What would count as conclusive with regard to truth? — creativesoul

The passage of some test that is appropriate to the matter in question.

I misspoke above, and I think you caught it. I wan't thinking of one person persuading another with "how many ways are there to get a person...." Rather i was thinking of how many ways are there that an individual can persuade himself of the truth a proposition.

But the comparison that you mentioned of earlier varies across languages.
One might say the apple being red is true, and apple being red, and somewhat round is true.
The latter being more true etc.

In math for instance, sentences if true are equally true.

I am sorry, my way of looking at it is to define it(truth, or other things) one way, and then see what we can do with it. Does it cover everything or not?

Truth will depend upon the question being asked, that is certain, but everything in thought can be divided into questions and beliefs, even sensations, and emotions. The mind thinking of them as true.

What it actually is, is a matter of wide speculation, but I think the philosophical answer should depend on usefulness as well. How much can each viewpoint explain?

I am sorry, my way of looking at it is to define it(truth, or other things) one way, and then see what we can do with it. Does it cover everything or not? — guptanishank

I think this is about the best anyone can do.

The measurement truth is a comparison between a subject and an object. Truth doesn't exist outside a relative context of matching similarity of two things. It is a classification of matching things.

1+1 = 2; we say that is a true statement because the two sides match.
The apple is red; that statement could be true if the color of the apple matches the wavelength of red.
This is a fair pair of dice; that statement is classified as true if the observed results match a probability table for a pair of dice.

And there are degrees to which things may match, the most general being does/doesn't. Is this egg from a chicken or a goose? Weigh it, and we find the two ranges overlap.

The two egg-weight ranges aren't mutually exclusive, and so we can describe the egg as maybe 3/4 hen and 1/4 goose. That is a degree of match, a truth value for the comparison. That is not a proportion of ingredients within the sample egg.

Schroedinger's cat was merely modeled as alive and dead, with the statement that model is effective for any application needing that information.

Apple is red because it is defined to be red.
So a statement can be true if it is logically valid, or assumed to be true(Putting definitions as assumptions as well, any rule too).

Truth is a relationship folks.

Between what?

We must be careful how we talk here. Relationships do not have a spatiotemporal location.

So a statement cant be true if it is logically valid, or assumed to be true(Putting definitions as assumptions as well, any rule too). — guptanishank

That's just plain wrong. Statements presuppose truth. There are no exceptions.

A statement can be the result of valid inference and either true or false. A statement can be the result of invalid inference and be either as well.

The passage of some test that is appropriate to the matter in question. — tim wood

Verification/falsification?

That was a typo. Can be. not can't be.
Statements have the property of truth.
A statement either has the property of true, or true', which can be defined very easily as the set not true.

Gotcha. We agree on both counts then.

Do you mean the relationship between the logic and it's result? Then we do, otherwise I have no clue, because relationship has to be defined between objects, or elements.

I mean that a statement can be true if it is the result of valid inference, and it can also be true if it is assumed to be.

Neither the inferring nor the assuming make it so, however. Thats a crucial thing to note.

Yes, exactly. Great, we finally agree on something.
And then, everything can be modelled either as a statement or a question, or an assumption, all of which can have true or false value.

The Universe can be said to be generating true statements every moment.

Truth is presupposed within thought and belief formation.

Truth is the relationship 'between' true thought, belief, and statements thereof and fact. Truth is the relationship missing 'between' false thought, belief, and statements thereof and fact. It is presupposed in both cases, mistakenly so in the latter.

The presupposition of truth inherent to belief is precisely how "is true" becomes redundant.

"That is a tree" is a true statement if, and only if, that is a tree.

The above puts it all on simple display. On the left is the belief statement. The truth conditions are set out by the rest. On the right, is what must be the case in order for the statement to be true.

Thought and belief is mental correlation. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. That's the origen of truth and meaning, although that's quite a bit more complex an argument to make, it can be done. It's aside from this thread though.

My cat hears certain kinds of plastic being rustled, and she immediately draws a mental correlation between the sound and her memory of getting treats. She has formed rudimentary thought and belief. This is clear. She puts her expectations on display.

If she receives no treats, her belief is false. Her expectation did not correspond with fact.

Truth is prior to language.

"That is a tree" is a true statement if, and only if, that is a tree. — creativesoul

This one assumes an infinite tower of metalanguages. So, it assumes a concept of infinity.

I've read that charge before. Care to explain how that is the case?

The metalanguage needs to be larger than the object language, and the truth in the metalanguage, depends upon a greater metalanguage and so forth.

On the right, is what must be the case in order for the statement to be true. — creativesoul

Between what? — guptanishank

• If what's on the left matches what's on the right, then the statement is true
• If left only partially matches right, then the statement is only partially true
• If left doesn't match right, then the statement is not true

Examples
An orange is a fruit -- true, matches
Your name is Amanda -- partially true, partial match to the readership
My name is Amanda -- not true, does not match birth certificate, driver's license

An orange is a fruit -- true, matches — AngleWyrm

There is no left or right here. Orange is a fruit by definition.

There is no left or right here. Orange is a fruit by definition. — guptanishank

Do you agree that the statement "an orange is a fruit" is a true statement?

Replace the word "is/was" with "matches" to see the left and right side of a match.

Yes there is a comparison involved, I agree, if that's what you mean. Orange is compared to a fruit, and the whole sentence with truth.
But there is no left or right there. You are thinking of an equation. No such thing is defined here.

The metalanguage needs to be larger than the object language, and the truth in the metalanguage, depends upon a greater metalanguage and so forth. — guptanishank

It makes no sense at all, on my view, to talk in terms of "the truth in the meta-language". So, help me out here, if you would...

"That is a tree" is a true statement if, and only if, that is a tree.

Which part of that is meta-language, and what makes it so?