What is truth?

[ken]

... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

If truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe, then what exactly is it that has to do with truth. As far as I am aware no other living thing has anything to do with truth. If truth, itself, is a human made concept, then the whole concept of truth is based solely around what people think and believe, isn't it?

Obviously people in agreement, itself, does not necessarily make something true or false. Most of us have heard that saying before and agree with it. I agree with your first statement. But I was not implying anything like that. All I am doing is suggesting that if there is no person disagreeing on the truthfulness of something, then there is no one saying it is not true. Therefore, as far as everyone is concerned, for a certain period of time anyway, that "truth" stands as being true.

I also suggested not holding a truth rigid as a fact that can never be changed. I find it always better to remain open because, as proven countless times throughout history, truth can change.

If all people are agreeing on something being true or false, then all people are in agreement. You cannot dispute that.

If all people are in agreement on something being true or false, then that thing in agreement, itself, is truth.

'What is truth' IS that thing that is in agreement by all.


I was just suggesting that 'what is truth' is THAT what everyone is agreeing upon.

If you disagree and say that what I am suggesting here is NOT what truth is, then either say 'what truth is' or say you don't know 'what truth is' or suggest something else. 

If you or no other person can dispute the fact that if all people are agreeing on something being true or false then all people are in agreement, then that in of itself is a truth. Again that thing that is in agreement by all of us is 'What is truth'.

Just pointing out the essence of the rule of argumentum populum does not work here because a popular argument has nothing to do with what I am saying here. In fact what I am saying I have never heard nor read before. It is therefore the most least popular argument. I am the only one saying/suggesting it, for now. The essence of that argumentum populum rule applies to most, many, or a majority anyway. Whereas I have said ALL. But, if you would like to reply saying that the essence of that rule of arumentum populum can or does apply for all and everyone, then I have still never said that agreement in of itself infers truth. I have stated that THAT thing what is in agreement is truth.

If you are still unclear of what I am saying, then I think what is confusing here is the issue of agreement with the issue of the thing that is being agreed upon. Again, if no person is disagreeing on the thing, itself, that is being shown as true (or false), then as far as every human being is concerned then that has everything to do with "it" being true (or false). No other thing in this universe can tell us what is true (or false). We alone decide. So, if every one of us is in agreement, then we are all in agreement. If this truth cannot be disputed, then what truth is IS now known.

I am not sure how else to make myself clearer for now.

I must reiterate however that even truth itself, even if agreed by all, can and may change.

[yiostheoy]

... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

If truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe, then what exactly is it that has to do with truth. As far as I am aware no other living thing has anything to do with truth. If truth, itself, is a human made concept, then the whole concept of truth is based solely around what people think and believe, isn't it?

Obviously people in agreement, itself, does not necessarily make something true or false. Most of us have heard that saying before and agree with it. I agree with your first statement. But I was not implying anything like that. All I am doing is suggesting that if there is no person disagreeing on the truthfulness of something, then there is no one saying it is not true. Therefore, as far as everyone is concerned, for a certain period of time anyway, that "truth" stands as being true.

I also suggested not holding a truth rigid as a fact that can never be changed. I find it always better to remain open because, as proven countless times throughout history, truth can change.

If all people are agreeing on something being true or false, then all people are in agreement. You cannot dispute that.

If all people are in agreement on something being true or false, then that thing in agreement, itself, is truth.

'What is truth' IS that thing that is in agreement by all.


I was just suggesting that 'what is truth' is THAT what everyone is agreeing upon.

If you disagree and say that what I am suggesting here is NOT what truth is, then either say 'what truth is' or say you don't know 'what truth is' or suggest something else. 

If you or no other person can dispute the fact that if all people are agreeing on something being true or false then all people are in agreement, then that in of itself is a truth. Again that thing that is in agreement by all of us is 'What is truth'.

Just pointing out the essence of the rule of argumentum populum does not work here because a popular argument has nothing to do with what I am saying here. In fact what I am saying I have never heard nor read before. It is therefore the most least popular argument. I am the only one saying/suggesting it, for now. The essence of that argumentum populum rule applies to most, many, or a majority anyway. Whereas I have said ALL. But, if you would like to reply saying that the essence of that rule of arumentum populum can or does apply for all and everyone, then I have still never said that agreement in of itself infers truth. I have stated that THAT thing what is in agreement is truth.

If you are still unclear of what I am saying, then I think what is confusing here is the issue of agreement with the issue of the thing that is being agreed upon. Again, if no person is disagreeing on the thing, itself, that is being shown as true (or false), then as far as every human being is concerned then that has everything to do with "it" being true (or false). No other thing in this universe can tell us what is true (or false). We alone decide. So, if every one of us is in agreement, then we are all in agreement. If this truth cannot be disputed, then what truth is IS now known.

I am not sure how else to make myself clearer for now.

I must reiterate however that even truth itself, even if agreed by all, can and may change.

You can have all 7 billion people on this planet agreeing with you and STILL be wrong and your mutual agreement be FALSE.

What is true and what is untrue is completely independent of what anybody thinks about it.

Argumentum Populum.

[yiostheoy]

The common sense understanding of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. From now on referred to as CTT.
If the CTT is true,what does it refer to? Another CTT? Depending on your perspective that is a tautology or an infinite regress. So what is truth?
PS;The CTT is the theory that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.

If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true.

It is true if it corresponds to reality.

It is irrelevant if anybody believes it to be true or not.

Not even all 7 billion on this planet matter in this case.

[ken]

You can have all 7 billion people on this planet agreeing with you and STILL be wrong and your mutual agreement be FALSE.

Yes you are right. It could happen, but what do you think the chances of that actually occurring are?

And, if all 7 billion and one of us were in agreement, then explain how we could find out that we were wrong and that our mutual agreement is false?

By the way why did you use the word "your" mutual agreement. It should read 'our', ALL of us, mutual agreement.

What is true and what is untrue is completely independent of what anybody thinks about it.

Ok, I will go along with you here since you seem so sure of yourself and so sure of this, is it a, "truth". I go along with you here to give you a chance to explain what it is exactly that what is true and what is untrue IS completely dependent upon?

Argumentum Populum.

It would be obvious to any person that just because an amount of people are in agreement, then that does not make, in of itself, what they are in agreement of, a truth. I have already acknowledged this fact. Have you noticed how many times i have already agreed with this? I do not deny this fact. Can you deny the fact that if all people are in agreement, then there is no person in disagreement? And, if no person is in disagreement of what is being proposed as a truth, then again how do you propose another way we can find truth? Do you really think ALL people would or even could agree on something that was not true?

I explicitly state that what all people are in agreement of IS truth. This can be so very easily, simply, and quickly proven scientifically.

[ken]

If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true.

It is true if it corresponds to reality.

It is irrelevant if anybody believes it to be true or not.

Not even all 7 billion on this planet matter in this case.

I will leave out for now the fact that it is a mental thought and utterance that decide what corresponds to reality and what reality actually is here. But this needs to be looked at later to fully comprehend all of this.

Is it true that what a person believes is a mental thought? And, if said out aloud, then it is an utterance? I do not recall ever saying what any body believes is true or not. What people believe has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have said what people agree in.

If all 7 billion people on this planet had the same mental thought, thus were in agreement, that is valid, and it corresponds to reality, then it is true?

If so, then that what is true and agreed by all 7 billion would obviously stand up as a lot, for lack of a better word, bigger truth, then only that what just some people agreed upon, right?

[Arising_uk]

If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true.

For someone who accuses others of being ignorant of matters philosophical this bloke takes the pip. No idea what he means by a 'mental thought' or an 'utterance' but in Philosophy "validity" applies to arguments and truth to premises and conclusions so an argument can be valid but the conclusion still untrue.

It is true if it corresponds to reality.

His potted study of the History of Philosophy obviously didn't extend to Epistemology and its theories of truth.

It is irrelevant if anybody believes it to be true or not.

Not even all 7 billion on this planet matter in this case.

However, there is truth in the thought that there are facts about the world that are not reliant upon belief. For example, his belief that logical analysis trumps empirical evidence with respect to the existence of a 'God' is a clear example of him believing something that lots of people believe but that does not necessarily correspond to reality.

[ken]

You should always keep your definitions short and sweet. They should not turn into rants like the above.

Try Occam's Razor.

All unexpressed hypotheses and all expressed statements are either completely true or partially true or untrue.

If a hypothesis or statement corresponds with reality then it is true or partly true.

If not then it is false.

See -- 3 simply sentences forming one syllogism. Not a long, long rant.

If, as you say, all expressed statements are either completely true or partially true or untrue, and if an expressed statement corresponds with reality, then it is true or partly true, then you could agree that the expressed statement that does correspond with reality is true or partly true, right?

Now, if an expressed statement that corresponds completely with reality, then you could agree that the expressed statement is a completely true statement. If you could agree that it is a completely true statement, then everyone else could also agree. If everyone else could also agree, then a completely true expressed statement could be in agreement with all of us.

If a completely true expressed statement is in agreement with all of us, then there is no person disagreeing.

HOWEVER, as has been proven countless times previously "reality" can change all the time. Therefore a completely true expressed statement can become false.

A supposedly completely true expressed statement corresponding with reality, at a particular point in time, could actually be a false statement in the future. The "reality" was once seen as the sun revolved around the earth. So a completely true statement, at that particular point in time, WAS the earth revolves around the sun. But the true statement IS different now. Therefore, a statement that supposedly corresponds with "reality" does NOT necessarily mean it is true or partly true. So, your argument is not sound nor valid.

I wish it was as simple as you think it is to write short and sweet definitions. Just maybe it takes a long rant before people start to see and hear what it is actually that is being written.

If a statement is seen as true by all human beings, then that statement is what is truth, for that particular point in time. That statement is what truth is because there is no person denying nor refuting its truthfulness. However, as I have leaned to previously the truthfulness of a statement should never be believed nor held as unchangeable. Even if everyone, except for one person, is in agreement with a statement it is always better to remain open always. As long as everyone is open to listen to all others, then just one person may in fact enlighten all the others to a further or newer truth. If it is a completely true statement that corresponds to the now new "reality", then everyone can be in agreement again.

I am using your words here so that you can hopefully see past what you, yourself, believe is true.

What is truth is that thing/statement (whatever you want to call it) that everyone agrees with.

[yiostheoy]

If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true.

It is true if it corresponds to reality.

It is irrelevant if anybody believes it to be true or not.

Not even all 7 billion on this planet matter in this case.

I will leave out for now the fact that it is a mental thought and utterance that decide what corresponds to reality and what reality actually is here. But this needs to be looked at later to fully comprehend all of this.

Is it true that what a person believes is a mental thought? And, if said out aloud, then it is an utterance? I do not recall ever saying what any body believes is true or not. What people believe has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have said what people agree in.

If all 7 billion people on this planet had the same mental thought, thus were in agreement, that is valid, and it corresponds to reality, then it is true?

If so, then that what is true and agreed by all 7 billion would obviously stand up as a lot, for lack of a better word, bigger truth, then only that what just some people agreed upon, right?

You seem to be trying to morph a subjective definition of truth (truth is relative) with an objective definition (truth is absolute).

Then you are throwing the bowl of food against the wall to see what will stick.

Like I said, argumentum populum is a fallacy and not a criterion of truth in any way.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... So, there needs to be a proviso added to 'the truth is that with which we all could agree on,' and that proviso is, as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change...

In fact the truth can never change. Only humans can change their minds as to what is true, which bears absolutely no reflection upon any particular truth, rather only the current human ability/inability to find and recognize the absolute truth of any matter. Make no mistake, actual real truths/facts, are concrete, absolute, they are never aqueous, never subject to interpretation.

For instance, what ever actually happened, prior to human existence, that allowed for human existence, happened, it is the absolute truth. It doesn't matter that many different humans have many different theories, that they represent as absolutely true, as it has absolutely no bearing on what actually transpired. That all of humanity may be ignorant of what transpired, is simply a testament of our current abilities/inabilities to reconcile the actual truth of that particular matter, nothing more. So it's what humans "believe" are truths that change, because they weren't actually truths.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

Exactly!

[Arising_uk]

...

Like I said, argumentum populum is a fallacy and not a criterion of truth in any way.

And neither is validity.

But the nuance of ken's argument escapes his philosophical ken, that is, how is 'truth' decided and if every single person agreed to something how would one know what is not the 'truth'? Epistemology was obviously not in his potted History of Philosophy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

If truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe, then what exactly is it that has to do with truth. As far as I am aware no other living thing has anything to do with truth. If truth, itself, is a human made concept, then the whole concept of truth is based solely around what people think and believe, isn't it?
Nope! Humans created the concept because they came to understand that humans would lie, bear false witness etc. The conception of truth was/is a means to acknowledge the actuality of things, reality, that which actually exists, thus it is meant to remove human bias, belief, lies, dishonesty from the equation. It's a means to know all that, which is outside of us, and in so doing we can then know what is actually inside of us. Even though scientists would disagree, so as to keep their research pure, they certainly don't search for falsehood, (untruth), so they seek truth, they just feel obligated to not call it truth while the search is on, a means to try and keep the research pure, free from red herrings. Though humans aren't perfect by any means, no matter what they attempt. It's a long slow drawn out process, for humans to find the truth despite our selves!

Obviously people in agreement, itself, does not necessarily make something true or false. Most of us have heard that saying before and agree with it. I agree with your first statement. But I was not implying anything like that. All I am doing is suggesting that if there is no person disagreeing on the truthfulness of something, then there is no one saying it is not true. Therefore, as far as everyone is concerned, for a certain period of time anyway, that "truth" stands as being true.

I also suggested not holding a truth rigid as a fact that can never be changed. I find it always better to remain open because, as proven countless times throughout history, truth can change.

If all people are agreeing on something being true or false, then all people are in agreement. You cannot dispute that.

If all people are in agreement on something being true or false, then that thing in agreement, itself, is truth.

'What is truth' IS that thing that is in agreement by all.


I was just suggesting that 'what is truth' is THAT what everyone is agreeing upon.

If you disagree and say that what I am suggesting here is NOT what truth is, then either say 'what truth is' or say you don't know 'what truth is' or suggest something else. 

If you or no other person can dispute the fact that if all people are agreeing on something being true or false then all people are in agreement, then that in of itself is a truth. Again that thing that is in agreement by all of us is 'What is truth'.

Just pointing out the essence of the rule of argumentum populum does not work here because a popular argument has nothing to do with what I am saying here. In fact what I am saying I have never heard nor read before. It is therefore the most least popular argument. I am the only one saying/suggesting it, for now. The essence of that argumentum populum rule applies to most, many, or a majority anyway. Whereas I have said ALL. But, if you would like to reply saying that the essence of that rule of arumentum populum can or does apply for all and everyone, then I have still never said that agreement in of itself infers truth. I have stated that THAT thing what is in agreement is truth.

If you are still unclear of what I am saying, then I think what is confusing here is the issue of agreement with the issue of the thing that is being agreed upon. Again, if no person is disagreeing on the thing, itself, that is being shown as true (or false), then as far as every human being is concerned then that has everything to do with "it" being true (or false). No other thing in this universe can tell us what is true (or false). We alone decide. So, if every one of us is in agreement, then we are all in agreement. If this truth cannot be disputed, then what truth is IS now known.

I am not sure how else to make myself clearer for now.

I must reiterate however that even truth itself, even if agreed by all, can and may change.

[yiostheoy]

If all people are in agreement on something being true or false, then that thing in agreement, itself, is truth.

'What is truth' IS that thing that is in agreement by all.

This is merely a convention used in American trial law by juries to vote on what appears to them to be self evident as they must choose from one of two presentations, one overly liberal in defense of the defendant and the other overly aggressive in indictment of him/her.

But as we learned in the OJ Simpson trial, even an obvious murderer can get off if you pick the right prejudiced jurors.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true.

For someone who accuses others of being ignorant of matters philosophical this bloke takes the pip. No idea what he means by a 'mental thought' or an 'utterance' but in Philosophy "validity" applies to arguments and truth to premises and conclusions so an argument can be valid but the conclusion still untrue.
As to validity, there is nothing in his message that would be indicative that, that is not what he meant. If you seek clarification, simply ask. But then...

It is true if it corresponds to reality.

His potted study of the History of Philosophy obviously didn't extend to Epistemology and its theories of truth.
The correspondence theory is the most accepted by philosophers. One has to watch where they tread, as soon as they question language, they cannot speak of anything, including logic.

It is irrelevant if anybody believes it to be true or not.

Not even all 7 billion on this planet matter in this case.

However, there is truth in the thought that there are facts about the world that are not reliant upon belief. For example, his belief that logical analysis trumps empirical evidence with respect to the existence of a 'God' is a clear example of him believing something that lots of people believe but that does not necessarily correspond to reality.
And of course because 'you' believe there can be no creator, there can't be. You atheists, blow my mind, i.e., because you only know of particular religions, and you can find some fault within them, that insults your intelligence, you jump to conclusions that there can be no creator, thus giving credence to those religions, as the only possibly ones worth considering, so as to denounce the possibility of a creator. Their being logically incorrect, in some cases, does not necessitate there being no creator. This point however, doesn't mean there is one either! Flip a coin.

Tell me about the fool that kills off their children, lazily not wanting to conserve, because mankind shall implode anyway, then hides behind their corpses, in the face of his/her/its own nuclear annihilation, such that they would kill yet another child, to prevent it, Asinking_uk. Please tell me more! I know, it's because you see circular dictionaries, that another's meaning is necessarily contained in your response, and that NLP is the cure all, and that your credentials give you the right...

"The epitome of selfishness!"

[SpheresOfBalance]

If all people are in agreement on something being true or false, then that thing in agreement, itself, is truth.

'What is truth' IS that thing that is in agreement by all.

This is merely a convention used in American trial law by juries to vote on what appears to them to be self evident as they must choose from one of two presentations, one overly liberal in defense of the defendant and the other overly aggressive in indictment of him/her.

But as we learned in the OJ Simpson trial, even an obvious murderer can get off if you pick the right prejudiced jurors.

Are you fucking high, or just confused? That is not a quote of anything I've ever said!

Here I'll do the same thing:

What ever I say is true, is necessarily true, because I am god, yes the one you all have worshiped all throughout history, so kneel before me, your true god.

You are out of your mind! You cannot prove you are god!

It looks like we have another crack pot in here!