Though this thread has been quiet for quite some time, I was intrigued by how many of the comments closely followed ideas presented by philosophers throughout history.
To start with, it is always important to have working definitions, as DVFinn pointed out:
DVFinn said:
So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is one of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.
Since humans are “tool makers,†one approach at definition is to ask, “Is this tool any good?" Iacchus and Dorian Gray pointed this out:
Iacchus said:
...
How could it maintain any consistency from one moment to the next? Would there be any coherence then?
...
I think the answer was jokingly, but nevertheless adroitly pointed out by Dorian Gray:
Dorian Gray said:
I have unequivocal evidence of truth. No, wait, I lied.
...
If anything, we “rely†on truth for guidance and to make predictions. (If it fails, we sue the ba-jeepers out of who “lied†to us.) If truth is useful, it must be constant ...
I was born in 1975. No, no, wait. Now I was born in 1857. Nope. Hang-on, history is changing on me again. Okay, now I was born in 1492 in Pangea.
Additionally, truth would be handier if it was ubiquitous - omnipresent. It’s troublesome to fly from L.A. to Miami and then be re-routed to Atlanta because, “Sorry, thermodynamics stopped working in Miami today. We hope this is a temporary outage. But it’s still working in Georgia!â€
To satisfy these needs, a Theory of Truth was sought by philosophers. In fact, they sought what Iacchus focused upon: consistency and coherence. The Coherence Theory of Truth, originating from Benetict Spinoza and Georg Hegel, recognized that the universe is “integrated.†Though we split it into physics, biology, music, psychology, business, etc., all of the facets of each of these “fields†work harmoniously together, or “cohere.†One field doesn’t stop where the other begins. Though coherence is, perhaps, the strongest theory of truth, it is unattainable for mere mortals because it requires omniscience to be utilized. Our best bet is to gain in knowledge and apply whatever “coherence†we can muster. Zero and Dancing David hit on this nicely:
Zero said:
'Truth' would depend on having ALL the information, I think(I don't have enough information to know that 100%
)
Show me someone that knows everything, and even then it is quesswork, because he could weight his answers to questions based on bias. I don't think there is any way around the inherent limitations of humanity...
...but I could be wrong!
Dancing David said:
...
There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.
...
Until we know everything – both past and future, too – there will always be that little voice saying (and as Zero pointedly highlighted), “... I could be wrong!â€
Upchurch summed up the issue with the Coherence Theory when he said ...
Upchurch said:
...
Does Truth exist? I'm not sure.
________________________________________________________________
To counter the limitation of the Coherence Theory, Negative Pragmatism was postulated during the mid-20th century by William Ernest Hocking:
“... if an idea does not work, then it cannot possibly be true, for reason that the truth always works ...†– Sahakian & Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, 1966
These statements by Christian, Beleth, Epepke, and DVFinn are all virtually Negative Pragmatism:
Christian said:
...
Science does not claim to have a way to figure out the truth. The essence of science is that theories must be falsifiable, testable.
...
That we conclude that because a theory has yet to be proven false (because it's predictability is 100% so far), it is true, is our jump, not science's.
Beleth said:
...
We can't know what the Truth is but we can know what isn't the Truth. Any hypothesis which contradicts the facts is not the Truth.
...
[/B]
epepke said:
Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.
...
Let's try again. All I need to show that something is false is to show that something contradicts or doesn't agree.
...
DVFinn said:
...
When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified.
...
________________________________________________________________
But I would give the prize to Hammegk:
hammegk said:
no
To test any truth, to believe in true or false, one first has to accept these two states as possible. We believe true and false exists. We believe that “yes†and “no†exist. We rely on this truth. We believe it exists throughout the universe and at all levels – macro and micro.
In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." -
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Law_of_non-contradiction/
There is that which ‘is’ and that which ‘is not.†This is the essence of “difference.†If there were no differences in the universe, there would be no biology, no chemistry, no physics, no three-dimensional space, no time,
no thing whatsoever. The universe would be homogeneous – without feature.
If there is truth – something constant and ubiquitous for us to rely upon – it must be the existence of “difference.†Without it, we would cease to exist.
Will it exist forever????
elliotfc said:
...
If you don't believe in the existence of truth that is just faith. Not that there is anything wrong with faith.
Elliot, perhaps in the end, truth is just that – faith.
