Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

[Socrates Reincarnate]

In this conversation with Cary Cook, (That others are welcome to participate in) I intend to give an open ended explanation, for his and other reader's consideration and critique on the nature of logic. There are competing definitional descriptions already on offer that fail to convey a clear sense of what it is, but succeed at muddying the waters so to speak. I think I have a clear and valuable perspective to share on the matter. To begin with I shall start with the premises of my thinking on the nature of logic as used by human beings. If any of these presuppositions are found unacceptable, the conversational aim should be establishing alternative common ground or "coming to terms" (which is necessary to logical discourse as I understand it)

1. Logic is inexorably related to language and is subject to the precision and accuracy and reliability (or lack thereof) inherent to the verbal or symbolic language that any system of logic depends on.

2. Logic and language originate at the point when conscious agents agree on a symbolic or linguistic "term" to refer to and identify an event complex that is (at least seemingly) co-experienced.

Side note: I am always looking to get help finding fault with my thinking on things. But I tend to just rebut rebuttals so Socratic engagement is preferred

[Email]

Hi Soc.,

There are two relevant divisions of "logic": 1) Ontological and 2) Epistemological
The second type represents a human's attempts to understand the first type.
The first type is fully primordial; it can have no non-circular logical basis at all.
Your statements both primarily address the second type of logic.
The "co-experienced event complex" of your second statement (seemingly) address the first type.

- Don

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joseph Dowd]

Hi Meisha,

Looks like the start of an interesting discussion!

If any of these presuppositions are found unacceptable, the conversational aim should be establishing alternative common ground or "coming to terms"

The word "logic" has at least 2 possible meanings (these may be the same meanings that Don is talking about):

(A) a set of rules that must be followed in order to have intelligible discourse within a given system of symbolic communication (for example, within a given language)
(B) a realm of propositions--not sentences but the propositions imperfectly expressed by sentences--and the relationships between those propositions, a realm that is abstract but just as "real" as physical reality

I doubt that (B) exists. Platonic philosophers and many mathematicians think that (B) does exist.

Anyway, if we define "logic" as (A), then your two presuppositions are obviously true. I don't see how anyone could find them "unacceptable."

In setting forth your two presuppositions, are you implying that only (A) exists, not (B)? Or are you simply implying that you'll be using the word "logic" to mean (A)?

--Joseph

[Email]

Hi Joseph,

I doubt that (B) exists. Platonic philosophers and many mathematicians think that (B) does exist.

Two cases to consider:

B) Objective realm of logic exists: "Logical" conclusions are objective truths.

Not B) No objective realm of logic exists: "Logical" conclusions are not objective, even if they are "intelligible."  (The term "intelligible" may be difficult to define in this context -- as would many other objectively-absolute-sounding terms.)

If B:

"B" would be objectively true. "Not B" would be objectively false.

If Not B:

"Not B" cannot be objectively true -- nor can anything else be.

"Subjective truth" is another term which may be difficult to define.

In fact, it may be difficult to define or determine anything.

- Don  (Full disclosure re. "many mathematicians": BS physics/mathematics CSULB '89.)

[Cary Cook]

Joseph,

How did you know her name is Meisha?

 

Meisha,

Don and Joseph are both Christians, and therefore more your kind of people than I am. 

If it's OK with you, I will not participate until you come to an impasse with Don and/or Joseph. 

 

So far I agree totally with Don.

 

Cary

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16636 (20171226) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16636 (20171226) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Email]

Cary,

Joseph,

How did you know her name is Meisha?

Just a hunch: because she's on the internet:

https://mobile.twitter.com/s0crate5

- Don

[Cary Cook]

Oh............

Right.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16636 (20171226) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16636 (20171226) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Dowd]

When I view this thread on my phone, her name (at the top of the post, not in the message itself) shows up as "Socrates Reincarnate." But when I view the thread on my laptop, her name shows up as "Meisha."

I don't know why. You might want to see if you can figure out what's going on.

My apologies if you didn't want your real name "outed," Socrates! I just call people by whatever names appear at the top of their posts.

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

Hello Joseph,

To answer your questions directly..No and No

My approach is to address the conscious activity that gives rise to these notions. Unless we are attempting to go deeper in a causal sense than consciousness itself, I think the basis of all these thinking and reasoning conventions are underlying agreements made between conscious agents. We fancy that by using these conventions that we somehow escape subjectivity and now have universal and objective truths in our thinking and reasoning toolkit.

As to (A) I wouldn't go so far as to say that we "know" the "rules" necessary to intelligible discourse, only that we have conventions that seem necessary.

The (B) your refer to seems to be about whether we should assume there is errorless information (truth) available (given enough diligence) for attainment by our intellects. My position on this question will be forthcoming should you agree that we are talking about the same thing, and want to hear what I have to say about it :)

Regards,

Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Hi back Don,

The way I see it is that it's possible to focus on what logic fundamentally is, or the constructs thereof. The latter being what I referred to as "systems of logic". How closely my view parallels your view might be interesting to explore should you create a similar thread to this one, opening your view (that seems to be typical to academia) to the Socratic scrutiny that I am here to offer, and solicit should anyone besides me here have that skill set.

Contrary to your assertion:

"Your statements both primarily address the second type of logic."

which seemed to say (if I get the gist of your meaning) that I mainly addressed the "body of knowledge" (subject to epistemological examination) that is commonly referred as logic

I think I merely gave a nod to it and stayed pretty focused on the nature of logic as a phenomenon, ontologically .

I didn't get into logic's primordial origins, or what I would call "proto-logic" because, while interesting, I want to talk about things to the depth of the assumptions Im willing to make and defend rather than where my mental attitude is more one of strong curiosity. If you think you understand logic at a more "primordial" level I would be thrilled to pick your brain :)

Finally, as to your contention that the basis of all logic MUST be circular. I will concede that it does indeed SEEM to be the case with articulate logic systems in the epistemological sense.

As a reminder please use this thread to FIND OUT how I think on the subject looking for ways you can help me improve my thinking. I'd be happy to reciprocate should you make a similar thread

Regards,
Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Have to admit I am a bit disappointed at your hesitance to jump in being as how you invited me here from Twitter. But I'm a patient gal.

If you don't make a similar thread inviting my scrutiny of your position... well, I will positively feel bamboozled by you.

To clarify, I don't care if y'all know my name. I stopped using my nickname is all.

Finally, most Christians I have met find my views so unorthodox they don't think I am a "real" Christian.

We might dig into that later if I find the engagement here challenging and entertaining :)

[Joseph Dowd]

Hi Meisha,

Fellow unorthodox Christian here!

(Actually, I'm fully orthodox if you define orthodoxy as acceptance of the Nicene Creed and other ancient creeds (on some interpretation thereof). Beyond that point, I'm so theologically liberal that I might as well be unorthodox. But I digress.)

Since your first post was about your two premises, I'll say the following:

1. I agree that logic "is inexorably related to language and is subject to the precision and accuracy and reliability (or lack thereof) inherent to the verbal or symbolic language that any system of logic depends on"--if by "logic" you mean conventions governing reasoning within a linguistic system.
2. I agree that language originates "at the point when conscious agents agree on a symbolic or linguistic 'term' to refer to and identify an event complex that is (at least seemingly) co-experienced." Hence, if we define "logic" as conventions governing reasoning within a linguistic system, then I agree that logic also originates at that point.

As I see it, it all depends on how you define "logic." You could define "logic" as a small Venezuelan mammal, and that would be fine as long as you made it clear that you were using the word that way.

Have we reached adequate agreement regarding your premises, or is there more work to do before we can proceed?

--Joseph

[Email]

Hi Meisha,

How closely my view parallels your view might be interesting to explore should you create a similar thread to this one, opening your view (that seems to be typical to academia) to the Socratic scrutiny that I am here to offer, and solicit should anyone besides me here have that skill set.

My philosophical/religious views are spelled out here:

http://dstoner.net/Philosophy_Religion/WDG.html

... In enough detail that it can be a bit overwhelming.

Even more odd details can be gathered from here:

http://www.dstoner.net/

... However, you were probably looking for something a little bit more concise. So ...

First, my background:

My academic training is primarily in: Embedded-systems software/hardware (micro-controllers/machine logic), general software development, electronics, servo design, mechanics, robotics, physics, mathematics, chemistry, cosmology,  geophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and biblical history/archeology; in approximately that order; but I'm not adverse to messing around with other stuff like performing music. Two of my three US patents cover early applications of artificial intelligence. I'm from a large extended family, all having similar/overlapping interests. I was raised Baptist, but started attending Calvary Chapel back when I was in college -- back when there was only one C.C. church (in "Costa Mesa," actually in Santa Ana at the time). But the more I studied science and history, the more I had to revise my understanding of Scripture (and philosophy). ... All of that was to make a credible claim here that I understand both scripture and philosophy, in (somewhat unorthodox) ways which are consistent with my understanding of both science and history.

Finally, approaching the answer I'm trying to give you: My understanding of the foundation of logic comes from many odd sources, heavily featuring, but not limited to, the writings (religious and philosophical) of C.S. Lewis, and the scientific research (A.I. and neuro-quantum-physics) of Roger Penrose. I have come to the conclusion that ontological-logic (in combination with a few other non tangible "substances," including what Stephen Hawking metaphorically describes as "fire") is primordial and foundational to all aspects of physical existence. (Biblically: In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God and God was the logic.)

Contrary to your assertion:

"Your statements both primarily address the second type of logic."

which seemed to say (if I get the gist of your meaning) that I mainly addressed the "body of knowledge" (subject to epistemological examination) that is commonly referred as logic

I think I merely gave a nod to it and stayed pretty focused on the nature of logic as a phenomenon, ontologically .

Reconstructing my context (to assist my aging memory):

1>There are two relevant divisions of "logic": 1) Ontological and 2) Epistemological
2>The second type represents a human's attempts to understand the first type.
3>The first type is fully primordial; it can have no non-circular logical basis at all.
4>Your statements both primarily address the second type of logic.
5>The "co-experienced event complex" of your second statement (seemingly)

6> address the first type.

... And your two numbered statements (for the same reason):

1. Logic is inexorably related to language and is subject to the precision and accuracy and reliability (or lack thereof) inherent to the verbal or symbolic language that any system of logic depends on.

2. Logic and language originate at the point when conscious agents agree on a symbolic or linguistic "term" to refer to and identify an event complex that is (at least seemingly) co-experienced.

It appears to me that both of your statements tie your use of the term "logic" tightly to human language, which is in no way "primordial" in my intended sense (of being the very bottom "turtle" in the proverbial causality stack). As I attempted to explain, "logic" is the substance by which all other systems are explained (what is) or justified (what ought to be); everything else is a derivative of "logic" (at least in some limited sense -- although I presume this to be completely). OTOH, if we tried to explain or justify "logic" itself, there are really only two possibly ways:

Logically: This, unfortunately, leads immediately to a circular (invalid) argument.

or

Non-Logically: This, unfortunately, is completely useless without any further consideration.

So "logic" is either primordial (as I specifically stated in line 3> above) and therefore foundational to everything else (including humans and their languages), or it is without any real foundation at all. (I choose to go with "primordial" rather than "circular" or "arbitrary.") 

Finally, as to your contention that the basis of all logic MUST be circular. I will concede that it does indeed SEEM to be the case with articulate logic systems in the epistemological sense.

I think this is the mistake: I am not contending that all logic must be circular. This "glitch" does not appear to me to be as much an "epistemological" limitation, as a sort of "sideways proof" (by total uselessness of the contrary) for primordial logic's ontological nature. This odd conclusion is also consistent with a large body of scientific research, primarily from the field of quantum mechanics (explored in the Q.M.-chapter of the first link above). A person can certainly deny logic, if they so choose; I just can't see any reason to make that kind of choice -- short of deliberate philosophical "suicide."

It appears to me that, at the end of your second numbered statement, you make reference to a kind of "co-experienced" type of "logic" which our epistemological syntactical constructs attempt to "discover" and "emulate." This, I believe, is your perception (from within your philosophical model) of what I would call "ontological logic" (the primordial variety).

- Donald Wayne Stoner (nobody in particular)

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

 

Is this the kind of Socratic dialog you want?

 

1. Logic is inexorably related to language and is subject to the precision and accuracy and reliability (or lack thereof) inherent to the verbal or symbolic language that any system of logic depends on.

 

Are you saying that the laws of logic are not true, or non-existent, unless expressed in language?

 

2. Logic and language originate at the point when conscious agents agree on a symbolic or linguistic "term" to refer to and identify an event complex that is (at least seemingly) co-experienced.

 

Are you saying that there were no laws of logic prior to the point when conscious agents agreed on them?

e.g. There were no laws of logic until someone agreed with Aristotle about them.

 

Cary

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16636 (20171226) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16642 (20171227) __________

[Joseph Dowd]

Hi Don,

I'm reproducing some material that I've written on another thread. Just want to make sure you don't think I'm ignoring you.

I think that inductive logic is (partly) independent of language. That is, the correct standards for weighing evidence, plausibility, trustworthiness, etc. are (partly) independent of language. If those standards were not (partly) independent of language, then the reasoning involved in (for example) a murder trial would be ultimately arbitrary and no objectively fair ruling would be possible.

I deny that deductive logic is independent of language. If you know the meaning of the word "if", then you don't need any additional laws of logic to know that "If there's smoke, there's fire" and "There's smoke" together entail "There's fire." I don't deny that there are laws of logic, but I think they are contained in the meanings of key words such as "if".

I'm not sure I understand your post. If I understand you correctly, you are making 2 claims:

1. If there is no logic independent of language, then there is no objective truth about which conclusions follow from which premises.
2. If there is no logic independent of language, then nothing is objectively true.

I agree with #1 when it comes to inductive logic. When it comes to deductive logic, I disagree for the reason given above.

I find #2 puzzling. Whether or not logic is independent of language, surely it is objectively true that the continent of Africa exists. If Africa exists, then its existence is simply a fact. The ontological status of logic may affect our ability to reliably reach the conclusion that Africa exists, but if Africa exists, then it exists regardless of our reasoning about it.

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

Joseph

If we agree on the nature of logic, I'd say that's a pretty good to have out of the way for future discussion. I understand your comment that included reference to "a small Venezuelan Mammal" but find it a bit off putting.
Since we agree on the nature of logic I would like you to consider my position concerning an integral component of the dominant ideologies or systems of logic on the planet. The true/false binary. I would be happy if you could either help me find fault with my position, or if we end up establishing more common ground, I would consider that a success too. Game?
-Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

I tend to think there isn't a "bottom turtle" in terms of the sequence of events that lead to the emergence of what we're calling logic (either ontologically or epistemologically), but I think that prior to the emergence of consciousness, whatever this thing WAS that we now recognize as logic, merits a different term to describe this "logic like" precursory set of conditions.

[Meisha Turman]

Cary,

Yes, that's more like it

"Are you saying that the laws of logic are not true, or non-existent, unless expressed in language?"

No. Assuming objectively true "laws of logic", is your (unless I misunderstand) chosen stance. My position is that we have more or less reliable conventions of logic. These conventions depend on language use and agreement in some form

"Are you saying that there were no laws of logic prior to the point when conscious agents agreed on them?
e.g. There were no laws of logic until someone agreed with Aristotle about them."

No. I would say that if there are immutable laws concerning how this thing we call logic can develop, my preference is to refer to these as the SUPPOSEDLY immutable laws of reality itself. I am saying that logic as I understand it is intrinsically language/agreement based, not "objective truth" based which seems to be your position.

-Meisha

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

 

Yes, you are correct that I am saying that logic is "objective truth" based.

 

You say that we have more or less reliable conventions of logic.

Have you ever seen an unreliable convention of logic that wasn't simply an error about what is logical?

 

Do you think logic developed? - or just that human understanding of it developed?

 

You appear to say that IF there are immutable laws, then they are SUPPOSEDLY immutable laws.

Is that correct?

 

Cary 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Meisha Turman

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:12 AM

To: BYS vs MH

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16674 (20180103) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16674 (20180103) __________

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

Apologies if the "small Venezuelan mammal" comment was off-putting. I wanted to choose a really random example in order to make it clear how arbitrary (in principle) definitions are.

Yep, I'm game. Maybe you've already stated this and I missed it, but what's your position regarding the true/false binary?

--Joseph

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Meisha Turman]

Cool. I suspect that Don may consider it "philosophical suicide" to call into question the idea that it's wise to categorize statements as simply true or false. But I see accepting this binary as seriously problematic. I propose that rather than saying a statement is "true" (which seems to allow us to assume it has a perfect or errorless quality, thereby justifying dogmatic "knowledge") we should classify statements more along the lines of "seemingly more-or-less reliable" . This is not dismissive of our inability to escape subjectivity, or our inability to completely justify any of our knowledge. Pushers of dogmatic (rather than faith based) knowledge, seem to always be on about objective truth. And it always seems to me like a round about way of being seen as someone who has transcended subjectivity. I have some related ideas about claims of "being objective" that we can dig into if you like as I don't think objectivity is an entirely worthless concept, but I will wait to see what you think about what I have said so far and of course I remain open to further scrutiny and entertaining any objections you might present.

-Meisha

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

I'm broadly sympathetic to criticism of the true/false dichotomy. Heck, I'm even broadly sympathetic to relativism and postmodernism, which many would consider "philosophical suicide". But the analytic philosopher in me finds the rejection of the true/false dichotomy not problematic so much as incomprehensible. There's a lot I could say about the various issues I just mentioned, but in the interest of avoiding tangents and maintaining the "Socratic" approach that you favor, let me just ask a clarifying question.

I propose that rather than saying a statement is "true" (which seems to allow us to assume it has a perfect or errorless quality, thereby justifying dogmatic "knowledge") we should classify statements more along the lines of "seemingly more-or-less reliable"

When you suggest that we call statements "seemingly more-or-less reliable" rather than "true", are you talking about (a) statements about particular events at particular times (e.g., "On November 2, 2017, at exactly 10:00am PST, I was within the borders of Anaheim, CA"), (b) less specific statements (e.g., "I live in Anaheim"), or (c) both?

--Joseph

[Email]

Hi Meisha,

Cool. I suspect that Don may consider it "philosophical suicide" to call into question the idea that it's wise to categorize statements as simply true or false.

Your suspicion is simply false. More specifically, your featured offense is different from "denying logic," which was my featured philosophically-suicidal offense. Also, here are some specific statements which I certainly consider to be other than simply true or false:

   This statement is false. ("Paradox" -- mathematician's definition.) 

   This statement is true. ("Ambiguous" -- could be either true or false.)
   This statement. ("Meaningless" -- improperly formed syntax.)

- Don

On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Meisha Turman <michel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cool. I suspect that Don may consider it "philosophical suicide" to call into question the idea that it's wise to categorize statements as simply true or false. But I see accepting this binary as seriously problematic.  I propose that rather than saying a statement is "true" (which seems to allow us to assume it has a perfect or errorless quality, thereby justifying dogmatic "knowledge") we should classify statements more along the lines of "seemingly more-or-less reliable" . This is not dismissive of our inability to escape subjectivity, or our inability to completely justify any of our knowledge. Pushers of dogmatic (rather than faith based) knowledge, seem to always be on about objective truth. And it always seems to me like a round about way of being seen as someone who has transcended subjectivity. I have some related ideas about claims of "being objective" that we can dig into if you like as I don't think objectivity is an entirely worthless concept, but I will wait to see what you think about what I have said so far and of course I remain open to further scrutiny and entertaining any objections you might present.

-Meisha

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

[Meisha Turman]

Cary,

Here's some more longer winded stuff for you to work with in your effort to help me "get my head on straight"

"Yes, you are correct that I am saying that logic is "objective truth" based."

Great this clarification will be useful as I begin to examine your position under that other thread you started for that purpose.

"You say that we have more or less reliable conventions of logic.
Have you ever seen an unreliable convention of logic that wasn't simply an error about what is logical?"

I don't see it that way...

That "accepted conventions of reasoning" (what I hold logic to ontologically be) are -somewhat- unreliable is evident to me, especially those treated as excuses to be dogmatic, or act as if they are a means of transcending subjectivity. We can faithfully adhere to these (what I assume to be improvable) conventions and come to relatively reliable/unreliable conclusions. I don't see logic as subset of universal truths so that I may view any faulty reasoning as a failure to employ logic. Its a necessity for intelligibility of communication, not a guarantor of perfect reliability of conclusions drawn using it.

"Do you think logic developed? - or just that human understanding of it developed?"

In a sense yes, in a sense no to both questions. I think that what logic "ontologically is" emerged (developed) from preconditions and patterns of pre-conscious activity. I think consciousness depends on communication (use of language in some form - not necessarily verbal) and none of these things.. consciousness, communication, or logic can exist without the others. Human understanding of logic (ontologically) hasn't developed much generally, and I don't think what-it-is in that sense has changed. We have done a fair amount of experimentation with differing articulate systems of logic and there has been some development of these

"You appear to say that IF there are immutable laws, then they are SUPPOSEDLY immutable laws.
Is that correct?"

I may not understand your question well enough to say...

I don't object to the idea that reality operates strictly in accordance with certain principles that we could call immutable laws, but I won't claim to be utterly certain about that.

P.S.
A Twitter follower of mine (and me too) wants to know why they have to join this group to even view the messages. See what the deal is if you can so I don't waste my time making links...

-Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Hi again Joseph,

"the analytic philosopher in me finds the rejection of the true/false dichotomy not problematic so much as incomprehensible."

Hmm. Well I don't know many things more problematic than incomprehensibly :)

I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about shifting from thinking about what we suppose to be "true" (errorless) to thinking in terms of what we have more or less confidence about. To me the platonic epiphany about lacking knowledge seems within the reach of people with average comprehension skills

"When you suggest that we call statements "seemingly more-or-less reliable" rather than "true", are you talking about (a) statements about particular events at particular times (e.g., "On November 2, 2017, at exactly 10:00am PST, I was within the borders of Anaheim, CA"), (b) less specific statements (e.g., "I live in Anaheim"), or (c) both?"

C. Since I embrace agnosticism.

-Meisha

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

You acknowledge such a thing as a set of universal truths.
Can you give me a few examples?

And if you acknowledge a set of universal truths, then you must acknowledge
that some statements are true, and some are false, correct?

Re: viewing the messages
I just noticed that I didn't check "Public" under "View Topics".
I have now checked "Public". Please see if (s)he still has problems.

Cary

-----Original Message-----
From: Meisha Turman
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 3:14 PM
To: BYS vs MH
Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine

16678 (20180103) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16678 (20180103) __________

[Meisha Turman]

Cary,

Please don't give up on helping me get my head on straight :)

"You acknowledge such a thing as a set of universal truths.
Can you give me a few examples?"

I acknowledge the possibility of such a set, I don't assert it. That's your thing that you do. I take issue with yours and the common usage of "truth" which we can get into if you like. I am not a pusher of this acceptable dogmatism that's supposedly based on "objective" facts rather than consensus of opinion.

I have tried to discover statements that can withstand my naturally high level of curious skepticism. Statements that I can find no flaw with. Statements I can accept wholeheartedly. Here's a sample of what I have come up with so far.

Events transpire that bring about desirable and undesirable consequences

In order to sustain conditions in which more desirable events are experienced than undesirable ones, one's ruling logic should be love, or in other words only the God of Love is worth worshiping

"And if you acknowledge a set of universal truths, then you must acknowledge that some statements are true, and some are false, correct?"

Hopefully my previous response addresses your misconception of what I acknowledge and clues you in a little about how I perceive the words "true" and "truth" as being rampantly abused. I am happy to clarify (continue spouting my opinion) until either you can help me improve my outlook or we reach an agreement.

"Re: viewing the messages
I just noticed that I didn't check "Public" under "View Topics".
I have now checked "Public". Please see if (s)he still has problems."

Thanks dude, I'll let you know

-Meisha

[Email]

Cary,

So, all of the rules just changed?

- Don

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

Both of your examples of possible universal truths have to do with events
and the desirability of them.

Are there any possible universal truths that are not events?

Are there any possible universal truths that are events, but not desirable?

What about 2 + 2 = 4? Is that a possible universal truth?

Cary

-----Original Message-----
From: Meisha Turman
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 8:07 PM
To: BYS vs MH
Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine

16679 (20180104) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16679 (20180104) __________

[Cary Cook]

Don,

I changed several of them to allow more possibilities. Tell me if there are
any changes you object to.

Cary

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 10:36 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine

16679 (20180104) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16679 (20180104) __________

[Meisha Turman]

Hidy Ho! Cary,

"Are there any possible universal truths that are not events?"

I don't know.

I strongly suspect that reality is nothing but various immediate or distantly related event complexes. And that the idea that there are entirely distinct things is very useful but somewhat illusory

"Are there any possible universal truths that are events, but not desirable?"

I don't think so.. (?)

"What about 2 + 2 = 4? Is that a possible universal truth?"

No. quantification depends on the faulty (but mighty mighty useful) concept of discrete and equal units.

-Meisha

[Email]

Hi Cary,

I am, legally, considered to be a sufficiently well-known person that I never have any reasonable expectation of privacy, so I always write with the understanding that anything I say is likely to show up, published on the internet (as even my emails have in the past -- out of context, as often as not); so, no, there is nothing you could possibly change that I, personally, would object to.

My concern would be more for those who have argued against you and me, over the years, and have done so rudely and carelessly, all with the understanding that they did have a reasonable expectation of at least some privacy. I don't know anything about what the legal precedents might be, or how those individuals might react to privacy-rule changes; but you might want to look into that.

- Don

[Email]

Hi Meisha,

Does that mean that you believe that individual elementary particles (e.g. electrons or photons) cannot be counted as discrete and equal units?

- Don

[Meisha Turman]

Whaddup Don,

They can "be counted as" such, but I am not willing to assume the absolute accuracy of any quantification. I am willing to admit that our conceptualizations of these supposedly discrete "units" are greatly useful, but to assume our thinking is in any way flawless concerning "that which we wish to quantify" is further than I am willing to go.

-Meisha

[Cary Cook]

Don,

 

I thought everyone expected that their posts would be visible to the public.  I did.

I was surprised to learn that nobody could read our stuff that wasn't a member.

 

OK, I'll post a disclosure.

 

Cary

 

From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 6:07 AM

To: bys-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

 

Hi Cary,

 

I am, legally, considered to be a sufficiently well-known person that I never have any reasonable expectation of privacy, so I always write with the understanding that anything I say is likely to show up, published on the internet (as even my emails have in the past -- out of context, as often as not); so, no, there is nothing you could possibly change that I, personally, would object to.

 

My concern would be more for those who have argued against you and me, over the years, and have done so rudely and carelessly, all with the understanding that they did have a reasonable expectation of at least some privacy I don't know anything about what the legal precedents might be, or how those individuals might react to privacy-rule changes; but you might want to look into that.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16682 (20180104) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16682 (20180104) __________

[Email]

Hi Meisha,

Fair enough. In spite of "zero" measurable differences ever having been detected in any fundamental properties (e.g. rest mass or charge) of any two electrons, one could always presume (as an article of faith) that differences would exist if only we could measure even more accurately. The fascinating observation that any single electron always exactly annihilates any single anti-electron (leaving nothing behind except pure energy) could even be "explained away" by presuming the residual difference was simply too insignificant to detect.

But it appears to me from your agreement: "They can be counted as such," that you have effectively granted Cary's "2+2=4" the kind of absolute meaning he was asking about. Two counted electrons plus two more counted electrons really yields four countable electrons -- even if they were all very slightly different from each other.

Looked at another way, the statement:

   1) There are no absolute truths.

cannot, itself, possibly be "absolutely true" because of it's self-stultifying nature. Further, the only way statement "1" could possibly be even a little bit false is if at least a tiny bit of absolute truth exists. This necessarily leaves:

   2) There is at least a tiny bit of absolute truth.

Which cannot possibly be false without statement "1" being true (which it cannot be).

Of course a hypothetical person could always choose to deny logic completely; but that would leave them with no common ground by which either of us could possibly have this kind of discussion with them.

- Don

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

Are you asserting total agnosticism?

Cary

-----Original Message-----
From: Meisha Turman
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 12:00 AM
To: BYS vs MH
Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine

16682 (20180104) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16682 (20180104) __________

[Meisha Turman]

It really depends on your view of what knowledge ontologically is.

Under the common "justified true belief" version, and since I understand attempts to completely justify beliefs send one on the journey of infinite regress, I would have to admit that none of my beliefs are justified in a complete sense and therefore I claim agnosticism.

However were the common ontological view of knowledge to be something more like "the more or less accurate information immediately accessible to the intellect" I would not claim agnosticism

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

I agree that a healthy dose of agnosticism is, well, healthy--and not just when it comes to theology and philosophy.

Here's why I don't understand your rejection of the true/false dichotomy:

"Seemingly more-or-less reliable" and agnosticism have to do with how certain we are that our beliefs match reality.

But true and false have to do with whether our beliefs actually match reality regardless of how certain we are.

These seem like two different issues. Hence, I don't see how agnosticism is supposed to be an alternative to true/false.

Can you explain why you see it as an alternative?

--Joseph

[Cary Cook]

Meisha,

I agree with Joseph, and would like to depart from Socratic method to point
out some stuff. But in keeping with the rules:

If you say a statement is more or less accurate, what do you mean by it?

Do you mean it is more or less accurate than some other statement, that has
not yet been stated?

And if that other statement were stated, is it only more or less accurate
than another statement, that has not been stated?

Is accuracy purely relative?
If so, relative to what?

Cary

-----Original Message-----
From: Meisha Turman
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 7:45 AM
To: BYS vs MH
Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine

16694 (20180106) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16694 (20180106) __________

[Meisha Turman]

 Yo Joseph,

"I agree that a healthy dose of agnosticism is, well, healthy--and not just when it comes to theology and philosophy"

I think it's very cool that you have a mind for identifying points of agreement, but to me agnosticism is a fudamentally different approach to knowledge, and is a position of epistemic humility which cultivates curious attitudes as opposed to dogmatic ones. 

"I don't understand your rejection of the true/false dichotomy"

My rejection of the true/false dichotomy is based on how misleading it can be. It encourages people to think too simplistically about complex issues. Like for example is Christianity "true"? Is it "true" that Islam is a religion of peace? etc (and ad nauseum)

""Seemingly more-or-less reliable" and agnosticism have to do with how certain we are that our beliefs match reality.

But true and false have to do with whether our beliefs actually match reality regardless of how certain we are.

These seem like two different issues.""

We would all love to "know truths" about how things objectively are but in my view we need to have the humility to admit that in spite of our attempts to be objective we are still stuck only with awareness of how things subjectively seem to us.

"Hence, I don't see how agnosticism is supposed to be an alternative to true/false.


Can you explain why you see it as an alternative?"

Sure. As an example if you were to ask if I thought the statement "2+2 =4" was true, I would say that I thought it was a highly reliable logical construct.


I think so > it's true


 because it doesn't imply knowledge of what "objectively is" only affirms how things seem


-Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Cary,

"I agree with Joseph, and would like to depart from Socratic method to point out some stuff.  But in keeping with the rules:"

I don't want to rule out you or anyone sharing ideas and pointing out stuff. Assert what you want and I will address or rebut as I see fit. 


I would like you NOT to assume I haven't considered what you intend to point out though. Try prefacing with ...do you realize that....have you considered...etc

"If you say a statement is more or less accurate, what do you mean by it?"

I use the qualifier "more or less" as a contrast against ENTIRELY accurate, or errorless (which is what "true" is I think usually taken to mean)

"Do you mean it is more or less accurate than some other statement, that has not yet been stated?"

Putting aside whether a more or less accurate statement has or hasn't been made. Yeah, something like that. It's about leaving our understanding open for improvement rather than thinking we've acheived perfection.

"And if that other statement were stated, is it only more or less accurate than another statement, that has not been stated?"

Probably unless statements of exactly equal accuracy are possible


"Is accuracy purely relative?"


I think so

"If so, relative to what?"

Accuracy is purely relative to one's aim. What one hopes to achieve.


-Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Greetings Don

Here's my rebuttals to ya :)

"Fair enough. In spite of "zero" measurable differences ever having been detected in any fundamental properties (e.g. rest mass or charge) of any two electrons, one could always presume (as an article of faith) that differences would exist if only we could measure even more accurately. "

You can presume (as an article of faith) that our failure to detect differences is reasonable grounds to assume there are no measurable (ever?) differences, while I hold on to my strong suspicion that differences too subtle to detect (with current techniques) can probably effect outcomes on a massive scale

"The fascinating observation that any single electron always exactly annihilates any single anti-electron (leaving nothing behind except pure energy) could even be "explained away" by presuming the residual difference was simply too insignificant to detect."

Inability to detect such differences is not good reason to presume they are insignificant, or to presume they aren't there waiting to be discovered.

"But it appears to me from your agreement: "They can be counted as such," that you have effectively granted Cary's "2+2=4" the kind of absolute meaning he was asking about."

Then it seems to me you are missing the allowance for the possibility of human error that I insist on.

"Two counted electrons plus two more counted electrons really yields four countable electrons -- even if they were all very slightly different from each other."

To reiterate: That we assign numeric value to things is no guarantee that things we fail to account for are of no significance

"Looked at another way, the statement:

1) There are no absolute truths.

cannot, itself, possibly be "absolutely true" because of it's self-stultifying nature. Further, the only way statement "1" could possibly be even a little bit false is if at least a tiny bit of absolute truth exists. This necessarily leaves:

2) There is at least a tiny bit of absolute truth.

Which cannot possibly be false without statement "1" being true (which it cannot be)."

Unless you can explain the difference between absolute truth and some other variety of truth, your language game here only passes as cute.

It may very well be that the only constant is change, and that the concept of equivalency is quite useful but always somewhat illusory, but so long as the game is one-upmanship rather than curiously and respectfully comparing perspectives, we humans will probably kill each other off before we advance very far past what could later be seen as primitive logical frameworks

"Of course a hypothetical person could always choose to deny logic completely; but that would leave them with no common ground by which either of us could possibly have this kind of discussion with them."

People can choose to try discrediting perspectives before they consider them very deeply too. That works for derailing discussions as well

-Meisha

[Email]

Meisha,

Based on your suggested logical methodology, I would recommend that you consider the possibility of there being a sufficient amount of human error in your evaluation that it could lead to a distorted perception of what constitutes "derailing." I hope you don't consider my recommendation to be insufficiently vague. I certainly wouldn't want to appear dogmatic.

- Don

[Meisha Turman]

Don,

How you appear considering that post and portions of some others that I've reviewed is an opinion I will keep to myself. :)

-Meisha

[Email]

Meisha,

;-)

- Don

[Cary Cook]

Mesha,

 

The only thing I'm good for is helping truth seekers.

And it's the only thing I want to be good for in this group.

By truth, I mean that which objectively is, regardless of one's aim, or what one hopes to achieve.

I couldn't care less about attitudes.

 

So my question is:

    Do you still want to talk to me at all?

    If so, why?

 

Cary

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Meisha Turman

Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 5:43 AM

To: BYS vs MH

Subject: Re: Opening my view on the nature of logic to scrutiny

 

 

Cary,

 

 

"I agree with Joseph, and would like to depart from Socratic method to point out some stuff.  But in keeping with the rules:"

 

 

I don't want to rule out you or anyone sharing ideas and pointing out stuff Assert what you want and I will address or rebut as I see fit.

 

 

I would like you NOT to assume I haven't considered what you intend to point out though. Try prefacing with ...do you realize that....have you considered...etc

 

 

"If you say a statement is more or less accurate, what do you mean by it?"

 

 

I use the qualifier "more or less" as a contrast against ENTIRELY accurate, or errorless (which is what "true" is I think usually taken to mean)

 

 

"Do you mean it is more or less accurate than some other statement, that has not yet been stated?"

 

 

Putting aside whether a more or less accurate statement has or hasn't been made. Yeah, something like that. It's about leaving our understanding open for improvement rather than thinking we've acheived perfection.

 

 

"And if that other statement were stated, is it only more or less accurate than another statement, that has not been stated?"

 

 

Probably unless statements of exactly equal accuracy are possible

 

 

"Is accuracy purely relative?"

 

 

I think so

 

 

"If so, relative to what?"

 

 

Accuracy is purely relative to one's aim. What one hopes to achieve.

 

 

-Meisha

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16698 (20180107) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of detection engine 16698 (20180107) __________

[Joseph Dowd]

Hi Meisha,

to me agnosticism is a fudamentally different approach to knowledge, and is a position of epistemic humility which cultivates curious attitudes as opposed to dogmatic ones.

Agreed that dogmatism (in the present-day, popular sense of closed-minded certainty) is bad and that curiosity is usually good.

My rejection of the true/false dichotomy is based on how misleading it can be. It encourages people to think too simplistically about complex issues. Like for example is Christianity "true"? Is it "true" that Islam is a religion of peace? etc (and ad nauseum)

Agreed 100% that those issues are too complex for a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

We would all love to "know truths" about how things objectively are but in my view we need to have the humility to admit that in spite of our attempts to be objective we are still stuck only with awareness of how things subjectively seem to us.

This is the sticking point for me. For the record, I'm not just skeptical when it comes to most knowledge-claims; I'm an genuine relativist (yes, we exist) who believes that a claim is true/false only relative to the proper conceptual/linguistic framework. I should probably start a thread about my relativism soon. But I digress. I agree that we should be humble and not assume that our claims are unqualifiedly true, so if that's all you mean when you reject the true/false dichotomy, then I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what your position amounts to.

Let's step away from the math examples, since a lot turns on whether one thinks of math as a mental construct or as the discovery of eternal relationships between mind-independent mathematical entities--an issue that even strong believers in the true/false dichotomy disagree about.

Suppose I say that there's a cup on the table. Is that statement true?

My position:

• The statement can be true (or false) only relative to a conceptual framework that divides reality up into objects in such a way that cups and tables are possible objects. Within a different, alien conceptual framework, the statement "There is a cup on the table" would be meaningless--not because the aliens speak a different language, but because the statement simply can't pick out any objects, whether existent or non-existent, within that alien framework. Hence, the statement is not absolutely true if absolute truth means truth that's independent of people's conceptual frameworks.
  
• However, if matter in fact is arranged in a way that would count as a cup on a table within our conceptual framework, then the statement is true. Not absolutely true, since it is true only relative to our conceptual framework, but still objectively true (since there is in fact a cup on the table).
• Even if the statement is objectively true, we can never be certain that it's objectively true. Even if we think we see a cup on the table, we might be hallucinating or in the Matrix or something.
• Our inability to know for certain whether the statement is true doesn't prevent it from being true (if there is in fact a cup on the table).
  

To continue with the Socratic approach: Do you disagree with my position? If not, where do you disagree?

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

Cary,
I am reserving judgement and just assuming that you are as you purport yourself to be. A truth seeker who will hold to the pledge of non-evasion (in the other thread) and offer your perspective and scrutiny in ways meant to be helpful here. Don't let your emotions get in the way now :)

-Meisha

[Meisha Turman]

Agreed that dogmatism (in the present-day, popular sense of closed-minded certainty) is bad and that curiosity is usually good.

If you understand and agree with this, I would expect that you would also see where I am coming from when I argue that we should speak in terms of whether or not we are convinced of the reliability, validity, or accuracy of a statement as opposed to ditching these variables for a comfortably simplistic yes or no black and white dichotomy

Agreed 100% that those issues are too complex for a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Even with supposedly non-complex issues, I think we ought to recognize that our tendency to simplify is for the sake of simplicity or convenience.

We would all love to "know truths" about how things objectively are but in my view we need to have the humility to admit that in spite of our attempts to be objective we are still stuck only with awareness of how things subjectively seem to us.

This is the sticking point for me.

Unless you want to claim that we have a method for transcending subjectivity I don't see what there is to object to.

For the record, I'm not just skeptical when it comes to most knowledge-claims; I'm an genuine relativist (yes, we exist) who believes that a claim is true/false only relative to the proper conceptual/linguistic framework.

I would suggest replacing the "true/false" in that statement with "valid"

I should probably start a thread about my relativism soon. But I digress. I agree that we should be humble and not assume that our claims are unqualifiedly true, so if that's all you mean when you reject the true/false dichotomy, then I agree with you.

I mean something more. Usually if you ask someone what makes a statement true, they will say something like "When it corresponds with objective reality" (as if we could check). Ask them if it must correspond with absolutely precise accuracy and answers given start to vary more. Accuracy is a better concept than truth because people readily realize that it exists on a spectrum rather than being a binary "all or nothing" principle.

Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what your position amounts to.

It's an assault on a VERY popular IMO overly simplistic way of categorizing claims

Suppose I say that there's a cup on the table. Is that statement true?

My position:
The statement can be true (or false) only relative to a conceptual framework that divides reality up into objects in such a way that cups and tables are possible objects. Within a different, alien conceptual framework, the statement "There is a cup on the table" would be meaningless--not because the aliens speak a different language, but because the statement simply can't pick out any objects, whether existent or non-existent, within that alien framework. Hence, the statement is not absolutely true if absolute truth means truth that's independent of people's conceptual frameworks.
However, if matter in fact is arranged in a way that would count as a cup on a table within our conceptual framework, then the statement is true. Not absolutely true, since it is true only relative to our conceptual framework, but still objectively true (since there is in fact a cup on the table).
Even if the statement is objectively true, we can never be certain that it's objectively true. Even if we think we see a cup on the table, we might be hallucinating or in the Matrix or something.
Our inability to know for certain whether the statement is true doesn't prevent it from being true (if there is in fact a cup on the table).
To continue with the Socratic approach: Do you disagree with my position? If not, where do you disagree?

Nothing to object to is jumping out to me. But this thread is for scrutinizing my thinking. I notice you created I nice new post. I will pop in there and see if I can dig something up :)

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

Usually if you ask someone what makes a statement true, they will say something like "When it corresponds with objective reality" (as if we could check).

Accuracy is a better concept than truth because people readily realize that it exists on a spectrum rather than being a binary "all or nothing" principle.

From these two statements, I infer that you have at least two objections to the concept of truth:

1. Unlike accuracy/validity, truth is all-or-nothing. Hence, if we change the degree of precision that we're demanding, one and the same statement can switch from true to false. For example, the statement that I weigh 140 lbs is true enough for a doctor's purposes but false if we want to be really precise. Hence, truth is too blunt an instrument for philosophical discussions; it would be better to say that a statement is accurate/valid to such-and-such a degree.
   
2. On a deeper level, the notion of truth (i.e., correspondence to reality) is problematic because it makes a statement or perception's validity eternally inaccessible. Suppose we have a certain perception of reality. If assessing the perception's validity required us to look at the perception and then look at reality and check whether they correspond, then we would never be able to assess the validity of our perception of reality, since we can "look at reality" only through our perception of reality.
   

Am I correct in my interpretation of your objections?

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

It seems like you understand my beef with truthism.

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

If I understand your beef with truthism, then let me ask a further clarifying question. In explaining the question, I will assume for argument's sake that your objections to truthism are correct.

You don't just object to the ideology that you call truthism. You also object to the very use of the words "true" and "false." This despite the fact that we could "fix" the problems you mention simply by adopting a non-correspondence theory of truth and by specifying what degree of precision we're using when we call a statement "true."

So my question is this: Do you object to the words "true" and "false" because you think that those words are ideologically tainted and that their use biases us toward truthism? If not, what is your beef with the word "true" (as distinguished from truthism)?

--Joseh

[Meisha Turman]

Do you object to the words "true" and "false" because you think that those words are ideologically tainted and that their use biases us toward truthism?

Why yes, yes I do. What's more, I doubt that you disagree.

-Meisha

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha, 

I agree that the word "true" is ideologically tainted with the correspondence theory of truth. We can't just wrench a central, long-standing term out of the slot that it fills in the dominant conceptual framework and expect it not to carry the conceptual framework along with it.

I'm not sure I agree that we should discard the correspondence theory of truth. I agree that there's no non-circular way to "check" whether our perception of reality corresponds to reality. Nonetheless, you and I agree that there is an objective reality; that is, there are things that happen regardless of how well or poorly informed we are about them. We may never know for sure whether our perception of reality corresponds to reality, but that is no reason to give up the concept of correspondence. In my view, the solution is simply to be more aware that our perceptions may not correspond to reality. Here I don't think "validity" and "reliability" have much to contribute that "truth" lacks: "validity" and "reliability" are just as bound up with notions of correspondence as "truth" is; the connection to correspondence just isn't as in-your-face with "validity" and "reliability."

As for your point about truth being too all-or-nothing, that's an excellent point. But that's no reason to give up correspondence; it's just means that we should be careful to specify what degree of correspondence we're demanding. As you point out, validity and reliability are more useful concepts than truth for this purpose.

In short, here is what I would say:

• In most contexts, we should use the terms "validity" and "reliability" much more often and the term "truth" proportionally less often.
• We should use the term "truth" when we need to emphasize the possibility/question of correspondence. For example, I couldn't have conveyed my version of relativism in that other thread without using the word "truth."'
• Whenever possible, we should specify the degree of correspondence that we're demanding when we do use the term "truth."

But as you noted above, this thread is about your views, not mine. To get back to your views...

What connection do you see between your view of logic and your rejection of truthism? I understand that truth and falsity are central concepts in standard logic, but what precise connection do you see between (a) saying that logic is a product of language and (b) rejecting truthism? (Sorry if the question seems dense; I'm deliberately moving slowly so that I'm sure I understand all the contours of your position.)

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

Joseph,

"What connection do you see between your view of logic and your rejection of truthism? I understand that truth and falsity are central concepts in standard logic, but what precise connection do you see between (a) saying that logic is a product of language and (b) rejecting truthism? (Sorry if the question seems dense; I'm deliberately moving slowly so that I'm sure I understand all the contours of your position.)"

To say that I assert logic (in the ontological sense) to be the PRODUCT OF language is inaccurate. It is the product of two or more conscious agents co-experiencing (or at least thinking they are) things and agreeing on terms to refer to them. So language and logic emerge at the same time in this process of "coming to terms". Now following the establishment of these logical first principles, logic systems, ideologies, or epistemologies develop and increase in complexity along with language in a symbiosis. The term "Truth" emerged as a concept in these systems as a shared ideal based on the desire for information that is not misleading. Information that clarifies rather than obscures how things are, or how things work. The underlying ideal is noble and good. We should seek trustworthy reliable information. But there is a difference between seeking after this ideal, and thinking it's been found in any sort of complete or perfect sense. When we build systems on gnostic hubris rather than curiosity we get the various "isms" which are all varieties of "truthism" so to speak.

-Meisha

[Joseph Dowd]

Meisha,

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

We should seek trustworthy reliable information. But there is a difference between seeking after this ideal, and thinking it's been found in any sort of complete or perfect sense.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but this is a statement about certainty--how certain we are that our statements correspond to reality. The solution is simply to be more aware that our statements might not correspond to reality as closely as we think. I agree that the terms "validity" and "reliability" are more helpful than "truth" for this purpose.

However, elsewhere you seem to reject altogether the notion of correspondence to reality. Is that correct?

If so, how are "validity" and "reliability" any better than "truth"? Unlike "truth," "reliability" and "validity" don't mean correspondence to reality; however, they both presuppose the possibility of correspondence to reality. For example, if I think that "Honesty is the best policy" is a generally reliable guideline, then I'm presupposing that reality is arranged in such a way that I can count on my past experience with honesty to be a good indication of what my future experience will be, and in making this presupposition, I'm assuming that the presupposition corresponds to reality (to some degree).

--Joseph

[Meisha Turman]

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but this is a statement about certainty--how certain we are that our statements correspond to reality.

That's what we have to work with...our certainties. When folks say "it's true that X" I always interpret it as "I am certain that X"

The solution is simply to be more aware that our statements might not correspond to reality as closely as we think.

I don't think throwing the words true and truth around is conducive to that solution. Frankly I find that when people use those words alot, it's a sign that they are looking to be put on a pedestal, to be considered a priestly dispenser of 100% reliable information

I agree that the terms "validity" and "reliability" are more helpful than "truth" for this purpose.

If those using any of these terms are acting under the pretense that the supposed validity, reliability or truth of a proposition doesn't rest on how things (subjectively) seem then the problem is still with us in a different guise

However, elsewhere you seem to reject altogether the notion of correspondence to reality. Is that correct?

Rather than rejecting it altogether, I'd say I seriously take issue with it, for reasons I think you are already aware of.

If so, how are "validity" and "reliability" any better than "truth"?

They aren't necessarily. The markers being is universiality being claimed? Is objectivity being claimed

Unlike "truth," "reliability" and "validity" don't mean correspondence to reality; however, they both presuppose the possibility of correspondence to reality.

It's not whether or not a proposition corresponds with reality, but how well, and to what aspect of reality it corresponds most accurately.

For example, if I think that "Honesty is the best policy" is a generally reliable guideline, then I'm presupposing that reality is arranged in such a way that I can count on my past experience with honesty to be a good indication of what my future experience will be, and in making this presupposition, I'm assuming that the presupposition corresponds to reality (to some degree).

But I notice that people never say "truth corresponds with certain situations within reality" they want desperate to assert "truths" as universal

-Meisha