• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Truthiness, kind courtesy of Stephen Colbert

    Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. — Wikipedia

    Euler's Identity:

    It's hailed to be the most beautiful mathematical equation.

    Even as a nonmathematician, I simply can't imagine that such a beautiful/elegant equation like Euler's Identity could be false. It has to be true, nothing so aesthetically pleasing could be false. This is the best description of the truthiness of Euler's Identity I could muster. I didn't refer to any math textbook, nor did I consult a mathematician, the equation seems/feels true.

    Initially, I wanted to discuss truthiness in the context of ethics, my intuitive response being that to a good person what would happen is moral laws will have a truthiness to them - no logic, no argument, no reasoning, just the firm belief that moral laws simply have to be true. Other domains of knowledge can also be truthiness-apt

    Truthiness, mind you, has a bad rap but I (tried to) give it a positive spin.

    Please discuss.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Making-shit-up-iness is a perfect synonym. :smirk:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Making-shit-up-iness is a perfect synonym180 Proof

    That's being just dismissive of the idea (the good kinda truthiness) I want to discuss.

    The usual way things are done, propositions/claims are held/deemed to be true, is by proving them, using arguments. That's the philosophical way of handling assertions of all kinds.

    What I want to know is whether truth itself has certain proof-independent, non-argumentative qualities that can be utilized to identify them. Speaking for myself, some such properties of truth are:

    1. Beauty (you get a reading on your beauty-meter)
    2. Elegance (they are graceful in form)

    So, if I see a claim e.g. festina lente (make haste slowly), I don't feel the need for a proof for why this is true. It just feels right, it makes sense despite no evidence being offered. There's a truthiness to it that's got nothing to do with logic.

    Beauty is truth, truth beauty. - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. — John Keats
  • jgill
    3.5k
    This is the best description of the truthiness of Euler's Identity I could muster. I didn't refer to any math textbook, nor did I consult a mathematician, the equation seems/feels true.TheMadFool

    Amazing. If mathematical life were only so simple. :roll:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Amazing. If mathematical life were only so simple. :roll:jgill

    Why not? We could, if we ever discover those proof-independent qualities of truth, we could skip all the tedious logical deductions (burden of proof) and, you know, cut to the chase.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Truth =/= proof. "Truthiness" is, at best, redundant – merely an avowal or disposition, expectation or bias, or ... and not, in any non-subjective, corroborated, way, true.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Truth =/= proof. "Truthiness" is, at best, redundant – merely an avowal or disposition, expectation or bias, or ... and not, in any non-subjective, corroborated, way, true.180 Proof

    Of course but you can't deny that proof is a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of claims; another way of saying that is logic (argumentation) is key to, a prerequisite for, the veracity of a proposition.

    What I want to know is whether there are other non-logical determinants of truth? In other words can I formulate a proof-independent set of criteria to establish the truth of a claim, one that does not require me to use deduction/induction/abduction? I provided two candidate conditions (beauty and elegance) that could help us in deciding whether a proposition is a truth. While I must admit that some logic is involved - checking whether a proposition satisfies the criteria set down - it's not the same as inferring to the proposition (the conclusion) from some premises.

    An example should help illustrate my point:

    Logic mode
    1.IF P THEN Q
    2. P
    Ergo,
    3. Q [1, 2 Modus Ponens]

    Truthiness mode
    1. Truth has the qualities w, x, y [proof is not included among these qualities]
    2. Q has the qualities w, x, y
    Ergo,
    3. Q [1, 2]
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Of course truth≠proof but you can't deny that proof is a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of claims; another way of saying that is logic (argumentation) is key to, a prerequisite for, the veracity of a proposition.TheMadFool
    Sure I can, because it is not, Fool. Proof only obtains in logic or mathematics. Empirical claims, for instance, only require corroborative evidence (so logic is not "a prerequisite' :roll:) and/or sound inferences. I exist – no argument is required, but nothing expressed by that proposition is in question. And a tautology are necessarily true without argument.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Sure I can, because it is not, Fool. Proof only obtains in logic or mathematics. Empirical claims, for instance, only require corroborative evidence (so logic is not "a prerequisite' :roll:) and/or sound inferences. I exist – no argument is required, but nothing expressed by that proposition is in question. And a tautology are necessarily true without argument180 Proof

    Logic is absolutely necessary to establish truth, at least under the current epistemological paradigm - rationality. How could you object to that? Unless of course you have good reasons to do so. See?
  • Amalac
    489
    Even as a nonmathematician, I simply can't imagine that such a beautiful/elegant equation like Euler's Identity could be false. It has to be true, nothing so aesthetically pleasing could be false.TheMadFool

    I bet you would say the same thing if the golden ratio, or any other important mathematical constant, was there instead of pi, and didn’t already know Euler’s identity is true.

    Initially, I wanted to discuss truthiness in the context of ethics, my intuitive response being that to a good person what would happen is moral laws will have a truthiness to them - no logic, no argument, no reasoning, just the firm belief that moral laws simply have to be true.TheMadFool

    So a good person is one who is dogmatic and guided by blind faith?

    Does it not occur to them that at least some of their moral laws might be flawed?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I bet you would say the same thing if the golden ratio, or any other important mathematical constant, was there instead of pi, and didn’t already know Euler’s identity is true.Amalac

    Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. Having only caught but a glimpse of that side - its innate beauty - I'm not in a position to state anything definitive. The OP was meant to be exploratory - could truths have qualities besides logic that make them true? As far as I could tell, beauty & elegance seem worthy candidates. So, if a proposition P is aesthetically pleasing and graceful in form, it possesses truthiness and will be declared true sans proof/evidence.

    So a good person is one who is dogmatic and guided by blind faith?Amalac

    Truthiness is not fideistic. The objective is to come up with criteria for truthiness that make sense.

    Does it not occur to them that at least some of their moral laws might be flawed?Amalac

    Those propositions that are mistakes will lack truthiness.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    I have only given "good reasons" that show your claims are false.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    So how can we tell whether or not they have truthiness?Amalac

    That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

    My mind draws a blank except for the widely held belief that truth has an aesthetic quality and elegance to it that would put women to shame.

    Why does e to the i π + 1= 0 have truthiness, but not e to the i Φ + 1 = 0 ?Amalac

    Euler's identity is a classic example. I mentioned it because unlike other formulae, its status insofar as truthiness is concerned, is not so controversial to mess up my thesis.

    I have only given "good reasons" that show your claims are false.180 Proof

    Yes, proving my point that epistemology is under the sway of rationality (proof/evidence/logic). Could you, surely something a man as erudite as you can do, be a tad bit poetic and tell me, as rudely as you can but...in the most eloquent way too that...I'm talking, as you once said, out of my bung hole. :grin:
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    :roll: Stop flatulating to move the goal posts. We're discussing "truth" and "logic", not knowledge (i.e. epistemology). Oh yeah and "truthiness" (doxa or bias) too.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Stop flatulating to move the goal posts. We're discussing "truth" and "logic", not knowledge (i.e. epistemology). Oh yeah and "truthiness" (doxa or bias) too.180 Proof

    :lol:

    My question is simple:

    Are there proof-independent qualities truth possesses?

    If yes, we could find them and then use them as a criteria for discovering truths completely independent of arguments/proofs.

    Epistemology is relevant because we're here talking about truths, its stock-in-trade.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Are there proof-independent qualities truth possesses?TheMadFool
    I've already answered this question. Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty. :yawn:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I've already answered this question. Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty180 Proof

    :ok: :lol: You've been helpful, as always.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I forgot to congratulate you on your mathematical discovery. Good job!
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Yes. The rest of your post is – assumptions to the contrary are – incoherent. Read e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper, Haack ... Witty. :yawn:180 Proof

    This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like)180 Proof
    Your comment from Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox

    Merely from knowing the formula's meaning, one can infer its truth or falsity without any effort to derive it in the old-fashioned way, which requires one to trudge methodically "upwards" from the axioms. This is not just peculiar; it is astonishing. Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce whether the statement is true or false.Douglas Hofstadter (Downward Causality - Strange Loop)

    :chin:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Never mind. Gracias.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.