Interesting or true?

[A_Seagull]

Is it more important for philosophy to be 'interesting' or 'true'?

Of course the knee jerk response would be that philosophy should be 'true'. As it is the claim of some that philosophy is a search for 'truth'. But really 'true' is just a label that is attached to a statement or a piece of philosophical writing, and typically the claim is made by the writer rather then the reader.

Whereas 'interesting' indicates a stimulation of the mental activities of the reader. It indicates that the statement or writing is on the border between what is considered to be known and the unknown.

So I contend that it is more important for philosophy to be interesting than true.

Your comments?

[Impenitent]

both...

-Imp

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is it more important for philosophy to be 'interesting' or 'true'?

Of course the knee jerk response would be that philosophy should be 'true'. As it is the claim of some that philosophy is a search for 'truth'. But really 'true' is just a label that is attached to a statement or a piece of philosophical writing, and typically the claim is made by the writer rather then the reader.

Whereas 'interesting' indicates a stimulation of the mental activities of the reader. It indicates that the statement or writing is on the border between what is considered to be known and the unknown.

So I contend that it is more important for philosophy to be interesting than true.

Your comments?

I prefer the truth if it can be known. However if it isn’t interesting, then why bother? So both are needed for the forum.

When I see a common point in the various threads, I may develop a new thread. It's difficult to find new material as the internet covers so much already (I got called for it already for copying from a thread from another website).

I try to make my threads as interesting as possible.

PhilX

[A_Seagull]

Is it more important for philosophy to be 'interesting' or 'true'?

Of course the knee jerk response would be that philosophy should be 'true'. As it is the claim of some that philosophy is a search for 'truth'. But really 'true' is just a label that is attached to a statement or a piece of philosophical writing, and typically the claim is made by the writer rather then the reader.

Whereas 'interesting' indicates a stimulation of the mental activities of the reader. It indicates that the statement or writing is on the border between what is considered to be known and the unknown.

So I contend that it is more important for philosophy to be interesting than true.

Your comments?

I prefer the truth if it can be known.PhilX

How can you tell if something is true?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is it more important for philosophy to be 'interesting' or 'true'?

Of course the knee jerk response would be that philosophy should be 'true'. As it is the claim of some that philosophy is a search for 'truth'. But really 'true' is just a label that is attached to a statement or a piece of philosophical writing, and typically the claim is made by the writer rather then the reader.

Whereas 'interesting' indicates a stimulation of the mental activities of the reader. It indicates that the statement or writing is on the border between what is considered to be known and the unknown.

So I contend that it is more important for philosophy to be interesting than true.

Your comments?

I prefer the truth if it can be known.PhilX

How can you tell if something is true?

In science the truth of something may be assumed (like premises). These premises are chosen to build upon as long as they remain consistent within the system. They're constantly tested and if they continue to work, then you have a good system (like Euclid's postulates).

PhilX

[TimeSeeker]

I prefer the truth if it can be known.PhilX

How can you tell if something is true?

In science the truth of something may be assumed (like premises). These premises are chosen to build upon as long as they remain consistent within the system. They're constantly tested and if they continue to work, then you have a good system (like Euclid's postulates).

PhilX

Godel has shown us that ‘truth’ is a higher notion than ‘provability’ there are truths within a system that are not deducible from the axioms.

Prime numbers are one example.

You can validate if something is prime, but you can’t seduce primes.

[A_Seagull]

You can validate if something is prime, but you can’t seduce primes.

That would probably explain my lack of success in that department.

[TimeSeeker]

You can validate if something is prime, but you can’t seduce primes.

That would probably explain my lack of success in that department.

I might as well call that a Freudian slip. Because I have tried... deducing AND seducing primes.

[Greta]

I vote for interesting.

If an idea is wrong then it can be distrusted, but that at least is more stimulating and useful than simply regurgitating scientific orthodoxy, that which is deemed true at that time.

[QuantumT]

Truth is a philosophical problem, not a scientific. In science there is only probability. So if we use truth in philosophy, we distance it from science and make it woo'ie.

Thus "interesting" is the only option left. Just be careful not to sell out too much on science fact in order to become interesting, coz then you're right back at the "truth problem".

IMO we should never move away from consensus science in any way, coz if we do, we lose our credibility and so does philosophy itself. Our job as philosophers is to interpret results from genuine science, not to make woo'ie assumptions that goes beyond.

We can say: The reason for this could be that. We can never say: The reason for this is that.

[A_Seagull]

Truth is a philosophical problem, not a scientific. In science there is only probability. So if we use truth in philosophy, we distance it from science and make it woo'ie.

I don't think that the term 'probability' is the right one to use in regard to scientific theories. Science has a best theory for various areas of science, probability does not come into it. For the sake of convenience such scientific theories can be labelled as 'true' to indicate that they are considered to be the best available.

While truth may be a philosophical problem for some philosophers or some philosophies, it is not necessarily a problem of philosophy per se. If the only truths regarding the physical world are scientific truths then that is the way things are and there is no problem.

[QuantumT]

I don't think that the term 'probability' is the right one to use in regard to scientific theories. Science has a best theory for various areas of science, probability does not come into it. For the sake of convenience such scientific theories can be labelled as 'true' to indicate that they are considered to be the best available.

While truth may be a philosophical problem for some philosophers or some philosophies, it is not necessarily a problem of philosophy per se. If the only truths regarding the physical world are scientific truths then that is the way things are and there is no problem.

Probability is the best word. There is a good reason that all proposals to describe reality are called theories.

Truth will never be scientific. The best we will ever get is consensus.

[A_Seagull]

I don't think that the term 'probability' is the right one to use in regard to scientific theories. Science has a best theory for various areas of science, probability does not come into it. For the sake of convenience such scientific theories can be labelled as 'true' to indicate that they are considered to be the best available.

While truth may be a philosophical problem for some philosophers or some philosophies, it is not necessarily a problem of philosophy per se. If the only truths regarding the physical world are scientific truths then that is the way things are and there is no problem.

Probability is the best word. There is a good reason that all proposals to describe reality are called theories.

Truth will never be scientific. The best we will ever get is consensus.

Well I think we can happily disagree on that.

[Arising_uk]

Godel has shown us that ‘truth’ is a higher notion than ‘provability’ there are truths within a system that are not deducible from the axioms. ...

Isn't that 'some' systems?

Prime numbers are one example.

You can validate if something is prime, but you can’t seduce primes.

We can't calculate primes?

[Greta]

Truth was a philosophical problem back in the day when philosophers were the ones who were conducting the science. It was a quest to find to truth or falsehood behind the claims of despots, and of the endless competing claims and counter claims in communities, to try to answer the great questions.

Like the Guinness Book of Records, the idea of science was to settle debates once and for all, to allow individuals and societies to make more informed decisions. Does x happen or y happen? Let's forget everyone's claims and test it. Result was x. Not fair, z conditions were in play! Ok, test again. This time it was y, but there may be mitigating factors again. Better keep testing, creating ever more strict controls, until there is a clear answer, if one exists.

As far as I can tell, science is the practical search for truth and philosophy is the search for the logic behind the truths, and there remains a great deal of overlap.