Perhaps, but how does that relate to whether or not a statement is true?



I do not find that talking about truth in such a way adds to understanding. Are you saying that what I believe to be true may be believed to be false/not true by another?

I think I'm focused upon the middle portion of that quote. I mean, "in truth" is referring to the way things are/fact/reality, and that is the approach that makes the most sense to me. True statements and belief 'matches up' to fact/reality.

not this again...

That will be clarified throughout the thread, by logical consequence alone. The puzzle pieces called human understanding belonging to truth have been wildy dispersed throughout human history. I do not find that truth is a man-concept, nor is it necessarily equal to any human conception of it. That is completely supported by the fact that humans engage truth in thought/belief long before we have the capability to develop this complex linguistic conception(s).



I find that if a thing can be true, it must be truth-bearing. Not all things are truth-bearing. Therefore, not all things can be correctly called "true". So knowing this, we can parse out some of the unnecessary considerations by guiding the conversation in that direction. Would you agree?



I'm not sure what is meant by the scarequotes.

My take on this potion of the response is that by "fixing a truth" you're not referring to something that is true. Is that the case?



I do not understand the relevance from here on out.



--

I think that we share much deeper agreement here. I mean, it seems we both realize that humans often confuse their own belief and/or the concept of belief with truth itself. Perhaps some also do not grasp the difference between that which we create and that which we can only become more aware of.

New participants are good. That is my opinion, of course.

Truth...

If a thing is...

It is...

Placing upon it a human word does not change its state... It still is what it is.

and the same if a thing is not.

Yet if a thing must be described as a 'truth'... It is not then fully understood.

And is therefore not in truth, a truth.

Rathere is it a point to argue.

Why do I say this.

In truth because if something is.

We all know it.

but if it is only partially understood.

It is not yet in truth a truth...

it is a progressive understanding of observed and measured ideas...

and therefore still subject to the 'truth' of the person observing... or the persons 'verifying' the stated 'truth'.

I'll wait, because my last response already addressed much of that, and it seems that I may be mistaken about the aforementioned agreement.

Does a personal concept of 'truth' change whether or not a statement is true?

I would call such things existence, reality, or perhaps fact. A fact would be a state of affairs, and reality would be the overall state of affairs.



I think we agree here somewhere along the line. What do you mean by "in truth".



I do not follow this part, especially the first which seems to say if something is then we all know it. That is not so. Lots of things are the case that many do not know.



Are you saying that truth is subject to the people, or that the personal concept of 'truth' is subject to people?

If the cup is on the table, then the statement that the cup is on the table is considered "true."

If there are no observers it is irrelevant. If there are no observers the statement does not exist.

If there are no observers, there is no cup, there is no table.

There is no statement to be considered.

If the cup on the table is full...

and you drink from it.

Would in truth it be now less full...

or contain the same amout as it did before you drank?

The cup is on the table: (let me think of away to warrent and justify the statement...

If the cup is on the table then someone put it on the table
Creative was last seen sitting at the table drinking a cup of coffee
Creative put the cup on the table

I can now believe that the cup is on the table

We need more information about the cup that Creative says is on table. How do you warrant the cup being on the table Creative? How would you justify that statement to others.

Until that information is provided how can anyone other than the ‘maker’ of the statement have any confidence in the truth value of that statement?

I am focusing upon what makes a statement true. I am not focusing upon what makes a statement called true. The two are very distinct notions.

We all know that it takes a creature capable of creating a cup and creating a table on order to have a cup and a table to talk about. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is what makes the statement "The cup is on the table" true.

The question is not what justifies the statement. A justified statement can be false. Justification is insufficient for truth. The question is what makes a statement true.



I'll answer because you ask. That is based upon the agreement that we keep the general focus upon what constitutes the statement being true.

1. How do I warrant the cup being on the table.

I don't. Warrant is that which constitutes sufficient reason to believe.

2. How would I justify the statement to others.

That depends upon whether or not they are present. If not, they'll have to take my word for it. If they are I would say...

Look----->



Truth value is not truth. Truth value is a measure of logic/coherency and it necessarily presupposes truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in truth". Could you elaborate?

When being conflated with truth itself, Truth Value is Empirical dogma. It is a misnomer to begin with. I'd be willing to go off topic for a page or two if necessary.

What if we thik about what does not make a statement true?

1. Making it
2. Believing it
3. Explaning it

One and two are basically the same thing presupposeing honest testimony. To state X is to believe that X is true, is the case, corresponds to reality, obtains, etc. Three is simply an attempt at justification. The rules of justification are the same rules of logic/sound reasoning by which an argument must abide.

Again, there is such a thing as justified false belief. One clear-cut example would take the following setting...

I knew a man for thirty years who had always driven a new Ford car about every three years. I had called him to ask for a ride. He agreed, came over and drove me where I needed to go. There was no conversation regarding the car he was driving in, which was a Ford. I took a mental note that he must have bought another new car, because he did about every three years and it had been about that long since the last time.

The car was not his.

Regarding why the belief is justified...

--

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the car was his, because everything within my experience confirmed the belief. So, it is clear that there was warrant to hold the belief, as it was clearly explained to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Because that is the case, the belief was justified. It was justifiable by me because I understood it enough to be able to clearly explain it. It was as equally justifiable by our mutual friends who also knew those things about him.

no claim can be taken to be ABSOLUTELY true. the best we can do is theorize:

'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell.

so if something is true means that it's been proved to be fact then nothing other than what we've experienced can be called factual. to think it true would require faith of which i've none.

sure, if you have faith.

in other words, if you experience that the cup is on the table then and only then is the statement true, no? not unlike the proverbial tree falling in the woods. if nobody is there to hear it then it doesn't make a sound. yes, the falling doesn disturb the air but sound only happens when that disturbed air affects an eardrum or a device like a microphone. no ear, no mic, no sound. only disturbed air. which wasn't heard. why wasn't the falling tree heard? because there was nobody around to hear it. nobody to experience the falling tree as making a sound.