it with human language. That is my (very Wittgensteinian) assessment of the issue. --Wikiwikifast 23:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No language is not based on the assumption that there is objective truth; need I say more? Bensaccount 23:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The apple is red. This assumes that there are objects, that there is an object that we all (consensually) call an 'apple', and that 'red' is a property of the apple that is objectively true (or we all agree on what is 'red'). If we don't make any of these assumptions, we must be silent. --Wikiwikifast 00:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not so, the apple may be red but we can say "The apple is blue". Its called lieing. Bensaccount 00:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lying is possible only if truth exists. --Wikiwikifast 01:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not only is that major speculation, it is also meaningless since you have not defined truth. Tell me which definition of truth you are using and then the statement will have some meaning and I will argue it. Bensaccount 01:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point of this argument—my whole thesis—is that truth cannot be properly defined. The name of the subheading is "Argument against definition"! --Wikiwikifast 01:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well apparently your argument depends on the definition of truth and therefore is self defeating. Bensaccount 01:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You do not have to define a word to use it (or understand it). Yes, this is going in circles... My statement is not self-defeating; it just cannot be argued (because deductive argumentation/deductive logic builds on concepts such as truth and falsity). I will just state (again) that a disambiguation page would be better. What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. --Wikiwikifast 04:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The heading for this section is not mine, although the first post is. I do not wish to be associated with the argument that it is not possible to define of truth. I do think it is possible to give definitions of truth.

A definition does not give the meaning of the definiendum. It gives a set of synonyms, nothing more. These can be useful in helping one to use the words correctly, but they do not amount to the meaning of the word.

The meaning of a word is its use in a sentence. This is perhaps the most useful aphorism provided by Wittgenstein.

The links in the article show how the meaning of truth varies with its context. It is not necessary for us to be able to provide a definition that can cover all the existing uses. In Wittgenstein’s terms, perhaps truth is a family resemblance.

Nor does it make sense to suggest that truth is only objective truth. It is certainly true that I love my wife, but that is not an objective fact. Such truths do not fit into a definition that insists that truth be objective.

We all know what truth means, because we are all able to use it correctly in a range of language games. The definition provided by Wittgenstein (truth is how things are) is as good as it gets – now let’s move on. Banno 11:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

How things are

How things are is a definition of reality. Truth is accurate knowledge about some aspect of reality. Fred Bauder 10:43, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please Kill Me Now!

In Quatzequatl's name, hasn't anyone here ever heard of circular definitions!?

Saying that reality is how things are tell me nothing about reality unless I am an ESL student who has never encountered the word 'reality' before. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary, remember?

The problem is that there is no agreement on "how things are"? You might argue that some of the views of "how things are" are obviously wrong, but you should not do it here. From the Wikipedia perspective, that is entirely irrelevant.

Are there "moral facts"? Can we know anything about the noumena? There are multiple positions on these topics (and many other topics).

Going back to "the truth". It is trivially obvious that there is no agreement on the definition. Whether you ask ordinary people or philosophers, you will get many different answers to "What is truth?" So, for Wikipedia purposes, there is obviously no single definition of truth. At best, there is a set of connotations that these definitions have in common.

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia is concerned not with "the truth" but with summarizing human knowledge. Even if you somehow managed to get apodeictical knowledge of "the truth", and further have managed to acquire certainty about the apodeictical nature of your knowlege, it would not be appropriate to put your views of truth in a place of particular prominence in the Wikipedia - unless you managed to convince a substantial portion of the population about your views. - Michael Voytinsky 14:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to silence you by by stunning logic, but that would depend on you "getting it". I would, of couse, like my favorite private definition, supported by no known authority, "Truth is knowledge which conforms to reality, thus what truth means depends on the corresponding meanings which are used for knowledge and reality. Absolute truth, for example, is certain knowledge of ultimate reality. For ordinary human purposes, truth is knowledge gained by a reliable method about some aspect of reality which is observable." Given Wikipedia rules, this is unlikely to carry the day. However I believe we, under NPOV rules, properly should present a set of those definitions for which we can cite substantial authority. Fred Bauder 14:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Circular definitions are fine, as Banno inferred already ("A definition does not give the meaning of the definiendum. It gives a set of synonyms, nothing more."). Any definition presupposes that the other words are defined; if you looked up a word in a dictionary and looked up the definitions of the words in that definition, you will eventually go in a circle. Any proper definition of truth can only be, and should be, circular. However, I prefer no definition, because the circularity in a definition of truth would be smaller and hence more obvious. These definitions of 'truth' from dictionary.com are fine:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
   1. Reality; actuality.
   2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

I like #2, if you must insist on a definition. --Wikiwikifast 15:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just realized that you (Michael Voytinsky) are arguing against a definition of truth, in which case I agree. --Wikiwikifast 16:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Circular definitions are not fine; For example: you are trying to find out about a ribozyme and you arrive at the wikipedia page and it says: "A ribozyme is a ribozyme". I dont think that would be "fine" at all. Saying that truth is a statement proven to be or accepted as true is a start, but what it really does is move this all to the page true. Bensaccount 16:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which redirects to 'truth'. --Wikiwikifast 16:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well of course it would have to be a new page to avoid the circular definition. (And the difference between truth and true would have to be made clear). To be honest, I dont think we are ready to tackle 2 pages on this subject yet, but if thats the only way you can define truth...(by the way there would be dozens of definitions by now if they wouldnt keep getting deleted). Bensaccount 16:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)