Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!well!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consistency Again
Message-ID: <245@l5.uucp>
Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 13:50:32 EST
Article-I.D.: l5.245
Posted: Tue Nov  5 13:50:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 05:55:33 EST
References: <542@ihwpt.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Distribution: net
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 93

In article <542@ihwpt.UUCP> rsl@ihwpt.UUCP writes:
>Thanks for the continued stimulation.  I have a few comments
>reguarding your (you and/or Laura) use of the concepts "truth",
>"facts", "appear", and "belief" (mostly addressed to your last
>paragraph in which you, once again, can not resist injecting the ole
>Kantian skepticism, as I see it).
>
>> But I am not clear about what Laura means by "facts", since these,
>> on the face of it, appear to be observer-independent Truths.  If
>> that is the case, then the inconsistency is reintroduced after all.

>First, truth is a concept that only has meaning when applied to
>statements.  

Are you speaking for yourself here, or generally?  This statement is at
variance with the statement ``God is Truth'' which some people (including
some philosphers) have believed.  

>"Observer-independent Truths" seems like a
>conceptually-muddled notion, since all statements (thus, all truths)
>are the products of human observers.  Perhaps you really mean
>"observer-independent" reality, in which case, "Truth" is not an
>issue (reality exists, independent of statements about it or
>observations of it).

No, that is no the distinction I was trying to make.  The one that I was
after is ``are there any statements that are inherantly true?''  If there
are a set of statements which are true independent of observations of it
then all beliefs which contradict these statements must be false.  Out of
these inherant truths and inherant falsehoods is it possible to build an
utterly-true and utterly correct belief system?

Me, I am not sure about the status in reality of ``inherantly true''
statements. I tend to believe that they exist, but not particularily 
strongly. I tend to believe that Black Holes exist as well, but if they
and ``inherantly true statements'' turn out to only be theoretical
constructs, it will not rock the foundations of my belief system much.

Let us consider ``inherant truth'' as a theoretical construct.  ``truth''
then is a property which an observer assigns a statement when he considers
it in the light of other statements.  A so-called ``inherantly true''
statement then becomes a statement that everybody (either does or should)
assigns truth to. ``Inherant truth'' is a theoretical property which such
beliefs are said to have, but which may not exist at all.

Let us take your last statement:

	(reality exists, independent of statements about it or
	observations of it)

That is pretty strong stuff.  That is a belief.  the question is --
is it true?  And, when you say ``yes it is true'' as I am sure you
will, what do you mean?

Do you mean that the existence of an objective reality is consistent with
the rest of your beliefs?  Or do you mean that there is something
fundamentally and inherantly true about the existence of an objective
reality?  These are two different meanings!


>On the other hand, a fact is a particular true statement about
>reality.  (We call it a fact, only because it is true; if it is not
>true, it is not a fact).

But how can one be sure that ones facts are facts?  Facts are things
that you believe are true, yes, but is there any certainty to be had?
(I'm the one that is arguing that there isn't, remember...)

>The concept of belief is distinguished by "an acceptance as true in
>the absence of complete or adequate evidence".  Belief is
>distinguished from knowledge by this projection beyond what one
>actually (accurately and honestly) knows.  If I know something, I do
>not say "I believe it" (unless I am a complete philosophical
>skeptic).
>

I do not think that I am a complete philosophical skeptic.  I do not think
that I ``know'' very much by your definition, however.  I believe a lot,
however, and those beliefs which i find consistent I call ``true'' and
those which I do not I call ``problems''.  I am working on my problems,
trying to resolve inconsistencies.  In doing so I fully expect that what
I now call true I will later call false.  Were those beliefs ever knowledge?
Is there any way without perfect hindsight to tell the difference between
knowledge and beliefs?

-- 
Help beautify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C
Programs*.  Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when
it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits. 

Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa