By what standard do you hold something is true?

[hades]

How can you verify for certain wether or not a claim is true?


And if we are looking for Truth, by what standard do we measure it? Authority? Sense perception? Logic?

Do we not have to make certain presuppositions before we begin any inquiry? Are the axioms of logic taken on faith?

[LooF]

If it cannot be false, then it is true.


You measure truth?


logic is not faith as long as we exist within this world

but if truth is outside of this world, we will not be able to find it

so why not suppose these things are true?

[hades]

If it cannot be false, then it is true.


You measure truth?


logic is not faith as long as we exist within this world

but if truth is outside of this world, we will not be able to find it

so why not suppose these things are true?

I dont follow...

Logic isn't faith, but aren't its axioms accepted on faith?

And If i make a statement, "MY cat is under table X"

How can you verify the truth of the statement? YOu can look? So what, you might not see it, you might hallucinate. Its logically possible, but it doesn't mean its true.

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

How can you verify for certain wether or not a claim is true?

By verifying that it is utterly impossible to refute it.

For example, the truth that Nature is not nothing whatosoever, that experiences are happening, is impossible to refute, and is therefore irrefutably true.

And if we are looking for Truth, by what standard do we measure it? Authority? Sense perception? Logic?

Logic - always. The other two are subject to uncertainty.

Do we not have to make certain presuppositions before we begin any inquiry? Are the axioms of logic taken on faith?

At root, there is only one core axiom of logic - namely, the principle of A=A, which can never be refuted, or even questioned. To even begin to try and question A=A (or anything else) will necessarily involve the tacit affirmation of A=A.

And If i make a statement, "MY cat is under table X"

How can you verify the truth of the statement? YOu can look? So what, you might not see it, you might hallucinate. Its logically possible, but it doesn't mean its true.

As you rightly point out, the statement, "my cat is under table X", can never be anything more than empirical speculation. As such, it can never affirmed as a 100% truth, even if we were to look under the table and see the cat there. We could indeed be the unwitting victim of an hallucination.

However, this kind of uncertainty has no bearing on the great philosophic truths of life, simply because these truths are neither empirical nor speculative in nature. Rather, they are expressions of pure logic. Because of this, the point you raise here doesn't apply to them.

-

[hades]

'how can u verify a claim to be true'


By verifying that it is utterly impossible to refute it.

There are many claims that are absurd and can't be refuted, this doesn't make them true.

However, this kind of uncertainty has no bearing on the great philosophic truths of life, simply because these truths are neither empirical nor speculative in nature. Rather, they are expressions of pure logic. Because of this, the point you raise here doesn't apply to them.

-

Ok, what sort of great philosophical truths can you be certain of via logic?

how can we be certain about reality if we can't rely on sense-perception, induction, or empirical methods.

[DHodges]

There are many claims that are absurd and can't be refuted, this doesn't make them true.

Can you give an example? Do you mean statements that can't be proven to be true or false?

[hades]

There are many claims that are absurd and can't be refuted, this doesn't make them true.

Can you give an example? Do you mean statements that can't be proven to be true or false?

Ya.

Such as, pink unicorns flying around jupiter are controlling our weather.

Or, solipsism and the problem of other minds. How can I be certain that there are other conscious beings in the universe besides myself? Perhaps every person and animal I come across are just cleverly designed organic automaton.

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

H: 'how can u verify a claim to be true'

DQ: By verifying that it is utterly impossible to refute it.

H: There are many claims that are absurd and can't be refuted, this doesn't make them true.

Such as, pink unicorns flying around jupiter are controlling our weather.

You're diving back into empirical speculation here - and thus back into irrelevance as far as expressions of pure logic are concerned.

Or, solipsism and the problem of other minds. How can I be certain that there are other conscious beings in the universe besides myself?

You can't, obviously. In fact, it is one of those logical certainties in life that you can never know whether other conscious beings really exist or not.

Ok, what sort of great philosophical truths can you be certain of via logic?

We just touched on such a truth above - namely, that it is intrinsically impossible for the mind to determine whether other minds exist.

I gave another example in my last post - namely, that Nature is not nothing whatsoever.

We've also refered to yet another example in our short time together - namely, that scientific theorizing will always be subject to uncertainty.

Kevin Solway mentioned another example to you a couple of days ago - namely, that all things lack inherent existence.

how can we be certain about reality if we can't rely on sense-perception, induction, or empirical methods.

You will notice than none of the truths above are reliant on sense-perception, induction or empirical methods for their support. They are 100% expressions of pure logic. In other words, what validates their truthfulness is exclusively the process of logical deductive steps based on definitions.


-

[hades]

You're diving back into empirical speculation here - and thus back into irrelevance as far as expressions of pure logic are concerned.

Yes but it is relevant as far as truth and reality are concerned,
If we want to know what is true in this world and what is false.

You can't, obviously. In fact, it is one of those logical certainties in life that you can never know whether other conscious beings really exist or not.

How can you be so certain that you can never know?
Perhaps in the future we might be able to do some sort of Vulcan mind-melt thing...

I gave another example in my last post - namely, that Nature is not nothing whatsoever.

...
So? Thats obvious, that existance exists...
This isn't a great truth, its rather mundane and tautological.\
Actually its also opposed to the idea that things lack inherent existance. If we accept A=A, then things exist in definite ways and have specific identities.

YOu can't say that A is A, that something is itself, and then turn around and say because its made of other parts thus its not what it really is.

We've also refered to yet another example in our short time together - namely, that scientific theorizing will always be subject to uncertainty.

That science is tentative is already known and not a great philosophical truth...

Kevin Solway mentioned another example to you a couple of days ago - namely, that all things lack inherent existence.

That things are contingent on other parts for their existance is not an impressive philosophical truth, and its not a strictly logical truth, its more of an empirical one. It depends on us observing phenomena...
Perhaps there exists some noumenon somewhere, some sort of irreducible subatomic thing that serves as a foundation for our universe...

You will notice than none of the truths above are reliant on sense-perception, induction or empirical methods for their support. They are 100% expressions of pure logic. In other words, what validates their truthfulness is exclusively the process of logical deductive steps based on definitions.

-

Even if they are, they aren't very great.
Anyone with a little common-sense can figure these out and apply them.

1. existance exists
2. science is uncertain
3. phenomena are dependant on right conditions and parts

...

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

DQ: You're diving back into empirical speculation here - and thus back into irrelevance as far as expressions of pure logic are concerned.

H: Yes but it is relevant as far as truth and reality are concerned,
If we want to know what is true in this world and what is false.

You have already defeated your own argument here by bringing up the point that we can never determine whether there is a cat under the table. So I don't know why you have suddenly backed away from this and decided that the possibility of pink unicorns flying around Jupiter is now important.

If you really want to know what is true and false about the world, then you need to know how to transcend the empirical mindset, together with its potential for hallucinations, and discern those non-empirical truths which necessarily apply to all things. There is no other way.

DQ: You can't, obviously. In fact, it is one of those logical certainties in life that you can never know whether other conscious beings really exist or not.

H: How can you be so certain that you can never know?

I am certain because it is an empirical matter. As far as all empirical matters are concerned, we will never be able dismiss the possibility that what we are observing in the world isn't an hallucination of some kind.

Perhaps in the future we might be able to do some sort of Vulcan mind-melt thing...

Again, we will never be able to determine whether our own minds aren't simply concocting the experience.

DQ: I gave another example in my last post - namely, that Nature is not nothing whatsoever.

H: So? Thats obvious, that existance exists...
This isn't a great truth, its rather mundane and tautological.

Well, that's a different issue. I brought it up as an example of a meaningful truth about the world that is logical and non-empirical in nature. It is the most obvious truth that I can think of, one that not even dullards can dismiss. I like it because it nicely illustrates the nature of truth in a general sense. Yes, there are certainly deeper, more interesting truths to be discovered, but they all share the same basic principle of irrefutability that this more obvious and mundane truth does.

DQ: We've also refered to yet another example in our short time together - namely, that scientific theorizing will always be subject to uncertainty.

H: That science is tentative is already known and not a great philosophical truth...

Yes, I agree it's a well-known truth. Again, I bring it up to illustrate that logical truth is a reality. In my experience, most people are happy to affirm the tentative nature of science without really thinking about the reasons why. These people tend to be in complete denial about the reality and importance of logical truth. It's one of the major blind spots of modern society.

It's also a significant truth to understand because it encourages people who are genuinely interested in absolute knowledge to discard the scientific approach and ascend to the higher method of pure logic. It stops them from wasting their lives on a futile pursuit, which has to be a good thing. Einstein, for example, could have benefited from knowing this.

DQ: Kevin Solway mentioned another example to you a couple of days ago - namely, that all things lack inherent existence.

H: That things are contingent on other parts for their existance is not an impressive philosophical truth, and its not a strictly logical truth, its more of an empirical one. It depends on us observing phenomena...

I respect your passion and intelligence, but it is clear to me that you haven't thought about this issue very deeply. I assure you, the contingent nature of all things is a profoundly significant truth with countless implications. Don't make the same mistake that Ayn Rand did and dismiss this avenue of thought prematurely. You would be casting away a gold mine if you did.

Perhaps there exists some noumenon somewhere, some sort of irreducible subatomic thing that serves as a foundation for our universe...

Not relevant. Even so-called "irreducible subatomic things" can be mentally carved up into parts. Moreover, they will still be dependent on external things such as time, space, energy, and the very existence of the Universe itself. So what you are asking for here is inherently impossible.


-

[hades]

Hades wrote:


You have already defeated your own argument here by bringing up the point that we can never determine whether there is a cat under the table. So I don't know why you have suddenly backed away from this and decided that the possibility of pink unicorns flying around Jupiter is now important.

If you really want to know what is true and false about the world, then you need to know how to transcend the empirical mindset, together with its potential for hallucinations, and discern those non-empirical truths which necessarily apply to all things. There is no other way.

I'm not quite sure I'm ready to abandon empirical means. Logic works but it is more of a tool, a start, its not holistic.

Lets talk about sense-perception and empirical means.
Sense perception is a form of extrospection, and a part of reason I think.

Lets say we look under the table and don't see a cat because we might be hallucinating, and we conclude that our senses can be wrong....the assertion that sense perception is wrong in a given circumstance cannot be proven without appealing to sense data. For example

How do you know you were hallucinating? Because you have perceived at another occasion that the cat is in fact under the table ! Such an argument is circular.

This seems like the fallacy of the Stolen Concept to me, because in order to know if you are hallucinating you must again appeal to sense-data and empirical means....right?

Dismissing sense experience and empirical methods because they MIGHT lead to error, is like dismissing logic because it MIGHT lead to contradictions. You only know they are contradictions because you accept the rules of logic, and you only know if you are hallucinating if you accept the validity of your senses...

[Blair]

I think the real question, hades, is what is your motivation? what is it you are trying to achieve with what you say?

If you don't think ultimate truth exists, why are you wasting your time refuting the idea? You aren't going to persuade anyone who knows more than you about what constitutes "our" reality.

Quinn is giving you the answers, perhaps you think it's just a debating game?

[David Quinn]

He's exploring the issue and asking perfectly reasonable questions. Nothing wrong with that.

Hades wrote:

I'm not quite sure I'm ready to abandon empirical means. Logic works but it is more of a tool, a start, its not holistic.

Lets talk about sense-perception and empirical means.
Sense perception is a form of extrospection, and a part of reason I think.

Lets say we look under the table and don't see a cat because we might be hallucinating, and we conclude that our senses can be wrong....the assertion that sense perception is wrong in a given circumstance cannot be proven without appealing to sense data. For example

How do you know you were hallucinating? Because you have perceived at another occasion that the cat is in fact under the table ! Such an argument is circular.

This seems like the fallacy of the Stolen Concept to me, because in order to know if you are hallucinating you must again appeal to sense-data and empirical means....right?

Past empirical experiences can certainly prompt us to formulate a logical truth, but it is the exercise of logic alone which proves it beyond all doubt.

For example, in this instance, the fact that we can never go beyond our minds and "peek" at what lies beyond means that we have no means of validating what is an hallucination and what isn't. We don't have an external reference point to call upon. We are always trapped within own subjective minds. The logical implication of this is that can never be sure whether any of our experiences are hallucinatory or not.

So even though past experiences of cats existing under tables may inspire us to meditate on the larger issue of what really exists in the world, it is the exercise of pure logic which ultimately resolves the issue.

-

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

Dismissing sense experience and empirical methods because they MIGHT lead to error, is like dismissing logic because it MIGHT lead to contradictions.

No, the two aren't the same at all. The philosopher dismisses sense-experiences and empirical methods as possible avenues to ultimate knowledge because he knows they will ALWAYS produce theories which are tentative and speculative in nature, amd also because they can NEVER yield facts which necessarily applies to all things.

The reason why he knows these things is because he has exercised his skills in pure logic.

You only know they are contradictions because you accept the rules of logic, and you only know if you are hallucinating if you accept the validity of your senses

As I've said before, there are no rules of logic to accept. We only have to acknowledge the principle of A=A, which is beyond question.

-

[LooF]

And If i make a statement, "MY cat is under table X"

How can you verify the truth of the statement? YOu can look? So what, you might not see it, you might hallucinate. Its logically possible, but it doesn't mean its true.



as i said, prove that it cannot be false

prove that you are NOT hallucinating
prove that you are NOT being injected image into your head by some mighty evil being

and prove whatever else that you could possibly be doing as false

then if you see the cat, it will be true


of course, if you really think it till the end, you may see that there is no possible way to prove something is true. but then life wouldn't be fun, eh