Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Definition of Truth

A truth is a theory which works.
Because (& Hence) there are so many living beings .
And they all have their own level of understanding and truths for living on this planet.
Are they all wrong.
From our point of View .. YES
From their point of view .. may be No.
Because it works.

Have you considered posting at psychagogo.com?

Are you too proud of your intellect?
Did you consider my point of view seriously before making that unreasonable comment!!
Science is nothing but a collection of Truths with varying degree of correctness.
Anyways, do you know that at Quantum level the time looses its meaning??
A particle can go anywhere at an instant inside such a Black Hole (as discussed to Stephan Hawking)

No, no. Wait here. If dkv's idea of truth strikes you as silly, you surely aren't familiar with Pragmatism. (Look it up) And if you aren't, then posting a comment on the nature of truth in itself is pretty silly, especially when doing so in derogatory terms. Just try to define truth otherwise, and you will see what I mean.

Of course, Pragmatism can be read out of context and be used to support the absurd, as is true with all concepts. But that's another matter

dkv wrote:
"Are you too proud of your intellect?"

More psychobabble? Please define the differece between "proud" and "too proud."

The TRUTH is that I never gave it any thought at all. Which is pretty much my impression of what you did when you spewed nonsense from your keyboard.

This happened due lack discussion on the subject.
This message was posted on 26th May and today it 22 June.
The meaning of my statement is simple... it relates to the Survival Strategy of species...
They create their own law(truth) which work for them independent of the nature's obejectivity to save themselves from the yet unknown....
Similary we can say that your set of rules or survival laws define which species you are...
I hope I have cleared the confusion...

For one account on truth look up Tarski's "Formal correctness" and "material adequacy"

What do they say?

Truth is that which actually is (or was), regardless of whether it can be proven or how it is perceived.

Perception is in the eye of the beholder, so what is perceived to be true is relative. But that doesn't change what the truth actually is.

A "theory that works," as you put it, is redundant. A theory is merely a likely approximation of the way things are, given the available data. If it doesn't work, it's not a theory.

The nearest I can get to the truth is "Nothing is absolute" There is no absolute truth and no absolute definition. But enough of us survived long enough, even living subjectively, to ask such a question. Let's have another drink or look at the scenery and later tackle some problem we have a reasonable, if subjective, hope of solving.

NO!!!!
A valid mathematical model is theory that has been empirically validated but not empirically falsified. Truth has nothing to do with it in any way, shape, or form. Theory must be internally self-consistent and be consistent with observation.

Truth is a monopoly of priests and philosophers. Try getting either to design and build you a working flush toilet. If the universe is a manifestation of a Keebler elve's dream, so be it. General Relativity exactly decribes gravitation within it.

A theory is a theory .. it is an approximate model of the true objective reality.
There are many looholes in it and therfore it is not a Law.Good theory describes and validate any new obeservation using its known set of laws and if it fails we say we need a new theory...sometimes the changes made in the new theory are so drastic that our fundamental understanding gets shaken.Everything we have learned now appears to be false. Imagine how Galileo will feel when he will be told that there are no absolute reference frames...
Therefore Truth known to him was not True and it was not completly false also ....The truthness of his theory needs to only few constraints to become fully True .. and falseness needs more space in velocity to become totally false...
We know Galileo knew something which we still use today because it is practical....
Truth is a theory which works because we still do not have the Objective truth in our had.. and today what we know is not completly objective or true(and hence false going by the binary logic :-))...
To become logically consistent it becomes mandatory to know the theory of Everything...
TOE is more of a logical necessity than a physical one...
we all know this fact but are scared to admit it.

Well at last now you've said it and it needs to be said sometimes. But it may not be be fear alone that stops people saying it. Maybe it just doesn't yield any worthwhile results, and it may stifle those who do and have done the hard work of getting us this far in knowledge.

It seems that you agree with me.
However as I said theories work and therefore are useful and any hard work remains fruitful..
however those who swear by the sanctity of science must also realize the limitation of their truth....
When will they be able to acheive their goal of absolute truthness is a different question.

Truths exists in mathematics. If the Universe itself is a purely mathematical system, then one can talk about absolute truths (which we may not know about).


In mathematics you have axioms, so any statement that can proven to be true is always of the form ''If x then y''. If you say that 1 + 1 = 2 then that is so because you have defined 1 and 2 in a certain way. So, 1 + 1 = 2 is a statement like ''let 1 and 2 be defined in such and such way, then it follows that 1 + 1 = 2''.

you also agree with me on the "Physical Truth" and "Mathematical Truth"
Both truths have different meanings in my opinion because the Definition of Truth is different in the above mentioned domains...
However there is a common link between Maths and Reality.. so far we have been able to successfully map the Boolean Logic in both the domains...
Fuzzy Logic presents an alternative logical system and in my opinion it should be able map the reality to this new Math.
However existence of the both the logical systems will benefit us in the long run...
I wonder whether someone will be able to explain the entire reality based on Fuzzy Logic.
I hope I have not been too technical.

I guess, nobody here knows the simple Truth, that the Truth is an accordance with the reality

e s

That would be Tarski's correspondence theory fo Truth "correspondence with the facts."

"Facts" is a more narrow area, than the reality is.

Facts in the domain of Reality are not known...
Facts in the domain of Mathematics are self-enclosed in a group of Maths Axioms.

Well i'm sure someone here will think i'm a stupid kid for saying this, but I always thought it was kinda funny...

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." -Garak, Star Trek DS9: Improbable Cause

The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination.
True.
There is no limit to imagination.
True.
Thats why there is no Absolute Truth contained anywhere in this Universe.

DKV, The New York Times has truth; they tell you so, "All The News That's Fit To Print".

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is that which actually is (or was), regardless of whether it can be proven or how it is perceived" - Yet Another Crank.

I disagree, in one instance. Take the U.S. Constitution for example. It is hotly debated as to what it means, is it to be understood literally, or to be taken as a fluid guide-like contruct that adapts it's meaning with the times. The Sumpreme Court themselves can not agree about that which discerns the truth on this issue. Same set of words, two (or more) vastly set of truths. Not to be confused with perception, however. "Perception is in the eye of the beholder, so what is perceived to be true is relative. But that doesn't change what the truth actually is." -Yet Another Crank. Again, this is so because the "truth" of the U.S. Constitution is debatable and the perceptions (to the respective beholders are evident).

Sincerely,

The phrase "taken literally" is just more nonsense.
There is no such thing. Take a copy of the English language dictionary from circa 1905 and compare the definitions with those of 2005.

The I'm interpreting literally dodge is just that ... a dodge: Intended for weak minds or those too lazy to think for themselves.

"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains."

I utterly disagree with this. To repeat what others have said requires "schooling." To challenge it requires education AND intelligence.

Untutored intelligence is largely wasted.

Whatever you come across goes through the Prism of you... it is believed or not-believed depending upon your instincts of knowledge.
You assume it is natural to see that Apples falls... you assume it is natural to see everything as it is as it is.
Those who question it reap rewards...
Infact the only limitation to this questioning is the limitation of knowing things as is defined by some research paper....
Those who not doubt themselves can actaully explain everything to you.Whatever you ask it will appear natural to him.
The Doubt as it came to Adam's mind created this complex world otherwise we were having a good time.

Adam's mind? The mind of a wholly fictional being. And one, even in the fiction, incapable of an original thought: IQ=35.

"Most people think they're thinking when they're really just rearranging their prejudices."
-- William James.

"William James used to preach the 'Will to Believe', for my part I should wish to preach the will to doubt...what is wanted is not the 'Will to believe' but the 'wish to find out' which is the exact opposite."
-- Bertrand Russell, in his Skeptical Essays, as quoted in Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain."

dkv
"A truth is a theory which works.
Because (& Hence) there are so many living beings .
And they all have their own level of understanding and truths for living on this planet."

There are some great comments on this subject and i thought I would try it on too.

Truth is knowledge related. Yesterdays truth's are no longer valid. This is especially true for science. In the courtroom truth is what you can prove it to be in the face of determined oposition with the use of all means available. The use of cross examination of "experts" and the ability to draw on the full spectrum of facts to confront the alleged truth provides the means to extract a "truth" that, hopefully, will be the determination of the issue.

Just one viepoint. There is no arena where ideas must face up to reality like a good lawsuit.

Jim wood

Adam's mind? The mind of a wholly fictional being. And one, even in the fiction, incapable of an original thought: IQ=35.
REP: Original thought is that Adam and Eve never existed.An Ape was there 60000 years ago who was our father.... got it.
=========================================
Truth is knowledge related. Yesterdays truth's are no longer valid. This is especially true for science. In the courtroom truth is what you can prove it to be in the face of determined oposition with the use of all means available. The use of cross examination of "experts" and the ability to draw on the full spectrum of facts to confront the alleged truth provides the means to extract a "truth" that, hopefully, will be the determination of the issue.
REP: Yes but there is more to it. A proved Truth is not eternally stable. It disintegrates into a higher level which may traces of its past. Remember corpusculor theory and photons. Earth is flat .... There can be a multidimensinal geometry of experience where it is indeed flat.Remember observations and facts are all relative.
=========================================
Just one viepoint. There is no arena where ideas must face up to reality like a good lawsuit
REP:What is determined by Court is only part of the complete jurisdiction. The complete justice is done only by nature.. got it.

"Original thought is that Adam and Eve never existed.An Ape was there 60000 years ago who was our father.... got it."

I think humans ARE apes. By what criterion are we not?

"Truth is knowledge related."
Truth is independent of what we know about it. I'm not aware of any evidence cares what we think about it.

"Yesterdays truth's are no longer valid."
Our knowledge of truth has changed. Relativity still held in Newton's day, in Galileo's, and in Ptolemy's.

"A proved Truth is not eternally stable."
I was pleasantly surprised recently when reading my 12 yo daughter's science notes that she had written: "Science is not about what you can prove, it's about what you can disprove." I thought to myself, "There's hope." There are even some practicing "scientists" who don't understand the philosophy behind what they're doing. As with any other area, the people who do science span a wide range of ability and competence.

When I mentioned this to her, my eldest daughter, 15, commented that she had learned the same thing. (Hope springs eternal!) So they're getting an introduction, at least, to Popperian falsificationism.

We don't prove things true. We prove them false. If we don't prove them false, we confirm them, but we do not prove them true.

Why does such a philosophy of science exist? To deal with the kind of logical inconsistency that you mention. That logical positivism that grew out of the Vienna Circle is workable - it may even be what many or most scientists use - but it's not logical.

"The complete justice is done only by nature"
This statement is confusing. Justice only exists in humans. It only exists where humans make it exist. Nature doesn't care. But truth, TRUTH is only done by nature - and once again, nature doesn't care.

dkv your comments at times mystify me.

Jim: Just one viepoint. There is no arena where ideas must face up to reality like a good lawsuit
dky: What is determined by Court is only part of the complete jurisdiction. The complete justice is done only by nature.. got it.

Rep: Nature is objective. Any truth to be found in nature must be discovered and man has been trying to do that since he first had eyes.

Jim: What could you mean by "the complete justice is done by nature, got it"? Your commentary is deemed to be of no import to me.
Jim

I think humans ARE apes. By what criterion are we not?
REP: See an APE yourself and then decide.
================================
Truth is independent of what we know about it. I'm not aware of any evidence cares what we think about it.
REP:We and I are different things.You believe that 'we' are correct.if "I" tells you something against "We" which you accept then probably a change is about to take place in your life and life style. If you do not accept it then also it is your decision... Ultimately you are the everything to yourself. If people dont care what you think then there will be a struggle for conversions .. you create a "We" to fight a "We" ...(thats the usual course of action)
=================================
"Yesterdays truth's are no longer valid."
Our knowledge of truth has changed. Relativity still held in Newton's day, in Galileo's, and in Ptolemy's.
REP: Thats the magic. Travel back to Newtons time and you will not be able to prove Einstein to them... In principle this is not possible.
All those movies made a fool out of us.
=============================
"A proved Truth is not eternally stable."
I was pleasantly surprised recently when reading my 12 yo daughter's science notes that she had written: "Science is not about what you can prove, it's about what you can disprove." I thought to myself, "There's hope." There are even some practicing "scientists" who don't understand the philosophy behind what they're doing. As with any other area, the people who do science span a wide range of ability and competence.When I mentioned this to her, my eldest daughter, 15, commented that she had learned the same thing. (Hope springs eternal!) So they're getting an introduction, at least, to Popperian falsificationism.
REP: All this happens if things are observed in its dimensional completeness. Your kids are amazing.
======================
We don't prove things true. We prove them false. If we don't prove them false, we confirm them, but we do not prove them true.
REP: Thats a bit dangerous .... nothings was proven false if replacement is not known to be true eternally .. hence falsification is equivalent to proving a truth completely.
========================================
Why does such a philosophy of science exist? To deal with the kind of logical inconsistency that you mention. That logical positivism that grew out of the Vienna Circle is workable - it may even be what many or most scientists use - but it's not logical.
REP: Logical as defined by Maths has its own limited application but yes dont be surprised if it discovers the secret of life using its discreet algebra. But in the end it will all be Qunatum rules which will rule everywhere.Thats my vision for eternity.
===================================
"The complete justice is done only by nature"
This statement is confusing. Justice only exists in humans. It only exists where humans make it exist. Nature doesn't care. But truth, TRUTH is only done by nature - and once again, nature doesn't care.
REP: Nature is transactional in nature ... The judges simply recognize it. Wiser the Judge Better the Decision ... You can hang a criminal or you can make him a better a person. Choice is difficult and thats why there is a need to undertstand the true transactional nature of Nature.
====================================
dkv your comments at times mystify me.
REP : Nothing to say there.
=========================
Rep: Nature is objective. Any truth to be found in nature must be discovered and man has been trying to do that since he first had eyes.
REP: Nature is objective or not depends upon your reference frame. For Science Yes .For Religion No.There intelligent human beings who hardly use Science ... for e.g Gandhi (Next only to Einstein in Times Ranking )
================================
Jim: What could you mean by "the complete justice is done by nature, got it"? Your commentary is deemed to be of no import to me.
REP: I have explained it somewhere above.Dont look at the fan;-))
Sorry bad joke.

Somehow I think you're yanking my chain. Is your middle name Eliza?

oh really . i never intented to do that as I dont have that middle name.
Always belive what your truth says... yanking and all is not true ....

A simple definition of truth in single syllables:

'If you say of what is, that it is, then that is the truth.

If you say of what is, that it is not, then that is not the truth.'

---------------------------

The only problem being that we rarely, (if ever) know that we are saying of what is, that it is etc.


Regards,

Blacknad

The only problem being that we rarely, (if ever) know that we are saying of what is, that it is etc.
REP:It was comprehensible to me.In the dynamic world of Neural Learning you will have to begin with such a logic.Truth is searched without saying "no" to operational execution of action in order to acheive a goal. This is the reason goal is so important for me ,Religion and Science...
Nature learns its laws and no point you can say that she is not honest.
Hope i am clear... I know it goes beyond traditional GR and QM but this is a fact which we see every where and where it is not seen is due to the limited life span of us ,humans.
Without going too deep we can say that todays understanding is limiting case of actual reality.
However as usual ,the existing theories will most probably keep up its actual shape ,for it will turn out to have practical applications in day to day life just like Newton's Gravity.
The understanding and the goal may change...

It's just like reading Edgar Cayce. I understand the individual words very clearly, but they are strung together into sentences devoid of meaning. Is the purpose of these sentences to communicate with someone else?

One value of language is that it allows a person to communicate with himself. No small feat. But probably the most common use is to communicate with someone else.

But probably the most common use is to communicate with someone else.
REP: I chose to reply to this discussion as I thought it is the right moment to introduce you to a more generic fact.....Communication is a function of You and only You. Many Self Help books will tell you that. And Saints will also say the same thing...(that your emotions and understanding are internal function of you)
If you ask me the right question then probably you will get the right Answer. That is very important. Other than saying all is rubbish take a look at the logical consistency of the subject... Ofcourse you need to know many branches of Knowledge to appreciate it.
Luckily I love to read so I have managed to create an Grand University of Everything for most exoctic cross domain discussions within myself.No college offers such a priviledge and if you want to do it degree by degree you will get bored by slow pace of Progress or still you will not be able to understand everything... I do not believe in such a superficial Barrier.