If you want to look for some esoteric 'mumbo jumbo' definition of truth, that is your prerogative. I think that is just about as useful as digging a hole and filling it in again. If you want to cleverly rearranging words, why not do a crossword puzzle? — ovdtogt

I'm not defining truth, as I've already said. And you're begging the question.

Sometimes it is useful to dig a hole and fill it in again (for instance, let's say a crazy rich person pays people to do it - well, now there's some use in me doing it). Presumably by your lights that makes the hole, er, true?

Certain kinds of positive thinking in relation to physical skills can be useful even if we start using them when they are false. — Coben

Exactly. Your belief in a God that is aiding and abetting you in your moments of struggle might give you the psychological strength to persevere where you otherwise might have given up. I consider (the belief in) God to be a kind of psychological placebo effect.

Sometimes it is useful to dig a hole and fill it in again (for instance, let's say a crazy rich person pays people to do it - well, now there's some use in me doing it). Presumably by your lights that makes the hole, er, true? — Bartricks

Clever. Did you think that one up all by yourself?

No, I just applied your reasoning to it. It refutes you. Holes can't be true. But they can be useful. Digging can't be true. But it can be useful. And on and on.

Now, if a belief can be useful yet not true, then we know - or those of us who have powers of reason can know - that truth and usefulness denote different properties. Which is something we already knew, because it is directly self-evident. Deal. — Bartricks

"a belief can be useful yet not true"
A belief may be false, but can not been known to be false. Only a belief not known to be false can be useful. A belief has to be considered true to be useful. So truth and usefulness do not denote different properties.

Holes can't be true. But they can be useful. . But it can be useful. — Bartricks

Holes can't be true
Digging can't be true
Sorry you'll have to explain that to me.

— Bartricks

‘Survival is unnecessary’ - is this statement true or false according to Reason? — Possibility

Survival is necessary to reason.

A belief may be false, but can not been known to be false. Only a belief not known to be false can be useful. A belief has to be considered true to be useful. So truth and usefulness do not denote different properties. — ovdtogt

Every single thing you've just said is false. That's quite impressive.

A false belief can certainly be known to be false. A lot of people believe things that we can know to be false.

"Only a belief not known to be false can be useful." No, false again. It is common for people to believe they are far more popular than they really are. That belief is false in many cases. But it is useful as it makes those who have it happier than they would otherwise be (which is generally useful).

Are you thinking at all before you write these things?

So truth and usefulness do not denote different properties. — ovdtogt

No they do denote different properties - clearly they do - and furthermore that claim does not follow from anything you said before. Fail.

Holes can't be true
Digging can't be true
Sorry you'll have to explain that to me. — ovdtogt

Yes, that doesn't surprise me.

Propositions can be true (or false). That's because they have 'representative contents' - that is, they represent something to be the case. Hence they can be true if what they represent to be the case is the case, and false otherwise.

Why can't a hole be true? Because it is a hole, not a proposition. "There is a hole to your left" can be true. But holes themselves can't be.

Likewise for digging. Digging is an activity. Activities can be done or not done. They can't be 'true' or 'false'. It can be true that you are digging something - but in that case what's true is the proposition "A very confused person is digging" rather than digging itself.

Survival is necessary to reason. — ovdtogt

And trees upend numbers in the dark.

A false belief can certainly be known to be false. A lot of people believe things that we can know to be false. — Bartricks

I never stated a belief can not known to be false.

Only a belief that is not known to be false (at the time) can be useful. — ovdtogt

A belief must be useful to considered true.
A belief is considered true because it is useful.

Holes can't be true
Digging can't be true
Sorry you'll have to explain that to me. — ovdtogt

No I mean what makes you think I am interested in holes and digging. If you want to dig a hole for yourself be my guest. You don't have to explain that to me.

What is truth?
What is useful is tru(th).
What is tru(th) is useful.

There you go. In a nutshell.

I never stated a belief can not known to be false. — ovdtogt

yes you have:

A belief may be false, but can not been known to be false — ovdtogt

You clearly don't have a stable view.

I never stated a belief can not known to be false.
— ovdtogt

yes you have:

A belief may be false, but can not been known to be false
— ovdtogt — Bartricks

You should learn to read and see that those 2 sentences have a completely different meaning.

You - you - should learn to write. They don't have a different meaning.

You said "A belief may be false, but can not been known to be false". The grammar is bad and the statement is false. A belief that may be false can be known to be false.

There is nothing wrong with my grammar. You might be a little dyslexic.

A belief that may be false can be known to be false. — Bartricks

Wrong. A belief that may be false, may be known to be false.

Yes there is. It's not "but can not been known to be false", but "but can not have been known to be false".

Doesn't matter, of course. But it does underline that you possess the standard toxic combo of confidence and ignorance.

but can not been known to be false", but "but can not have been known to be false". — Bartricks

Okay. I think in that case. 'Can not be known to be false' would have sounded better.

Whatever. It doesn't matter - the important point is that everything you've said is false. You've just pronounced, rather than argued. And your pronouncements are all false.

You've said that beliefs that are false cannot be known to be false.

Yes they can.

You've said that if a belief is useful, it is true.

No, for false beliefs can be useful.

And so on.

You've said that beliefs that are false cannot be known to be false. — Bartricks

Dyslexia is a problem many people suffer from. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Dyslexia is a problem many people suffer from. Nothing to be ashamed of. — ovdtogt

Yes, and arrogance and ignorance are also problems many people suffer from too. But they are something to be ashamed of so, you know, be ashamed.

Now back to the topic of this thread: what is truth? I have provided an analysis and all you've done is pronounce. Stop pronouncing and try arguing something

Now back to the topic of this thread: what is truth? I have provided an analysis and all you've done is pronounce. Stop pronouncing and try arguing something — Bartricks

I have given it in a nutshell. Go back and read it (if you can).

I have given it in a nutshell. — ovdtogt

Which explains why it was nuts. Again, you haven't engaged with the argument of the OP, or argued anything at all. Just pronouncements.

Just pronouncements. — Bartricks

Yes I just make pronouncements. And if people disagree I engage with them and try to clarify my position to the best of my ability.

Yes I just make pronouncements. And if people disagree I engage with them and try to clarify my position to the best of my ability. — ovdtogt

Yes, well stop that. That's not philosophy. Positions are ten a penny. And clarifying a position is not the same as justifying it.

Positions are ten a penny. And clarifying a position is not the same as justifying it. — Bartricks

If you don't have a opinion on a subject how are you to philosophize about it? And a clarification serves the same purpose as a justification.

And a clarification serves the same purpose as a justification. — ovdtogt

No it doesn't. Clarifying what Buddhists believe, for instance, does not serve to justify those beliefs. There is no inconsistency in understanding that Tim believes P and at the same time believing that there is no reason to believe P.

Anyway, you are confident about matters before you've thought about them. I mean, this whole style of yours - pronouncing first and then trying to think of something to say about the pronouncement later - betokens that.

Now, if a belief can be useful yet not true, then we know - or those of us who have powers of reason can know - that truth and usefulness denote different properties — Bartricks

That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties.

Not all powers of reason lead to that...

Just saying, it seems you're overstating the case you have.

A belief that may be false can be known to be false. — Bartricks

Not all belief can be falsified. So, not all belief that may be false can be known to be.