Objectivity, logic and criteria for acceptable empiracal evidence

[The_Truthinator]

Your first question is “What is truth?”

I liked the response “the correct assessment of reality,” so I will borrow/steal it.

Where does truth come from?

Some would argue: from an ultimate Truth, which manifests itself in various objective truths experienced on a subjective level.

How do we know what is true and what is false

We could take the easy route and say “empirical testing,” but that is not sufficient and does not get to the heart of the question being asked.

“I am typing on the computer right now.” How can I “prove” this beyond doubt? Well, there is the utilization of the majority of my senses, all of which testify in unison that this statement is in fact true. However, let’s be bolder. How do I know I can trust my empirical senses? How do I know that they are not lying, that my reason is impaired, etc., beyond a shadow of a doubt? Simply put, I don’t. I have to have faith that my reason is unimpaired and that my empirical senses are trustworthy.

Is truth absolute?

In what sense? There is an ambiguity surrounding this question that makes it difficult to answer.

Do human beings all seek the truth?

To varying degrees. In order to feel secure, one wishes to establish a sense in which he/she can feel confident in his/her own existence and in his/her empirical senses in order to be able to rightly discern truth. However, such people arguably are satisfied with only a superficial basis for these things and therefore do not passionately pursue truth wholly and entirely. The question is better put, “Do human beings all seek the fullness of truth,” to which I can respond “no.”

If human beings all seek the truth why does evil occur?

Various reasons. It’s late, though, and I feel as though I’m rambling.

(P.S., though, this thread seems to presume the knowability of truth with absolute certainty, which is something I think itself needs to be examined and discussed carefully…)

 

[ateista]

“I am typing on the computer right now.” How can I “prove” this beyond doubt? Well, there is the utilization of the majority of my senses, all of which testify in unison that this statement is in fact true. However, let’s be bolder. How do I know I can trust my empirical senses? How do I know that they are not lying, that my reason is impaired, etc., beyond a shadow of a doubt? Simply put, I don’t. I have to have faith that my reason is unimpaired and that my empirical senses are trustworthy.

All you have to do is put your hand into boiling water, and see if you need “faith” to believe that it hurts. (Please do not try this at home )

The view you expressed is called universal skepticism, which is a self-refuting proposition. It is akin to say that we cannot see, because we have eyes, we cannot hear because we we have ears… Our senses do not “lie” to us, though we may misinterpret the signals.

 

[john_doran]

All you have to do is put your hand into boiling water, and see if you need “faith” to believe that it hurts. (Please do not try this at home )

this still doesn’t establish the truth of the proposition, “the water is hot”, only of the proposition “my hand hurts”.

the question is not whether my beliefs concerning my own sensory experiences are true or incorrigible, but whether they provide me with reliable reports concerning the constitution of the world. and if they do, how do i know that they do?

ateista:

The view you expressed is called universal skepticism, which is a self-refuting proposition.

no, it’s not. universal skpeticism is the proposition “you cannot know anything”.

the position that Truthinator is questioning might best be named universal evidentialism, which is the position, roughly, that one can legitimately believe only that for which there is (empirical) proof.

ateista:

It is akin to say that we cannot see, because we have eyes, we cannot hear because we we have ears…

you lost me here: this isn’t what it’s like at all…

ateista:

Our senses do not “lie” to us, though we may misinterpret the signals.

sure. but prove it.

 

[bogeydogg]

For Ivan only: If you copy from other sources the purpose of this will be pointless. Respond to these questions and we’ll move on from there.

Your first question is “What is truth?”

Where does truth come from?

How do we know what is true and what is false?

Is truth absolute?

Do human beings all seek the truth?

If human beings all seek the truth why does evil occur?

1. Truth is that which accurately reflects objective reality.
2. To ask if truth has a source or what that source might be is to tacitly assert that (if definition 1 is correct) objective reality is personal or at the very least has ontological being. For example I may say that a tree is a tree and be observing truth without asserting that the tree itself is the source of truth.
3. Knowledge of truth and falsehood is dependent upon one’s ability to correctly discern reality. However as St. Augustine pointed out with his “bent oar” our sense may deceive us because of inbuilt deficiencies, however just because we may not always correctly discern what truth is insofar as correctly discerning reality, that does not however mean that truth/ reality does not exist.
4. If the presupposed idea of objective reality exists and truth is that which reflects this reality then yes.

5)No.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

All you have to do is put your hand into boiling water, and see if you need “faith” to believe that it hurts. (Please do not try this at home )

The view you expressed is called universal skepticism, which is a self-refuting proposition. It is akin to say that we cannot see, because we have eyes, we cannot hear because we we have ears… Our senses do not “lie” to us, though we may misinterpret the signals.

How is it self refuting.

Reading Wittgenstein?