Also, a verificationist need not claim that everything has been verified. — Michael

But verificationism holds that p is true if and only if it has been verified.

And it follows that everything that is true has been verified.

But verificationism holds that p is true if and only if it has been verified.

And it follows that everything that is true has been verified. — Banno

I would just say that verificationism holds that "true" and "verified" mean the same thing, and so the statement "p is true iff it is verified" is the tautology "p is verified iff it is verified". The same with the more general "to be true is to be known"; that all truths are known just is the tautology that everything that is known is known.

You can't go from either of these to "every p has been verified" or "every p is known" (i.e. omniscience).

1. a is true ≡ (a is true) has been verified

2. a is true ⊃ (a is true) is verified & (a is true) is verified ⊃ a is true (def ≡)

3. a is true ⊃ (a is true) is verified (remove conjunct)

All truths have been verified.

All truths have been verified. — Banno

Yes, all verified propositions have been verified. That's a tautology.

I agree that the idea of reincarnation seems incoherent without the accompanying notion of a soul that is reincarnated. The Buddhists have a 'candle flame' analogy which is that the succession of lives are like candle flames where the subsequent flames are lit by the prior flames in the succession.

They also believe that even though we don't remember our past lives, the karmic connection between them (the earlier flames lighting the later) means that there is a kind of continuity that does not require a souls, and that once enlightened we will be able to remember the past lives in the unique series that each of us belong to.

Even so, there doesn't seem to be any motivation for the individual to care more about his own future lives than he would about anyone else's. Although I suppose if the individual developed a sense of responsibility for the unique karmic series that he belonged to that might be an incentive. but a lot would need to be taken on faith. In general I don't like the idea of being concerned with any purported afterlife or future existence because it devalues the importance of the present life. and in any case there is no definitive evidence that any such afterlife is anything more than wishful thinking..

That's not what it says. It says all truths have been verified.

The obvious conclusion is that verificationism is wrong, and there are unverified truths.

It says all truths have been verified. — Banno

Yes, and "true" and "verified" mean the same thing, therefore the statement that all truths have been verified is the statement that all verified propositions have been verified. It's a tautology.

all verified propositions have been verified — Michael

If all you want to say that all verified statements have been verified, then go ahead. But if you claim that all that is true is what has been verified, you are obligated to say that all that is true has been verified.

That is, your answer is simply to deny that verification has anything to do with truth.

Which I will happily agree with.

Now the one I find problematic: Maths.

The anti-realist thesis is that for a mathematical proposition to be true is for it to have been proved.

So it seems to follow that all true mathematical propositions have been proved.

If p is a true mathematical proposition, p has been proved.

But if you claim that all that is true is what has been verified, you are obligated to say that all that is true has been verified. — Banno

The verificationist says both because "true" and "verified" mean the same thing to them.

That is, your answer is simply to deny that verifications has anything to do with truth.

No, it's to deny the realist's claim that "true" and "verified" mean different things.

So it seems to follow that all true mathematical propositions have been proved. — Banno

Yes, because "true" and "proved" mean the same thing, and it's a tautology that all proved mathematical propositions have been proved.

Then you cannot claim that what has been verified is true, nor that what has been proved mathematically is true.

SO there are no physical or mathematical truths.

Then you cannot claim that what has been verified is true, nor that what has been proved mathematically is true. — Banno

Of course I can. That's how synonyms work.

Of course I can. That's how synonyms work. — Michael

Although I wouldn't as it's superfluous. I'd just say that some proposition either has been verified or hasn't been verified, or that its negative either has been verified or hasn't been verified. Nothing more needs to be said.

No, it's to deny the realist's claim that "true" and "verified" mean different things. — Michael

But the claim that 'true' and 'verified' means the same thing leads to absurdities. Say my wife is having an affair with someone, and then I catch them at it. I have verified that she is having an affair. It seems fine to say that prior to my having verified it it was not verified, but it seems absurd to say that prior to my having verified it, it was not true that she was having an affair.

Say my wife is having an affair with someone, and then I catch them at it. I have verified that she is having an affair. It seems fine to say that prior to my having verified it it was not verified, but it seems absurd to say that prior to my having verified it, it was not true that she was having an affair. — Janus

Your very hypothetical scenario presupposes realism. Your wife is having an affair (unbeknownst to you), and then you find out. Obviously if you presuppose realism then you're going to find it absurd when you then consider anti-realism.

If you want to consider anti-realism then your hypothetical scenario is "I caught my wife having an affair and then saw evidence that this had been going on for a long time." Perfectly coherent scenario.

If you want to consider anti-realism then your hypothetical scenario is "I caught my wife having an affair and then saw evidence that this had been going on for a long time." Perfectly coherent scenario. — Michael

Yes, but that it had been going on for some time entails that it was true that it had been going on, and yet unverified; so the two terms cannot be synonymous, at least not according to ordinary usage. Sure, you can massage the terms to make them synonymous, but what have you really achieved by doing that other than establishing an eccentric usage of terms?

Your solution is elegant, and it works. But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you say that verification and truth are the same, then you are also saying that all truths have been verified.

That is not how the rest of us use the word "truth". That's fine.

So verificationism is not a theory about truth. It is a theory about verification.

So verificationism is not a theory about truth. It is a theory about verification. — Banno

It's not even a theory; as Michael said, it's a tautology.

I was being nice.

:cool:

Para-consistent logic
An alternate solution is to adopt a trinary logic.

For mathematics, we might borrow from Kripke, and suppose that there are three truth-values for mathematical propositions - true, false and otherwise.

We assign "true" to some set of tautologies, "False" to contradictions, and "other" to everything else. When a proof of a proposition is found - a deduction from other truths - we assign "true' to that proposition.

Only proven mathematical propositions get to be called "true" - the main point of constructivism.

But I'm guessing the more mathematically literat will find fault wiht this proposal.


the implication is that the conjecture that every prime greater that 2 is the sum of two primes is not true, and it is not false.

Sure, and, as I said, it's a stance that is counterproductive for success in the world. People who think "it's all in their head" tend to end up in institutions with white padded cells. — baker

That is an extremely vulgar remark. This is a philosophy forum, it might do you some good to read some more about the subject before launching ad hominems. Objective idealism is a perfectly sound and sane philosophical outlook, even though it is a minority view.

Objective idealism is a perfectly sound and sane philosophical outlook, even though it is a minority view. — Wayfarer

Is this the same objective idealism of Peirce?

Not to drag this into anything too lengthy, but what would be the basic definition?

I know of "transcendental idealism", a bit of Berkley's idealism and finally Kastrup's idealism. These are rather different, and Peirce never seemed to express his view clearly. I mean no quarrel here, as you know of my strong sympathies with many aspects of what you believe.

Typical non-answer.

:up:

Pretty much. — Banno

So you’re saying what we think is out there is what out there?

Well that’s ridiculous. There were plenty of things people thought were out there that weren’t and vice versa. Both individually and as a society.

The world is not what we experience, it is what is the case. — Banno

And now you’re saying that what we experience (what we think is out there?) is not what’s out there. I don’t get it.

Typical non-answer. — 180 Proof

That should be read, obviously, as "In my opinion there can be no final solution to the problem of suffering". So, as I have said, if Buddha says there can be a final solution to suffering then I disagree with him. If you agree with what you have imputed to Buddha and think there can be a final solution to the problem of suffering, a solution that would completely end all suffering for all time, a solution other than the total extinction of the world (which could not be effected anyway), then what do you think that solution could be? — Janus

/.../ How, then, could the Buddha not have believed in reincarnation, and how can one accept reincarnation to be true without believing in the incorporeal self, aka "the soul"? — Michael Zwingli

Start new threads, as the above is off-topic here. See you there.

The aim or purpose of looking for such a formulation being what?
— baker

Understanding. — Banno

To what end?

Merely to satisfy curiosity?

If we start from the position that humans act purposefully, oriented toward a goal, then understanding is merely a means to an end, not the end itself.

(People possibly do philosophy for the purpose of relieving that specific inner tension that they feel. So, philosophy as a means to find inner peace etc.)

That is an extremely vulgar remark. This is a philosophy forum, it might do you some good to read some more about the subject before launching ad hominems. Objective idealism is a perfectly sound and sane philosophical outlook, even though it is a minority view. — Wayfarer

Ooops, that hit a nerve.

I myself am actually in favor of idealism, my view is much in line with the Buddha's on this. But I am also painfully aware how alienating this view is, how counterproductive to fitting in in society. A person committed to exploring idealist views has a lot to contend with, going against the flow of society. Sadly, this can sometimes end very badly for them.

Sure, you can massage the terms to make them synonymous, but what have you really achieved by doing that other than establishing an eccentric usage of terms? — Janus

It's not uncommon that we develop a theory (based on some evidence) and then this theory allows us to see (further) evidence that supports it. It's why we have sayings like "Hindsight is 20/20".

The history of science shows that it may be rational to be wrong, yet not irrational to be right. In a letter to Mersenne, Descartes raised the question whether ‘a stone thrown from a sling, the bullet from a musket or the arrow from an arbalist have greater speed and force in the midst of their flight than in the beginning’, suggesting that this is indeed the ’vulgar belief’ but adding that he had reasons for thinking differently. Clearly, in 1630 the vulgar belief was rational. In the case of a man or a carriage, nobody would contest that the greatest speed is achieved some time after the beginning of the movement, and there was every reason to conceive of the movement of a projectile in the same way. It took the genius of Descartes to reconceptualize movement as a state rather than as a process. One should not say, however, that the belief at which Descartes arrived by his astounding mental leap was irrational, since his theory, as it were, enabled one to perceive the evidence that supported it. The vulgar theory was rational in view of the facts known to it, that of Descartes by virtue of the novel facts it enabled him to establish. I am making the banal point that the relation between belief and observation is a two-way one, rather than the one-directional inductive process suggested by such phrases as ‘the most rational belief given the available evidence’.

From Jon Elster, Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality