100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is Truth Subjective? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
True/truth in a scientific realm means factual, verified to utmost that can be done. So in that realm truth is not subjective. But in everyday people truth is very subjective and unverified/verifiable in lots of cases. I totally agree.  "Truth" in the physical sciences refers to that which passes the experimental method of inquiry in physics. That can indeed be quite different from ideals of philosophical truths. This is why I agree with others who say that science and philosophy should be two entirely different forums. They operate on totally different concepts of what constitutes truth. Attempting to reduce all philosophical ideals of truth to the truth that satisfies the physical sciences is to do nothing more than attempt to reduce all philosophies to the scientific method of physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True/truth in a scientific realm means factual, verified to utmost that can be done. So in that realm truth is not subjective. But in everyday people truth is very subjective and unverified/verifiable in lots of cases. I totally agree. "Truth" in the physical sciences refers to that which passes the experimental method of inquiry in physics. That can indeed be quite different from ideals of philosophical truths. This is why I agree with others who say that science and philosophy should be two entirely different forums. They operate on totally different concepts of what constitutes truth. Attempting to reduce all philosophical ideals of truth to the truth that satisfies the physical sciences is to do nothing more than attempt to reduce all philosophies to the scientific method of physics. As I read through this thread that is what keeps coming to my mind. Are we talking about scientific 'true" or just everyday true. And that makes a big difference in my mind at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb: That is why I did not really want to have to explain it to you in that way. I exist means EXACTLY what it says. If you say is has no meaning then it is YOU who fail to understand. My explanation was not a definition of it. I was simply trying to help you understand what it means since you don't seem to get it. I think that you're completely missing the point being made here, Jb. In this discussion you and Abra are pointing at the claim "I exist" and calling it a subjective truth. I'm rejecting that claim. I've given valid arguments for that rejection in several past posts. Those posts have went neglected, and you've continued to re-assert the same claims over and over. Regarding your semantic argument. 1. By definition "I exist" means exactly what it says. I'm not arguing that. What would it mean without the definitions? Since the definitions give the claim it's semantic meaning, the definitions ground the claim. Hence, doing philosophy out of a dictionary is kinda pointless unless the meaning of uncontentious terms are being made so. I'm not arguing about what the terms mean. I'm arguing about the fact that meaning cannot stand alone. -- If one knows what the term/utterance "I" means, and if one knows what the term/utterance "exists" means, then one can utter the claim "I exist". What I am saying is that one must first know the meanings of the terms in order to know what the claim means. This allows the speaker to know what it is that they are saying. The occurrence of the speaking event necessitates much much more than just "I exist". Therefore, it does stand alone. What I am saying is that one cannot become self-aware if everything is one. Self-awareness requires distinction between oneself and not oneself(other). One cannot even learn the meaning of the terms "I exist" without first making and adhering to this distinction between themself and that which is not themself(other). You're arguing semantics, and I'm arguing about what it takes to learn semantics. So, excuse me for trying to help you understand what it means. Don't turn that against me, or else I won't give you any help in the future. You just want to win an argument I think. Figure it out for yourself then. Next time I won't take your bait. You just get all tied up in trivial semantics. Waste of my time. Jeez. I know what the terms mean, Jb. I know how I've come to learn what they mean. I know what you mean when you write them. I know how you've came to learn what they mean. I'm not arguing about what they mean in the dictionary, or what they mean to you, or what they mean to me, or what they mean to him or her. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing that all meaning necessitates distinction. I'm further putting it to you that "I exist" necessarily presupposes distinction between the subject/speaker and other than the subject/speaker or it has no meaning at all. The fact that "I exist" is an example of a complete sentence and has common meaning within the English language is not in question here. I've conceded that point. The fact that "I exist" is a statement which does not explicitly lay out 'other than I' does not make the claim itself meaningful without other than I, because in life, in experience it takes other than I in order to learn what the terms even mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 07/21/11 04:38 PM
|
|
You complain that I ignore your "valid arguments" for your rejection of "my claim" but you yourself ignore what I am saying.
I realize I exist. I don't need "other" in order to do so. I don't need to prove "my claim.: As Abra said, I speak from the center of existence. It is my truth. You stated the "claim" is meaningless. (Its not. It has meaning.) You stated the "claim" is misuse of English language. Its not. It is perfect English. I say the statement is "my truth." It is. It is self evident that I exist. It does not matter if you reject the claim. Reject away. Your rejection of the claim is meaningless. By definition "I exist" means exactly what it says. I'm not arguing that. Good. What I am saying is that one cannot become self-aware if everything is one. Self-awareness requires distinction between oneself and not oneself(other). One cannot even learn the meaning of the terms "I exist" without first making and adhering to this distinction between themself and that which is not themself(other). You should read my book "The eyes of infinity." Yes, one can be aware that they exist even it they are all that exists surrounded by nothingness (the void.) One need not be aware of the terms "I exist" to know that one exists. True, they can't make the claim "I exist" but they can still be aware of self. So what is self? It is the observer. The one who exists and perceives even when there is nothing to perceive but darkness and knowing that they exist. It is a single unit of consciousness. Note: If self is only one..... self is God. Then self awareness is God consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True/truth in a scientific realm means factual, verified to utmost that can be done. So in that realm truth is not subjective. But in everyday people truth is very subjective and unverified/verifiable in lots of cases. Yes everyday people often confuse truth with their own belief and call such belief "the truth" or "a truth", or words to that effect. That does not make truth subjective. 'The cup is on the table' is a true claim if and only if the cup is on the table. 'The dog has fleas' is true if and only if the dog has fleas. Our thought/belief about those states of affairs does not affect/effect those states of affairs. They are objective fact. If the cup is on the table, then it is a fact that the cup is on the table. If that is the case, then the claim "the cup is on the table" corresponds to fact/reality. The claim is true. It is true because it corresponds to fact/reality, not because we think it, believe it, and say it. The same holds for the dog. If the dog has fleas, then "the dog has fleas" is true. That would be the case regardless of whether or not we checked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You complain that I ignore your "valid arguments" for your rejection of "my claim" but you yourself ignore what I am saying. I realize I exist. I don't need "other" in order to do so. I don't need to prove "my claim.: As Abra said, I speak from the center of existence. It is my truth. You stated the "claim" is meaningless. (Its not. It has meaning.) You stated the "claim" is misuse of English language. Its not. It is perfect English. I say the statement is "my truth." It is. It is self evident that I exist. It does not matter if you reject the claim. Reject away. Your rejection of the claim is meaningless. By definition "I exist" means exactly what it says. I'm not arguing that. Good. What I am saying is that one cannot become self-aware if everything is one. Self-awareness requires distinction between oneself and not oneself(other). One cannot even learn the meaning of the terms "I exist" without first making and adhering to this distinction between themself and that which is not themself(other). You should read my book "The eyes of infinity." Yes, one can be aware that they exist even it they are all that exists surrounded by nothingness (the void.) One need not be aware of the terms "I exist" to know that one exists. True, they can't make the claim "I exist" but they can still be aware of self. So what is self? It is the observer. The one who exists and perceives even when there is nothing to perceive but darkness and knowing that they exist. It is a single unit of consciousness. Hey you want me to come over and scientifically prove you exist? It will only hurt a little but a little blood and hair and whala you exist by scientific truth....  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You complain that I ignore your "valid arguments" for your rejection of "my claim" but you yourself ignore what I am saying. I realize I exist. I don't need "other" in order to do so. I don't need to prove "my claim.: As Abra said, I speak from the center of existence. It is my truth. You stated the "claim" is meaningless. (Its not. It has meaning.) You stated the "claim" is misuse of English language. Its not. It is perfect English. I say the statement is "my truth." It is. It is self evident that I exist. It does not matter if you reject the claim. Reject away. Your rejection of the claim is meaningless. By definition "I exist" means exactly what it says. I'm not arguing that. Good. What I am saying is that one cannot become self-aware if everything is one. Self-awareness requires distinction between oneself and not oneself(other). One cannot even learn the meaning of the terms "I exist" without first making and adhering to this distinction between themself and that which is not themself(other). You should read my book "The eyes of infinity." Yes, one can be aware that they exist even it they are all that exists surrounded by nothingness (the void.) One need not be aware of the terms "I exist" to know that one exists. True, they can't make the claim "I exist" but they can still be aware of self. So what is self? It is the observer. The one who exists and perceives even when there is nothing to perceive but darkness and knowing that they exist. It is a single unit of consciousness. Hey you want me to come over and scientifically prove you exist? It will only hurt a little but a little blood and hair and whala you exist by scientific truth.... I am the last person who needs proof of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You complain that I ignore your "valid arguments" for your rejection of "my claim" but you yourself ignore what I am saying. I realize I exist. I don't need "other" in order to do so. I don't need to prove "my claim.: As Abra said, I speak from the center of existence. It is my truth. You stated the "claim" is meaningless. (Its not. It has meaning.) You stated the "claim" is misuse of English language. Its not. It is perfect English. I say the statement is "my truth." It is. It is self evident that I exist. It does not matter if you reject the claim. Reject away. Your rejection of the claim is meaningless. By definition "I exist" means exactly what it says. I'm not arguing that. Good. What I am saying is that one cannot become self-aware if everything is one. Self-awareness requires distinction between oneself and not oneself(other). One cannot even learn the meaning of the terms "I exist" without first making and adhering to this distinction between themself and that which is not themself(other). You should read my book "The eyes of infinity." Yes, one can be aware that they exist even it they are all that exists surrounded by nothingness (the void.) One need not be aware of the terms "I exist" to know that one exists. True, they can't make the claim "I exist" but they can still be aware of self. So what is self? It is the observer. The one who exists and perceives even when there is nothing to perceive but darkness and knowing that they exist. It is a single unit of consciousness. Hey you want me to come over and scientifically prove you exist? It will only hurt a little but a little blood and hair and whala you exist by scientific truth.... I am the last person who needs proof of that. Alrighty then but it is always an option if you think it is needed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is not subjective, people are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: One can deny that the claim 'I exist' is a "self-evident truth" without denying their own existence. The fact that I exist is evident... here I am. Calling a self-awareness claim "a self-evident truth" is what I'm rejecting. It is a bit of knowledge. Namely, knowing how to make the self-referencing claim. Abra: But isn't that the crux of it right there? In the above quote you are attempting to turn the self-evident truth of someone's experience of existence into a mere opinionated objective claim of self-awareness. And you are "claiming" to have done this using "logical analysis". That's like being on the outside looking in. No. I'm objecting to using the term "truth" to describe one's own belief, which may or may not be true. Jeanniebean is speaking from the center of existence. She is speaking from that which is. She is the experience of self-awareness. She's not making this claim "objectively" for someone external from her to analyze with some supposed formal logical system. Well she's in the wrong thread. I am and have been practicing analytic philosophy for quite some time. It is no secret. I'm been on these forums for a very long time. I'm talking about what it would take for a speaker's claim to be true... or at least that is the main focus. She's speaking from the center of her truth. It's not her opinion. It's not her claim. It not up for objective analysis at all. It's simply her reality. It is the only truth she can be certain of. She is that she is. There is no denying that. Her experience of existence is her truth, therefore if your logical formalism isn't equipped to deal with that truth then clearly it's your logical formalism that is necessarily flawed and in question. Her truth remains unscathed by your external "claims" that it doesn't pass your objective logical analysis. Look, it's more than apparent that you and Jb are extremely emotionally attached to the claims that you've put forth. It's also more than apparent that belief and truth are the same thing on your view. So... Explain to me what the difference is between 1. a false belief 2. a true belief |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You complain that I ignore your "valid arguments" for your rejection of "my claim" but you yourself ignore what I am saying. Pointing out fact is not complaining, it is pointing out fact. I realize I exist. I don't need "other" in order to do so. I don't need to prove "my claim.: As Abra said, I speak from the center of existence. It is my truth. The logical consequence of equating personal belief to truth is that there can be no false belief, for it only follows that all personal belief would be truth. Truth cannot be false. Therefore, there could be no false belief. Nothing further need be said. We already know that that is not the case. Agreed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 07/21/11 05:33 PM
|
|
Look, it's more than apparent that you and Jb are extremely emotionally attached to the claims that you've put forth. It's also more than apparent that belief and truth are the same thing on your view. So... There is no emotion involved and no attachment either. I have told Christians that they do not own "God" and I will tell you now that you do not own the term "truth." You can misuse or analyze the term as much as you like, but you don't own it. Your question in the O.P was whether truth was subjective. Now you are arguing about the meaning of the term "truth" and you want everyone to agree with your meaning. You yourself have no position on truth being subjective or objective, but still you pose the question. It looks like you are grasping for truth in a totally mental state and you are struggling with it on a personal level. Its as if you are trying to force your analytic philosophy of truth down other people's throats. Its really not about truth at all. I admit, I don't know what it is really about. One thing I do know for certain is that "I exist" is NOT a belief that is either true or false. It is not a "claim" that needs to be proved. It is not an opinion. It is a fact just as much as your cup on the table example. I know I exist. That I exist is true. Existence is truth. It is what it is. Analyze it all you want. I'm done.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness wrote: As I read through this thread that is what keeps coming to my mind. Are we talking about scientific 'true" or just everyday true. And that makes a big difference in my mind at least. But to even put it in those two "groups" wrong. It's just just "scientific truth" versus "everyday truth". There are differences between "scientific truth" and "philosophical truth". Both of these are deemed to be valid forms of higher intellectual pursuits. Although many scientists may roll there eyes at philosophers. I think a lot of secularists are attempting to claim that the "scientific method of physics" should be the foundation for all philosophical thought. But all they are doing there is demanding that all philosophers basically become scientists. Science is necessarily an objective discipline. The very method of inquiry assumes that there exists a world 'out there', and that it can be objectively determined. This view became very profound during the years when Classical Physics was believed to be the final word. However, with the discoveries of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics all that has changed. Physicists found themselves questioning the very concept of "real" and what it means for something to be "real". Science is no longer cut-and-dried. Scientific "truths" now come in two flavors. The macro 'truths' and the micro 'truths' and they differ drastically. Moreover, we are gaining a far better understanding of why macro truths are what they are. But we are not able to even begin to comprehend the micro truths that lie beneath the macro facade. So even the so-called 'scientific truths' are standing on quicksand. Besides, if that's the whole argument - that ALL PHILOSOPHY should be reduced to the scientific method of inquiry, then why not just confess that this is the agenda? Many philosophers would disagree with this agenda and offer many valid reasons why it is unjustifiable. Even most physicists themselves are not prepared to accept that our scientific method of inquiry is necessarily the final say in things. For all we know science may soon depart from this criteria. In fact, for all intents and purposes they already have with their work on "String Theory". They are already pursuing 'scientific investigations' into things that are based entirely on mathematical abstractions that may or may not have anything to do with any underlying 'truth'. There is nothing in modern science anywhere that flatly refutes that other philosophical approaches have no merit. And Jeanniebean (and the Eastern Mystic Philosophers) constantly points out the only real truth that we can be certain of is the quite subjective experience of our own existence. It's the only truth we can be certain of. To now suggest that consciousness is nothing more than an 'emergent property' of some underlying "physical realm" which modern science can't even get a serious handle on is a seriously flawed agenda. How can anyone argue that we should start thinking in terms of underlying "physics" as the 'answer' when in TRUTH that very rug has been pulled out from under the feet of scientists? Science is currently in a state of total limbo when it comes to answering any philosophical questions about the 'truth' of reality. And attempting to hold "logic" up as the ultimate tool with which we should use to assess "truth" is equally unwarranted. Science has already discovered things that cannot be explained by 'logic' as we know it. Therefore from a scientific point of view we really have no scientific basis for proclaiming that logic should be a useful tool for discovering the true nature of reality. Here is a statement made by the leading scientist Nobel-Prize winner in Quantum Mechanics: " I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘but how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Richard Feynman - Nobel Prize winner in QED. The behavior that is observed is not 'logical'. No one has been able to show otherwise. So to date, our modern Scientific method of inquiry has indeed arrived at the observation that the true nature of reality may very well be 'illogical' to our way of thinking. Science does not demand that everything must be logical. It is a farce for secular fundamentalists to claim that science somehow supports 'logic'. Or that science demands that everything must be "logical". That itself is simply untrue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 07/21/11 06:16 PM
|
|
Dragoness wrote: As I read through this thread that is what keeps coming to my mind. Are we talking about scientific 'true" or just everyday true. And that makes a big difference in my mind at least. But to even put it in those two "groups" wrong. It's just just "scientific truth" versus "everyday truth". There are differences between "scientific truth" and "philosophical truth". Both of these are deemed to be valid forms of higher intellectual pursuits. Although many scientists may roll there eyes at philosophers. I think a lot of secularists are attempting to claim that the "scientific method of physics" should be the foundation for all philosophical thought. But all they are doing there is demanding that all philosophers basically become scientists. Science is necessarily an objective discipline. The very method of inquiry assumes that there exists a world 'out there', and that it can be objectively determined. This view became very profound during the years when Classical Physics was believed to be the final word. However, with the discoveries of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics all that has changed. Physicists found themselves questioning the very concept of "real" and what it means for something to be "real". Science is no longer cut-and-dried. Scientific "truths" now come in two flavors. The macro 'truths' and the micro 'truths' and they differ drastically. Moreover, we are gaining a far better understanding of why macro truths are what they are. But we are not able to even begin to comprehend the micro truths that lie beneath the macro facade. So even the so-called 'scientific truths' are standing on quicksand. Besides, if that's the whole argument - that ALL PHILOSOPHY should be reduced to the scientific method of inquiry, then why not just confess that this is the agenda? Many philosophers would disagree with this agenda and offer many valid reasons why it is unjustifiable. Even most physicists themselves are not prepared to accept that our scientific method of inquiry is necessarily the final say in things. For all we know science may soon depart from this criteria. In fact, for all intents and purposes they already have with their work on "String Theory". They are already pursuing 'scientific investigations' into things that are based entirely on mathematical abstractions that may or may not have anything to do with any underlying 'truth'. There is nothing in modern science anywhere that flatly refutes that other philosophical approaches have no merit. And Jeanniebean (and the Eastern Mystic Philosophers) constantly points out the only real truth that we can be certain of is the quite subjective experience of our own existence. It's the only truth we can be certain of. To now suggest that consciousness is nothing more than an 'emergent property' of some underlying "physical realm" which modern science can't even get a serious handle on is a seriously flawed agenda. How can anyone argue that we should start thinking in terms of underlying "physics" as the 'answer' when in TRUTH that very rug has been pulled out from under the feet of scientists? Science is currently in a state of total limbo when it comes to answering any philosophical questions about the 'truth' of reality. And attempting to hold "logic" up as the ultimate tool with which we should use to assess "truth" is equally unwarranted. Science has already discovered things that cannot be explained by 'logic' as we know it. Therefore from a scientific point of view we really have no scientific basis for proclaiming that logic should be a useful tool for discovering the true nature of reality. Here is a statement made by the leading scientist Nobel-Prize winner in Quantum Mechanics: " I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘but how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Richard Feynman - Nobel Prize winner in QED. The behavior that is observed is not 'logical'. No one has been able to show otherwise. So to date, our modern Scientific method of inquiry has indeed arrived at the observation that the true nature of reality may very well be 'illogical' to our way of thinking. Science does not demand that everything must be logical. It is a farce for secular fundamentalists to claim that science somehow supports 'logic'. Or that science demands that everything must be "logical". That itself is simply untrue. But isn't logic a man made concept in of itself? I mean I love it. God bless Spock!!! And yes I did mean Star Trek Spock...lol I love the concept of logic and logical thinking. It seems so predictable and measurable. But it is a concept of man that "an action will be followed by another because 'it should be so'" "because when such fell down it did it this way so now that becomes logic." You know I am not a scholar so I am going on the seat of my shorts, literally here. As to your Eastern philosophical truth statement, it makes sense and it even over rides scientific truth at that level because I choose to believe that scientist "truth" is verified and as close at it comes to truth but I am, I do, I feel, I see, I logic, etc.... it all comes down to me and my being my only verifiable reality. Unless I have multiple personality disorder and then Fred can verify it too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb, Abra, Dragoness, or anyone else who holds that truth is subjective...
What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb, Abra, Dragoness, or anyone else who holds that truth is subjective... What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief? Now we are talking on a philosophical level here though. Technically there is no false belief. If a person believes it it is their truth. Now your belief that smurfs really do exist may not be a true belief to me but for you it is true. So false beliefs are a personal judgement call. But if a person believes something it is their true belief. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 07/21/11 06:32 PM
|
|
Jb, Abra, Dragoness, or anyone else who holds that truth is subjective... What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief? This is an excellent question. It is the reason I have said that the only thing I am certain of (100%) is that I exist. This means that there is no room for error. This is true, it is truth, it is, it is fact, yes, I believe it. But I also know it, being that it is 100% certainty. This is an example of "true belief." I believe it, it is true. Everything else I may claim to "believe" is below 100%. There is room for error. I might "almost" believe it. Even if I say "I believe.... so and so..." there is always room for error. I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. All of my "conclusions" are opinions. They are not set in stone. I can always change my mind or be persuaded of something else. Beliefs do change. False belief: The other guys opinion. (joking.) False belief is in the past. It is when I learn I was wrong, and my opinions change. I may have believed it in the past but my beliefs changed. My new beliefs are my new opinions. They are all open to scrutiny. None of them are 100% believed for certain. I don't expect everyone to believe that I exist because that does not matter. I don't need to prove that to anyone. That is personal truth. It is not a claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love logic too!
 Logic has been the love of my life. I have nothing against logic at all. I just realize that it has it's domain of application and its own limitations. I also see logical statements being grossly misused on these forums. People making logical statements about X's without paying attention to the domain of applicability of their X's. That's actually a very poor misuse of logical symbols and formalism. I have personally come to accept that there may very well be things that are beyond what we consider to be 'logical'. In fact, as I've pointed out, we already observe such phenomena in scientific experiments and observations of the quantum world. I have come to grips with the possibility that the true nature of reality may be far beyond the limitations of what we consider to be logical in terms of macro physical manifestation. So I haven't lost my love for logic, I've just gained a love for mysticism, which as far as I can see, has every bit as much merit as logic has. In fact, it may actually be 'logical' within it's own domain. Just a different kind of 'logic' than we are used to experiencing in this macro physical manifestation. I see no conflicts between what modern science actually knows to be "true", and the mystical philosophies of the Eastern Mystics. These two world's can easily coexist without conflict, just as the micro realm of quantum mechanics can coexist with the macro world of classical mechanics without conflict. In fact, that's a really good analogy because the quantum world is every bit as mystical to us as Eastern Mysticism is, yet we know that it's part of our world. And we are slowly learning how the macro world can arise from it and be so different from it. So for me logic hasn't "died". I've simply accepted that it has a limited domain of applicability. It still works for macro physical manifestation. And that's still cool.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief? Dragoness: Now we are talking on a philosophical level here though. Technically there is no false belief. If a person believes it it is their truth. So you're saying that there is no difference between a true belief and a false belief? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief? Jb: This is an excellent question. It is the reason I have said that the only thing I am certain of (100%) is that I exist. This means that there is no room for error. This is true, it is truth, it is, it is fact, yes, I believe it. But I also know it, being that it is 100% certainty. This is an example of "true belief." I believe it, it is true. What makes it true? |
|
|
|
|
