It was one way my ancestors used to party. Yep.

The late Russell tried to drop propositions in favor of beliefs, but it's generally accepted that that doesnt work. — frank

I would beg to differ.

:wink:

Banno beat me to it. Differently too!

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." -- Somebody other than Nietzsche — frank

There could be any number of reasons why a particular interpretation prevails. Epistemology deals with the norms for assessing claims, of which power and authority are only two possible issues. But truth itself is not one of those norms, it is simply what the interpretation asserts, and is being assessed.

For example, Donald says it is raining outside. Should Rudy accept his assertion?

Perhaps Donald is a power figure. He might fire Rudy for disagreeing with him. Or perhaps Donald has a PhD in Meteorology. If anyone knows whether it's raining, surely he does. Or perhaps Donald is reliable and trustworthy, the sort of person who doesn't make rash assertions.

Maybe Rudy can ask around to see what others say, or perhaps launch an investigation. Or, if all else fails, he could look out the window and see for himself. Though there are always edge cases where people can be mistaken about what they thought they saw.

What truth has going for it is that the world stands behind it. Nonetheless, it can also be the last option remaining after people have exhausted all the preferred alternatives.

Regarding the idea that truth is redundant.


Assuming sincerity in speech, 'X' is equivalent to "X is true" or "I believe X is true". Let X be a belief statement.

"Is true" is what's redundant here.

Truth-makers are a distraction, not a help — Banno

Doesn't make it true...

:smile:


What sorts of things can be true/false, and what makes them so?

Looks like the most helpful question one can ask when one seeks to understand.

We know belief alone is not enough.

What sorts of things can be true, and what makes them so? — creativesoul

You want us to list the things that all truths have in common?

Think on that.

What sorts of things can be true, and what makes them so?
— creativesoul

You want us to list the things that all truths have in common? — Banno

No.

I want us to list what it takes for statements, assertions, thoughts, beliefs, and propositions to be true.

I do not use the term "truths". That is to conflate true statements, assertions, thoughts, beliefs, and propositions with what makes them so.

So, now we have an interesting situation. The quote in your OP says that everything is a matter of interpretation. I interpret Tarski to be referring to an actuality in his t-sentence. Maybe Tarski thinks he is not. Is there a privileged interpretation of the T-sentence? What would determine the truth in this case? — Janus

Tarski's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are the standard by which we determine which report of Tarski is more commensurate with and/or amenable to Tarski.

If Tarski never used the term "actuality" then Tarski was not referring to actuality.

It seems to me that Tarski's schema shows the irreducibility of an account of truth.

On the left is a statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition. The middle reminds us of what we're doing(setting out what makes a statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition true). On the right are the truth conditions of the statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition on the left. The right sets out as precisely as possible what must be the case in order for the statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition to be true.

There are two uses of the word in play. One is about what we take to be true. The other is akin to absolute truth. — frank

The former is belief not truth. The latter is very problematic, as Banno has been demonstrating.

The focus should be on the conflicts that arise due to these two uses, not annointing one to be correct usage and the other incorrect. — frank

Can we focus upon what counts as good ground to reject both?

Judgment, in order to be of any significance has to have the power of enforcement. The greatest power on the scene has that power. Any lesser wielders of power are themselves subject to this greatest power. — frank

I agree. That is why sometimes truth does not have power, even though it could (and I would say it should). Ultimately, the greatest power has to love the truth enough to act for the interests of justice, which is why I have specified that only a "righteous authority" empowers the truth. A morally compromised authority, rather, empowers corruption. Corruption relies upon deceit, untruth, evasion of, and suppression of truth.

Unless the government is divided against itself. — frank

I don't think that negates the principles though. Notice Proverbs 28:2's observation of a nation in rebellion: they are not clinging to a supreme power, thus there are factions of power (the nation is divided against itself, as you said). The same principle still does apply though: "the greatest power on the scene enforces his own judgement".

What is interesting, for its relevance to the thread, is part B of the quote: "a man of discernment and knowledge sustains it".

Saying that the hope for a nation is found in a man of discernment and knowledge, is saying that the deliverer is one who is able to recognise truth from error (Proverbs 29:12, 1 Kings 3:22-28), and who is equipped with facts.

It is implying that wisdom is the hope of deliverance during times of rebellion (Ecclesiastes 9:15), but specifically teaching us that his strength is the ability to discern (to recognise truth from deceit) and that knowledge is his vital equipment (because without facts, he cannot give examples for his reasons to persuade).

"Wisdom is better than weapons of war,
but one sinner destroys much good." Ecclesiastes 9:18

Correspondence.

That is what makes statements, beliefs, assertions, thoughts, and propositions true. Correspondence to fact/reality is presupposed with all thought, belief, and statements thereof. That's what makes "is true" a redundant use of language when talking about sincere speech acts.

The statement "A cat is on the mat" is true if and only if a cat is on the mat.

The statement "I believe a cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the speaker believes a cat is on the mat.

The statement "I believe 'A cat is on the mat' is a true statement" is true if and only if the speaker believes a cat is on the mat.

Notice there is no difference in the truth conditions of the last two(what makes them both true) and the first. That marks the difference between belief and truth. Truth is existentially dependent upon belief. However, belief is inadequate for truth. Truth requires more.

Here's the rub Banno alluded to earlier...

A statement can be true regardless of whether or not a particular person believes that it is. In that sense, in such circumstances... the particular individual's belief is completely irrelevant. It's not needed.

You know I'm just going to point to T-sentences again.

Whenever I get to your construct

thought/belief — creativesoul

I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind.

I think it can be eliminated. Those particular marks... I mean. Most often though, the reader can choose either one and carry on just fine.

I like the T-sentence.

Whenever I get to your construct
thought/belief
— creativesoul
I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind. — Banno

Try now. I eliminated it.

Any truth is embedded in a context - any assertion is part of a language. Nothing is independent of all contexts. — Banno

Imagine a world where there are no sentient beings at all. Are there any truths in that world according to you? I'm not saying I think there are, but I take you, based on your comments over the years, to be someone who would say there are.

Yes. Tarski's t-sentence is a rule for the use of the truth predicate in formal languages. — frank

I realize that is what Tarski thinks the function of the whole T-sentence is. I'm asking you what the phrase "snow is white" refers to and what the ontological sense of snow being white is. I'm asking you to try thinking outside the box. Or, do you believe formal languages can operate completely independently of any actuality?

What power could truth have if it is merely a property of propositions?

Yeah. Nuh. — Banno

You don't believe there are some things true of all humans regardless of culture? Why not?

Imagine a world where there are no sentient beings at all. Are there any truths in that world according to you? I'm not saying I think there are, but I take you, based on your comments over the years, to be someone who would say there are. — Janus

You'd have to go to imagining a world about which we could not speak; and asking if there were any truths in such a world. Then my position might be difficult.

You don't believe there are some things true of all humans regardless of culture? Why not? — Janus

I didn't make such a claim.

...a world about which we could not speak — Banno

I suppose I'll just keep quiet about that.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

But shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own? We can only reside in fiction for so long, right? — frank

I didn't read through every post since I last addressed frank, but for anyone, did we ever sort through just what we're using "truth" to refer to? That's necessary to sort out before we try to answer a question like this.

I get the impression that "truth" is being used as a term for states of affairs, or in other words, "the way things happen to be," including independently of persons (assuming one thinks realism has any merit). We at least need to think about what we're using the term to refer to.

So in the context of humanity as a whole there will be some things which are true always and everywhere and other which will be true only relative to certain cultures. — Janus

Yeah. Nuh. — Banno

You don't believe there are some things true of all humans regardless of culture? Why not? — Janus

I didn't make such a claim. — Banno

Tarski's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are the standard by which we determine which report of Tarski is more commensurate with and/or amenable to Tarski. — creativesoul

Your interpretation of Tarski or someone else's?

If Tarski never used the term "actuality" then Tarski was not referring to actuality. — creativesoul

I didn't say Tarksi intended to refer to actuality; it's probably quite the opposite. But the T-sentence basically codifies truth as correspondence. The logic inherent in that formulation is " a statement that predicates some attribute of something is true iff the thing in question has that attribute". Having (or not having) an attribute is an actuality; what else could it be?

Here you're saying the same thing yourself:

The right sets out as precisely as possible what must be the case in order for the statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition to be true. — creativesoul

"What must be the case" is the same notion as "what must be actual".

Tarski's thought, belief, and/or ideas are the standard by which to 'measure' anyone/everyone else's interpretation of Tarski.

You and I are largely in agreement here. Although, I reject the conventional Correspondence Theory. On my view, correspondence with/to what's happened and/or is happening(reality/fact/actuality/the world/the way things are, etc.) is what makes thought, belief, assertions, propositions, and statements true. Truth is correspondence.

The T-sentence shows this nicely. Truth cannot be further reduced. Correspondence requires exactly what Tarski shows. Nothing less. Nothing more. Of course, a statement is a statement of belief. Statements are not required for belief. Thus, statements are not necessary for truth. Belief however, most certainly is necessary for both statements and truth.

I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind. — Banno

Shake it off!

:wink:

We can stick with belief if you like. We've had this discussion multiple times. I don't mind doing it a bit differently...

Take the lead.

Pointing at Tarski doesn't help.

Yep. There’s a conjunction.

Structuring an assertion requires belief, and truth is a predicate of assertions, hence truth requires belief. — Banno

Truth requires belief.

But...

The world is spherical regardless of whether or not anyone believes the world is spherical.

...shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own — frank

If "the truth" is the set of germane true statements, then no. Absolutely not. Statements do not exert power. People should value true statements('the' truth) because doing so is imperative for successfully navigating the world. That's the power of true belief. Having true belief decreases the odds of making mistakes.