Did Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street? Yes. It's in all the stories and movies and such. But, No, Holmes is a fictional character and didn't actually live anywhere.
Bertrand Russel thought all statements were either True, False, or Meaningless. If it wasn't T or F it was meaningless by default. I think some statements are both T & F (or neither) depending on their set, reference, and context... or, put another way,...
All truth is subjective. The notion that "we" have the capability of acquiring objective truth will only lead to dogma and delusion.
The scientific method is the most powerful tool we posses because, by its specific doctrine, it provides us the ability to remain open to new discovery.
Its power in that regard is unsurpassed and its potential is only limited by our imaginations.
Thank you for a great video. One of my problem with establishing truth is when one turns back towards one's thoughts and desires. "I like strawberry", "this wine tastes like shit"... "My thoughts are in a muddle". Are these statements still amenable to establishing their truth?
@AchTalon I thought about this same issue a while back, and here's the conclusion I got to (professional philosophers, feel free to correct me):
I like raspberries. This is true for me. The fact that I like raspberries is also true for you, because I still like raspberries. You may or may not be able to repeat the same sentence with the same veracity (if you dislike raspberries), but then the meaning of "I" has changed, so it's not the same sentence as when I say it for myself.
Feeling X is the same as knowing that you feel X. If I see a leprechaun, maybe I'm just crazy and there's no leprechaun, but wether it's real or not, if I'm seeing it, I know I'm experiencing seeing it (in my head at least). Our own thoughts and desires are the only thing we have DIRECT empirical knowledge, those of others and everything else we can only infer.
My first reaction was that "tuna tastes good" doesn't fit in your definition, but maybe that's included in the simplification. It is nonetheless (in more disguised forms) a common source for disagreeing about (what is not really) truth.
@dumpmist I do not believe that Wisdominnature is trying to end such petty arguments. He is talking here about objective things which we can observe scientifically, not subjective things like human preferences. It is true tuna tastes good... to some people.. and it is also true it tastes bad to others. That is subjective, but what he is saying is more along the lines of. "Tuna is eaten by humans." A statement that is objectively true to all until no human continues to consume tuna.
@Kedonata Yes, I just wanted to raise concern that this was not immediately clear from the way Wisdominnature presented the definition. I did not think he himself was confusing them. If we are aiming for simple definitions, I find it easier to explain the difference as one is measurable or possible to calculate from measurements, and the other is an opinion (instead of objective and subjective).
Interesting, I'm quite curious though: What is reality, what does it mean for something to correspond to it and how do you establish that it does, in your view ?
Also, by "optimally flexible" do you mean something like David Deutsch's "hard to vary" explanations ?
Sorry my only response is so mundane. There is a typo at 3.29, predicating instead of predicting. Like some of your detractors, I'm still trying to grasp how your subject/predicate view is not ultimately simply correspondence to reality.
Thank you; sorry about the typo. One difference is that the subject can do what the predicate says without the statement being in accord with reality: e.g. “goldilocks is courageous when confronted with bears”.
I'd love to see you do a specific video addressing postmodernistic views of truth specifically in a critical manner.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
sounds like the "No miracle argument", do you support it? How do you establish truth empirically with prescriptivism?
Forkroute 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
More seriously, especially in the sciences, I think truth approaches The Truth asymptotically...
ThePeaceableKingdom 1 month ago
Did Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street? Yes. It's in all the stories and movies and such. But, No, Holmes is a fictional character and didn't actually live anywhere.
Bertrand Russel thought all statements were either True, False, or Meaningless. If it wasn't T or F it was meaningless by default. I think some statements are both T & F (or neither) depending on their set, reference, and context... or, put another way,...
"Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus..."
ThePeaceableKingdom 1 month ago
Any book recommendations?
niriop 1 month ago
thanks for vid, im currently having a discussion with a theist about absolute truth, I think I can now make a stronger point. cheers
benaberry 1 month ago
All truth is subjective. The notion that "we" have the capability of acquiring objective truth will only lead to dogma and delusion.
The scientific method is the most powerful tool we posses because, by its specific doctrine, it provides us the ability to remain open to new discovery.
Its power in that regard is unsurpassed and its potential is only limited by our imaginations.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod
“All truth is subjective”
Mine isn’t ;)
wisdominnature7 1 month ago 2
@MyGodTheresNoGod How did such an idiotic get to such a wonderful channel?
Forkroute 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This comment is false.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
Thank you for a great video. One of my problem with establishing truth is when one turns back towards one's thoughts and desires. "I like strawberry", "this wine tastes like shit"... "My thoughts are in a muddle". Are these statements still amenable to establishing their truth?
AchTalon 1 month ago
@AchTalon I thought about this same issue a while back, and here's the conclusion I got to (professional philosophers, feel free to correct me):
I like raspberries. This is true for me. The fact that I like raspberries is also true for you, because I still like raspberries. You may or may not be able to repeat the same sentence with the same veracity (if you dislike raspberries), but then the meaning of "I" has changed, so it's not the same sentence as when I say it for myself.
EdwardHowton 1 month ago
@AchTalon
Feeling X is the same as knowing that you feel X. If I see a leprechaun, maybe I'm just crazy and there's no leprechaun, but wether it's real or not, if I'm seeing it, I know I'm experiencing seeing it (in my head at least). Our own thoughts and desires are the only thing we have DIRECT empirical knowledge, those of others and everything else we can only infer.
kaminarigaston 1 month ago
My first reaction was that "tuna tastes good" doesn't fit in your definition, but maybe that's included in the simplification. It is nonetheless (in more disguised forms) a common source for disagreeing about (what is not really) truth.
dumpmist 1 month ago
@dumpmist I do not believe that Wisdominnature is trying to end such petty arguments. He is talking here about objective things which we can observe scientifically, not subjective things like human preferences. It is true tuna tastes good... to some people.. and it is also true it tastes bad to others. That is subjective, but what he is saying is more along the lines of. "Tuna is eaten by humans." A statement that is objectively true to all until no human continues to consume tuna.
Kedonata 1 month ago
@Kedonata Yes, I just wanted to raise concern that this was not immediately clear from the way Wisdominnature presented the definition. I did not think he himself was confusing them. If we are aiming for simple definitions, I find it easier to explain the difference as one is measurable or possible to calculate from measurements, and the other is an opinion (instead of objective and subjective).
dumpmist 1 month ago
Thank you very much for giving voice to my thoughts on truth in a way in which I lack the requisite erudition.
Nhurm 1 month ago
Interesting, I'm quite curious though: What is reality, what does it mean for something to correspond to it and how do you establish that it does, in your view ?
Also, by "optimally flexible" do you mean something like David Deutsch's "hard to vary" explanations ?
LaserBlowFish 1 month ago
@LaserBlowFish
By “optimally flexible” I mean something like flexible enough to account for counter-factuals; but not flexible enough to escape refutation.
wisdominnature7 1 month ago
Sorry my only response is so mundane. There is a typo at 3.29, predicating instead of predicting. Like some of your detractors, I'm still trying to grasp how your subject/predicate view is not ultimately simply correspondence to reality.
hilbert54 1 month ago
@hilbert54
Thank you; sorry about the typo. One difference is that the subject can do what the predicate says without the statement being in accord with reality: e.g. “goldilocks is courageous when confronted with bears”.
wisdominnature7 1 month ago
as long as ya gots yer virtue ¦:¬]
decent vid
TWITfromURANUS 1 month ago
Wierd first coment, you have a great voice.
bassmanco 1 month ago