Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Truth As Fact Or Theory?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Since everyone appears to accept alernate beliefs, can we call anything truth or fact? Why not theory? Theory works for the believer and defines reality much better. What do you think?

On another note:

-Is there such a thing as truth?

-Is truth simply relative?

-To what extent must a theory be validated in order to be given the credit of reliability, or otherwise, to be considered truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are easy answers to your questions, but I am going to assume that you are quite capable of finding them yourself, so I am just going to ask you questions to get you thinking about the right things. Let's start with "truth." What do you think that word means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are easy answers to your questions, but I am going to assume that you are quite capable of finding them yourself, so I am just going to ask you questions to get you thinking about the right things. Let's start with "truth." What do you think that word means?

Wow, that's scary. I suppose I have no definition for it. I accept everything as theory. If anyone ever said something was 100% fact, I'd just laugh hysterically. Sorry if this wasn't the response you were looking for.

Ok, fine. If I had to give you a definition, I'd call it a misconception. There is no such thing as THE TRUTH, but I suppose its perfectly reasonable for there to be A TRUTH, such as: "I am male", "I have 10 fingers and 10 toes"

I guess A TRUTH = Fact

THE TRUTH = Illusion

Edited by AmbivalentEye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true or just a theory that you exist?

If you ask me, its true (because my cognitive faculty tells me its true).

If you asked another person, it could be true under the same premise, but then again, that other person could be imagining me. You'd have to then prove that the person can perceive my existence and that it is substantial. You'd also have to make sure that the person doing the study isn't "imagining" me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept everything as theory. If anyone ever said something was 100% fact, I'd just laugh hysterically.

I guess A TRUTH = Fact

THE TRUTH = Illusion

How can you say that nothing is "100% fact", but then say that "a truth" is a fact?

What is "the truth" as distinguished from "a truth"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask me, its true (because my cognitive faculty tells me its true).

If you asked another person, it could be true under the same premise, but then again, that other person could be imagining me. You'd have to then prove that the person can perceive my existence and that it is substantial. You'd also have to make sure that the person doing the study isn't "imagining" me as well.

What proof would you have of this "imagining" scenario? I.e., is positing that people "imagine" each other into existence ad hoc and arbitrary? Not to mention such a "reality" would contradict the existence axiom-- Existence exists.

Do you think the evidence that your senses supply are an accurate representation of reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since everyone appears to accept alernate beliefs, can we call anything truth or fact?
Yes, we can. Fact refers to something metaphysical, i.e. some particular graspable aspect of reality. Truth is a mental product, coming from a consciousness grasping that some proposition describes a fact.
Why not theory?
Theory describes a proposition which is supported but not established to the level of certainty, because you have some reason to doubt that the statement is true.
Theory works for the believer and defines reality much better.
What example are you thinking of? We really can't judge whether a certain claim is better described as being "true" or "possibly true", without know what claim you are speaking of.
To what extent must a theory be validated in order to be given the credit of reliability, or otherwise, to be considered truth?
To the point that there is no known reason to doubt that it is true -- no counter-evidence (direct or indirect). Please note the word reason -- there is no denying that you can reject reason and just laugh hysterically if someone states that they know something. So to be more explicit, when there is no fact that you can point to that contradicts a statement, then you have certainty. The irrational nihilist hysterically laughing hyena cannot be prevented from asserting skepticism, but that has no bearing on rational discourse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theory describes a proposition which is supported but not established to the level of certainty, because you have some reason to doubt that the statement is true..

This is not what the word 'theory' means in science, despite what the creationists think. There is no reason to doubt that the theory of evolution, or the theory of thermodynamics, are true, yet they remain theories for all that.

A theory is just a body of integrated hypothesis'. A good theory is one which is strongly supported by evidence, and which we have firm grounds for believing to be true.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you say that nothing is "100% fact", but then say that "a truth" is a fact?

What is "the truth" as distinguished from "a truth"?

I believe a fact is as true as you can get. A fact is basically an extremely reliable theory, but once again, it is never 100% true.

Also, "A TRUTH" is something one has accepted as a reliable theory

"THE TRUTH" is a collective acceptance of something that must apply to everyone, everywhere, in all cases. Which can never happen.

Thus, if "The Truth is out there", then the universe is expanding much too rapidly for us to ever find it.

And: Yes, I do believe my senses are substantial evidence because they are the only tools for cognition that I have. My perception is a compilation of what my senses acquire and what my brain is then able to analyze. Obviously I would never depend on somebody else's judgment to accept that anything is true.

I don't trust people. I trust myself, and that is enough for me.

To the point that there is no known reason to doubt that it is true -- no counter-evidence (direct or indirect). Please note the word reason -- there is no denying that you can reject reason and just laugh hysterically if someone states that they know something. So to be more explicit, when there is no fact that you can point to that contradicts a statement, then you have certainty. The irrational nihilist hysterically laughing hyena cannot be prevented from asserting skepticism, but that has no bearing on rational discourse.

Just because there is no known reason to doubt it, doesn't mean that we can accept it as a certainty. I don't. I don't love science because of the hope that I might find an answer to anything, but rather that as long as I keep asking questions, I'll keep acquiring more information about it. I like thinking that the information is endless, because I don't see a point in living if "you know everything".

That's why I don't accept certainties. I like knowing I can always keep looking for more, or perhaps a better explanation. I don't believe in ultimatums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you certain that we can't be certain of anything?

YOU might not be able to be certain of things, even when you steal concepts to say with certainty that we can't be certain of things, but other people can be certain of things. You shouldn't ascribe your skepticism to everyone else.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sentence could help you:

Scepticist doubt is belief in disguise.

If you have no reason to believe that something is false or even could be false, like in the "I have ten fingers"-example, what you have is not reasonable doubt, but unfounded belief that it could "somehow" be otherwise.

What you need to learn is that doubt isn't always justified and that it should be to be taken serious. Doubt is nothing but the other side of the coin called belief.

Once you can make that distinction, you'll be able to differentiate theory and truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you certain that we can't be certain of anything?

Nope, I'm not certain. I'd be a hypocrite if I was. That's why, I'm always open to whatever reasoning others might have. If you could prove that there is certainty, I might believe you, dpending on the evidence.

If you have no reason to believe that something is false or even could be false, like in the "I have ten fingers"-example, what you have is not reasonable doubt, but unfounded belief that it could "somehow" be otherwise.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

And how could one possibly not doubt in the slightest sense?

Edited by AmbivalentEye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainty is impossible.

If true, then the statement is false. In other words, it collapses from its own contradiction.

If false, then the statement is useless.

Did I ever say that certainty was impossible? I only said that nothing is 100% true

It's just that I don't see how certainty could be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they're trying to say is that when you have enough evidence supporting a claim, and nothing against it (so there are no proper grounds for doubting the certainty) you can regard it as true, which means that the statement refers to a fact, i.e. something in reality (that is true).

If a skeptic says: but it could be otherwise, but is unable to give reasons why in this specific case that is true, then you should regard it as arbitrary and reject the "doubt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they're trying to say is that when you have enough evidence supporting a claim, and nothing against it (so there are no proper grounds for doubting the certainty) you can regard it as true, which means that the statement refers to a fact, i.e. something in reality (that is true).

If a skeptic says: but it could be otherwise, but is unable to give reasons why in this specific case that is true, then you should regard it as arbitrary and reject the "doubt".

Perfectly understandable. Thank you for clarifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not certain.

I only said that nothing is 100% true

If you are not certain of anything, how do you keep making absolute statements that appear to stem from certainty? You say you are not a hypocrite, but you position is rife with contradiction. Logically speaking, you have no way to assert your position with any validity.

I'm certain that I can assume that anything you say comes from a position of doubt based on the evidence of your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are not certain of anything, how do you keep making absolute statements that appear to stem from certainty? You say you are not a hypocrite, but you position is rife with contradiction. Logically speaking, you have no way to assert your position with any validity.

I'm certain that I can assume that anything you say comes from a position of doubt based on the evidence of your words.

hmm...

I must admit, you got me there.

You can delete this topic if ou want now. I got the information I wanted to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say that there is truth anywhere? The way our own sense percieve the world could indeed be a misrepresentation of the world around us. Like I once read from Descartes. The only real truth in the world is math, everything based on math entirely must be truth. Other other information could be considered as uncertain/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Descartes was wrong. Not just on that, but on a whole slough of things throughout his philosophy. He allowed his expertise in Mathematics, a specialized science (the validity of which rests on philosophy, not the other way around) to determine the course of the rest of his thinking. How? By modeling his philosophy on math. He started with a set of arbitrarily chosen axioms (not that mathematical axioms are arbitrary), and proceeded to deduce an entire philosophical system from them. This method is called rationalism.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff: To say that sense-perception is an invalid representation of reality is a contradiction. In means, in effect, that we cannot know reality because we know it through our means of knowing reality.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say that there is truth anywhere?

You, apparently. Observe:

The way our own sense percieve the world could indeed be a misrepresentation of the world around us.
Truth claim.

The only real truth in the world is math

Truth claim.

everything based on math entirely must be truth.
Truth claim.

Other other information could be considered as uncertain

Truth claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...