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