Then what(ever) you call true or a truth is simply a belief on your part? I would opine that you know very well what is true, and the difference between a truth and a belief. But you apparently want your "trues" to be universally and across all worlds true. I merely ask how you can understand such a thing claimed, to be the thing you claim it to be.

Banno Sure, truth, and God alone knows it, But how do you know it? — tim wood

God alone knows that we are having this conversation? Or any of the myriad related things that are also true? I don't think so. Nor do you, judging by your behaviour.

By two truths I mean that which functions in your "culture" or society as truth, and the unattainable truth you seem to be referencing. — tim wood

These definitions are obviously circular.

"which functions in your "culture" or society as truth", I presume means what our culture believes. Of course, what we believe is true might turn out otherwise. But surely not all of what we believe, because we could not make sense of nothing we believe being true.

"... the unattainable truth you seem to be referencing". Unattainable? Crazed doubt. It's hot outside and cold inside - at least here. Simple truths you would deny because Philosophy.

Babylonians, Hittites, the people next door, Samis, Eskimos, your great-great-grandchildren... — tim wood

...all believe that what they believe is true. And in some cases they are wrong. But in most cases they are right.

Then what(ever) you call true or a truth is simply a belief on your part? I would opine that you know very well what is true, and the difference between a truth and a belief. But you apparently want your "trues" to be universally and across all worlds true. I merely ask how you can understand such a thing claimed, to be the thing you claim it to be. — tim wood

This is very unclear. Are you suggesting that we should not think that the things we believe, are true? That would mean believing things we believe are false...

As I said earlier, most of the confused epistemology in this forum comes form confusing belief and truth. Thanks for providing such a neat example.

Maybe it’s time to abandon epistemology and follow Rorty. Could be the confusion originates in the metaphysics grounding epistemology.

Seems to me that @tim wood gave us a neat example of how the confusion originates in not taking language seriously.

I'm leaning more to Davidson than Rorty, but admit to the difference being small. It would be an interesting topic, but I'm learning that there is not really much place in this forum for depth.

I see you have beenna member for 3 years...slow learner or has there been a shift from depth to no depth at some point and if so, what do you think it is?

A side issue... but I have been a member for much longer than that. There have been a half-dozen or so posters who understood philosophy. Two or three are still around.

I'm just venting some frustration that a few recent threads in which I have been involved only superficially dealt with the issues I was interested in addressing, before reverting to comparatively straightforward stuff. That's more about me than the forums.

Just an old bugger having a bit of a grump.

Fair enough, just curious. Im fairly new and like to get a feel for the culture of a forum. Experience has taught me that its a big factor in how many discussions play out.
Anyway, thanks.

Your point about the difference between my knowing I have a headache, and your knowing I have a headache, is most important. — Banno

Are you not drawing a distinction between knowledge and certainty here? We don't use science to obtain certainty. A scientific experiment is based upon its analysis of observations. Our observations may or may not comport with reality, but what we're assessing is our observations and trying to figure out what brings them about.

I just think the counterexample you provide in this OP is of a different category and not really an attack on the proposition that all knowledge is obtainable through the scientific method. I think a better counterexample would be something like morality as that at least stands in the same category of shareable knowledge.

One's own phenomenal state ought be checked against the phenomenal states of others; do they see what I see? — Banno

That's not commonly done. I don't need verification of whether I see this computer before me or whether I have a headache.

Then what(ever) you call true or a truth is simply a belief on your part? I would opine that you know very well what is true, and the difference between a truth and a belief. But you apparently want your "trues" to be universally and across all worlds true. I merely ask how you can understand such a thing claimed, to be the thing you claim it to be.
— tim wood

This is very unclear. Are you suggesting that we should not think that the things we believe, are true? That would mean believing things we believe are false... — Banno

Nope. I'm suggesting that true and belief are different things. You (presumably) believe in the things you believe in, but on that basis alone by itself you do not take them as true, do you? It seems to me you have two overlapping understandings of what true is. First, there are the things you are satisfied are true. Second, I infer that you suppose that there is intrinsic to the world a state of affairs that when expressed, that expression of that state of affairs must be true. But you operate (it seems to me) with a third: that your truth can stand as an expression of the intrinsic state of affairs of the world, and thus is universally true.

To illustrate my point I have to resort to an example from a book. With sufficient accuracy for this example, according to Galileo, all events have causes. According to Newton, some events have causes. And according to modern science, no events have causes.

Perhaps you might say that obviously two of these positions are wrong, and only one right. The point I'm trying to channel is that from the standpoint of any one of these positions the other two are plainly wrong. But each was a foundational thought in its own time and application - axiom, absolute presupposition. Thus each was right, was true, in its own context.

That we construct our truths. If we do a good job of it, our foundational truths work for us. But they are conditioned on us and how we understand things. They are, in fact, how we understand things and not what we understand. And in time they can change.

My source for this thinking is R.G. Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics.

...but on that basis alone by itself you do not take them as true, do you? — tim wood

Well, yes. To believe ɸ is to think that ɸ is true. Recall Moore's performative contradiction: "I believe ɸ, but ɸ is not true".

The "on that basis alone" bit. Some things I believe, and there are reasons that I can provide for that belief. Other things, not so much. Our reasons for believing are many and varied, perhaps as many as there are beliefs. Certainly there are very few things that I believe because I followed some method to determine its truth.

It seems to me you have two overlapping understandings of what true is. First, there are the things you are satisfied are true. Second, I infer that you suppose that there is intrinsic to the world a state of affairs that when expressed, that expression of that state of affairs must be true. — tim wood

The things I am satisfied are true are my beliefs. That's not a type of truth, because obviously some of my beliefs are not true. I could work with the next bit if you remove "intrinsic to the world" - I've no idea what that means. Oh - "A state of affairs, when expressed" is a bit hairy too; states of affairs are already expresses. The world is always, already, interpreted (Davidson). So I guess we are left with "Some statements are true". Yep.

But you operate (it seems to me) with a third: that your truth can stand as an expression of the intrinsic state of affairs of the world, and thus is universally true. — tim wood

Well, it's not my truth, usually, so much as our truth. Again, I don't see what "intrinsic" does in that sentence , except confuse things; can there be an extrinsic state of affairs? Why do we need to draw attention to such a distinction here? And "Universally true"?True for everyone, or true as part of a universal quantification?

Basically, Tim, there's an extraordinary amount of overkill here. Have a read of my About page.

Are you not drawing a distinction between knowledge and certainty here? — Hanover

Oh, yeah. There are plenty of things of which we are certain, but of which we ought not claim knowledge. This is because knowledge requires (on one common rendering) justification. "Here is a hand" and "I have a headache" do not require justification.

I can make sense of certainty as a sub-class of belief, not as a sub-class of truth. We are certain of stuff that we cannot doubt.

just think the counterexample you provide in this OP is of a different category and not really an attack on the proposition that all knowledge is obtainable through the scientific method. — Hanover

Well, if your position is that knowledge must be justified, then since that I have a headache has no justification beyond my having a headache, you might have a point.

One's own phenomenal state ought be checked against the phenomenal states of others; do they see what I see?
— Banno

That's not commonly done. I don't need verification of whether I see this computer before me or whether I have a headache. — Hanover

Well, yes, it is commonly done. Each time you ask me to pas the salt, we check our agreement on there being salt. This conversation checks our agreement on how computers, internets and English work.

And our agreement overwhelms our disagreement. It's just that our disagreements are much more interesting. We spend little time agreeing that the "Q" is in the top left of the keyboard, because there is no disagreement there - unless you have a different keyboard, in which case it might be of interest.

Are there private truths (the pain in my toe) and public truths (I have a toe)?

It can be true that Prothero has a pain in his toe.

Are you asking is you cannot share this? no, because of course you could tell us that you have a pain in your toe.

Are you asking if it is something only you could believe, or know, or be certain of? Again, no, since we might believe, know or be certain that you have such a pain.

Are you pointing out that we might believe that you have a pain in your toe because you told us, while we might believe you have a toe because we can see it? Well, yes. That's not two sorts of truths, that's two sorts of justifications.

Keeping things clear seems again to me to dissolve the philosophical speculation.

Same goes if you are saying that you know about the pain first hand, while we know about it second or even third hand. THat's differences in the justification for our belief, not differences in truth.

We can only know what is true with the use of reason.

How do you know that?

In order for someone to sustain their life, they must live in accordance to reality. The only way to know reality is with the use of reason. People who try to know the truth by other means suffer for it because they don't live in accordance to reality.

The only way to know reality is with the use of reason. — AppLeo

SO, what is reason?

Reason is observing reality and then applying logic to make sense of your observations. It's knowing the truth.

And reality is what you observe?

Yes. There is no other way of perceiving it.

SO when you observe reality, you observe what you observe.

No, when you observe reality you observe reality.

How do you know that what you observe is the truth?

Because I have consciousness that allows me to know the truth. Because I have a mind that can think about what I have observed.

How do you come to know the truth? Do you discover it mystically? Or do you think it is impossible to know the truth?

Reason is observing reality and then applying logic to make sense of your observations. — AppLeo

How do you know that what you observe is the truth? — Banno

Because I have consciousness that allows me to know the truth. Because I have a mind that can think about what I have observed. — AppLeo

So is it consciousness that allows you to know the truth, not observation and logic.