Talk:Truth/Archive 10

message: I just noticed that I cut off some quite recent edits in archiving. Please move anything you consider important back to the main talk page, and accept my apologies. Banno 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: In arguments, the term truth refers to the affirmation or "validity" of a statement, in whole or part. 
* arguments defines a very very broad context. Perhaps its not appropriate here, but any discussion of truth must rest on some logic. the generalization of logic to include human interaction is called "argument".
* "whole or part" is redundant - a statement can refer to any atomic part of a larger statement -SV 
Statements which are contradicted by argument are referred to as "untrue" or "false."
* Jim is right about this one - contradicted needs replacing. Using "invalid" would be prejudicing the outcome - some term which gives insight to the process of validation would be appropriate here -SV 
This basic binary usage is found in logic and philosophy as well, and within these areas the concept is typically abstracted to greater aspects of human thought to define both processes for deriving true statements as well as variances or valuations of truth.
In the transition from philosophy to religion, truth has come to have further abstracted meaning. 
* This defines the degrees of scale for which the term truth commonly applies. From the basic binary logic, to argument (with variable logics) to abstracted and generalized philosophy, to spirituality - which asserts its own definitions (frameworks) for universals and fundamentals. -SV
An example is "truth" used as a singular concept which contains all elemental and fundamental truths, as they have come to be learned and understood within reality. In religious usage, "the truth" often refers to a spiritual concept of reality. 
-Ste|vertigo 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not need saying, but:
** an argument can be valid without being true;
** a statement can be true without being affirmed, and affirmed without being true;
** it is debatable as to whether truth rests on logic, or logic on truth;
** not all statements that are contradicted by an argument are untrue; nor are all statements that are supported by an argument true. Banno 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, that was a bit rude. My appologies. Born of frustration. Banno 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not need saying, but:
** there are definitions for truth
** defintions are words described by other words
** sucky writing sucks down the whole wikipedia
** the current version sucks major ass
** talk pages are for working out which terms to use 
-Ste|vertigo 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wroking draft 

message: *There is no single definition of truth that is not also controversial; rather there are various complementary and contrary definitions. Most theories agree that saying that a statement is true can sometimes be simply a way of agreeing with the statement, but some theories maintain that truth can mean more than that. There are also differences between theories regarding how to test claims of truth, and also about sorts of utterances can properly be called true or false. --JimWae 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something along these lines?

message: JA: The lead paragraph has numerous problems.  I started out just trying to fix the stylistic use-mention problem, and found that it was impossible to feather it in with the rest of the sentence on account of all the substantive ambiguities.
After fixing the more easily fixable problems, we have
Truth (cont. false, lie) refers to the nature of statements as having a degree of fidelity with reality.  In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".
JA: What is the intended subject of th first sentence?  (1) The word truth, (2) the property of truth, (3) a truth in the sense of a true statement, (4) the truth, in the sense of all that is the case?  There seems to be an attempt to cover all at once, which does not work.  Let's pick just one to start.
JA: If it's the word truth that refers to a property, then:
Truth (antonym falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or a statement as having a degree of fidelity with reality.
JA: I suspect that we have just defined truth in terms of fidelity, but maybe nobody will notice.  Wait and see.  Jon Awbrey 15:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now the introduction still pushes the correspondence theory (fidelity to reality) but has the advantage over my introduction in that it is very hard to read.  Since everybody else is just whacking away at the introduction, I'm going to take my turn, with the idea that what can be expressed in unreadable language can also be expressed in readable language. Rick Norwood 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In hopes of reaching a consensus, I'm going slow, and taking it one paragraph at a time.  I really think that the other three paragraphs belong below the ToC, but if others want them above the ToC, then they need a rewrite.  The problem is not so much what they say, as that they use long words where short words are available, as if the intent were to impress rather than to communicate. Rick Norwood 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with introduction

message: JA: In the absence of theoretical consensus -- and what are the chances of that? -- the reader is owed at the very least an authoritative account of the most common usages of the term, such as mere lexicographers do.  My old M-W -- I like using the older unabridged, from before the time when the force of linguistic gravity warped us into this bleak hole -- says this:
truth (from OE treowth fidelity, akin to OE treowe faithful ...) 
1 a. archaic : fidelity, constancy 
1 b. sincerity in action, character, and utterance 
2 a. (1) the state of being the case : fact 
2 a. (2) the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality 
2 a. (3) often cap : a transendental fundamental or spiritual reality 
2 b. a judgement, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true 
2 c. the body of true statements and propositions 
3 a. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality 
3 b. chiefly Brit : true 2 
3 c. fidelity to an original or to a standard. ... 
JA: Then, of course, you have to look up "true", too.  Jon Awbrey 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would be happy with the idea of an introduction crafted from a paraphrase of the definition above.  I will not, however, accept the idea that English grammar is a bad thing. Rick Norwood 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: JA: Okay, I called it first, so I get pride of place as passenger, but where I came from it's the owner of the pickup that gets to drive.  As to the specific question of which theory to favor in the introduction, my answer is none of them.  At my last count, we have these theories of truth:
Theories of truth
* Coherentism
* Consensus theory of truth
* Correspondence theory of truth
* Deflationary theory of truth
* Epistemic theories of truth
* Indefinability theory of truth
* Pragmatic theory of truth
* Semantic theory of truth
JA: And ten-to-one I missed a bunch.  It gives me arachnophobia just looking at it.  Jon Awbrey 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that all of these should go in the introduction?  If not, how should the introduction be structured so as not to prejudice the reader in favor of, say, the Shotgun theory of truth over against the "Whoever is stronger gets to ride in the passenger seat" theory of truth? Rick Norwood 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Do we really want to reference the article lie-to-children? Rick Norwood 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah!  I misunderstood your "none of them".  I thought it referred to "none of the currently suggested introductions".  So, an introduction that is based entirely on etymology.  I can live with that.  My OED is at home, has anyone else got one handy? Rick Norwood 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. It's from the Old English, representative of an Old Norse or Old High German word for "plighted faith", much the same etymology as "true" but with the suffix -th used to form the abstract noun. I don't see how this helps. Banno 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shotgun ! 

message: The search for truth reveals a list of related articles which may need notation, integration, merging, etc: The Truth, Absolute truth (redir), Fictional truth, Truth value, Truth table, Truth function, Four Noble Truths, Two truths doctrine, Objective truth (redir), Doctrine of substantial truth, Fictional truth, List of truth and reconciliation commissions (ie fact finding). -Ste|vertigo 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note: Are you sure that Two truths doctrine is from christian? Maybe you're refering to another one with another meaning? Monkey Brain 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We do link to them, given that the truth definition applies to them. We must of course draw the link in terms of philosophy > math, and philosophy > ethics, and philosophy > political. The last of course being least relevant. -Ste|vertigo 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stuff to do 

message: By god, that intro is ugly. Banno 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh.. Much nicer, Jim. Banno
JA: Where exactly do you find the ug?
JA: How about this:
This is not so much a definition or even a very informative statement about truth, per se, but an almost purely self-referential string of characters designed to distract the reader for a respectable number of lines of text without taking the risk of saying anything that anybody might conceivably take exception to, well, that's about the length I was going for, so on to the rest of the article, like you'd have any reason to read it now.
JA: Oh wait, somebody read my mind.  Never mind.  Jon Awbrey 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So far, this intro has my vote. : ) Rick Norwood 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argh ...

message: sentences and representations also have truth value in logic, not merely propositions. --Buridan 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition, Statement, Sentence, Utterance

message: Truth has been a subject of interest and discussion throughout recorded history, with serious applications to philosophy and linguistics, to logic and law.  Pontius Pilate is reported to have said, "What is truth?"  John Keats wrote "Truth is beauty."  However, most people would agree that if someone says, "It is raining," and it is raining, they spoke the truth. Rick Norwood 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed introduction 

message: I have commented out:
:In logic, sentences, propositions and representational forms are considered to have a truth value. In aesthetics, it is usual to consider a much broader range of symbolic expressions, but whether such symbols are properly said to be true - in even the most generalized sense of the word - is likely to depend on the theory of aesthetics adopted in a given discussion.
because I'm not at all sure what it is about. It does not presage anything in the main article, so at the least, I do not think it should be included above the TOC; perhaps the authors would like to place a new section along the line of "truth in aesthetics" in the article? Then this paragraph could; be sensibly reinstated. Banno 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  logic and aesthetics 

message: I hope that we can all accept Banno's new introduction, in the spirit of getting on with it. Rick Norwood 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although its just a peeve of mine, does anyone particularly mind if I change 'opinions' in the intro to 'views' or something similar?  My hackles go up at the mere suggestion that doing philosophy is just opining.  -Seth Mahoney 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objection - but the text is substantialy Jim's, not mine. Banno
Good!  We seem to be making progress.  (I took the liberty of making the change Seth suggested since I was there anyway.)  Now, not wishing to stir up any controversy, I do have three  suggestions.  If they do not meet with general agreement I'll drop them.
"complementary and contrary definitions" → "complementary or contrary"
"and the sorts of utterances can properly" → "and the things that can properly"
"truth as a property" : the link is to an article on ownership in the sense of real estate.  To avoid this reading, how about → "truth as an attribute"?
Rick Norwood 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whats up with the formatting Rick? Try using bullets? -Ste|vertigo 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Starting an article with a disclaimer is no way to start an article at all. Thats just my opinion, as based on four years of editing articles here, and seeing how thousands of other articles have been well written in an uncontroversial way. While this version doesnt altogether tucks tail and runs away, its not good either. -Ste|vertigo 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Banno's
 JimWae's new introduction 

message: Here is a proposed intro:
:"Truth (opposite falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or its symbolic expression as having a strong fidelity with reality. A statement that is judged to have the property of truth is said to be true, and may be referred to in substantive terms as "a truth".  In general terms, as "the truth" is an abstract object to which all "true statements" are (widely) understood be taken to refer. In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".
:"In philosophy, the definition of truth has greater variance, and particular definitions or theories typically require or assert a scope within the human condition upon which to base a wider philosophical framework.  For example robust theories of truth treat truth as a property —ie. a human quality.  Others, such as the deflationary theories, suggest that "truth" is simply a tool of language with no further meaning.  Developments in formal logic have thrown light on the way in which truth is used both in formal systems and in natural languages.
:Subjectivity is at the core of the truth paradox. The way in which one knows that one has a toothache is quite different from the way in which one knows that the Earth is the third planet from the sun. The first is an autistic attribute determined by introspection, while the other is objective and determined by shared human observations, reasoning, and calculation.
:In aesthetics, for example, it is usual to consider a much broader range of symbolic expressions than the ones that are contemplated in logic.  Whether such symbols are properly said to be propositional in even the most generalized sense of the word is likely to depend on the theory of aesthetics adopted in a given discussion. 
I've rolled it back in its entirety. The reasons have been discussed in detail on the talk page, but for the record:
* First paragraph; that truth is a property is an opinion, as the text acknowledges in the second paragraph; so the opening sentence is POV.
* First paragraph; the notion that "truth" refers to anything is quite contentious, and is not dealt with in the article.
* Second paragraph; all theories of truth are either robust or deflationary. The paragraph gives the impression that there are alternatives that are neither.
* Third para; talk of a "truth paradox" is confused. 
* Fourth para; the subject of the first sentence is unclear, and the topic is not dealt with inthe article.
lastly, small words are preferable to big ones. 
Banno 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least you are responsive on a point by point basis. That gives us a start. Before we proceed, please do me the courtesy of offering a response to my criticism of the current version as being an inappropriate disclaimer disguised as an enclyclopedia entry. -Ste|vertigo 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, thanks for taking the criticisms of the suggested version with grace; I'm amazed that the discussion hasn't degenerated into an edit war yet, and I think that credit is due to you and the other editors for their restraint. In essence, I agree that it would be preferable to start the article with something other than a "disclaimer"; but it is far worse to start it with a POV statement, or one that is misleading.  So the disclaimer stays, at least for now. Please remember that the discussion about the introduction to this article has been going literally for years - since the articel was created; it comes down to making a difficult choice. I continue to prefer the speech act version, which at least gave the article stability for a few months; but I am willing to work from the present version. If there is some content here that you thin absolutely must be included, please do so. Banno 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevertigo 

message: :Note: Sentence by sentenence workup moved to : Truth/draft. -Ste|vertigo 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now youre talking my language. "Truth" is indeed a word - let's start with what it is first. -Ste|vertigo 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Ive added a second sentence and lableled both of our sentences with our nametag. We can work like this in order to see who wrote what, and what needs work. -SV
If others also agree, I would like to see the introduction developed along this line.  I think "loyal" needs to be in there: a person is "true blue", "true to his cause", or "a true believer", etc.  
I think if you restrict "true" to being a word that describes statements, and preference the correspondence theory of truth, you will run into objections from others, though not from me.  Rick Norwood 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We must take care not to turn the encyclopedia into a dictionary. The article is about truth when used to affirm "what is the case". Any dictionary will list a half-dozen associated meanings, but do we really need to include them here? If so, then I suggest we do so by including a section on the etymology of truth rather than by listing a series of definitions that do not relate to the main topic of the article. Banno 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im glad we can agree on a methodological framework for working on the article, if not exactly to agree on what truth means. I do think Banno has a legitimate point here in that using an English idiom like "true blue" as a basis for asserting a definition of truth is improper. "True" also is (universally?) cognate with straight as in "true line," or "her aim is true." "Straight" is also (universally?) cognate with morality, principle, etc. In other words, there is a relationship there that needs to be clarified in abstract terms - not just suggested as based only on a particular idiom. Truth, "the truth", true, truism - are differentiated in their usage, (or is it their usage that differentiates them?). Warm regards to everybody. -Ste|vertigo 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Banno does have a very good point here, since the rest of the article does ignore other uses of the word "truth". I rather like SV's point about the many terms obliquely connected with "truth", but that sort of musing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I guess. I'm kind of resistant to the reduction of "truth" to a concept about "statements", but that is neither here nor there given the contents of the article. Ig0774 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not that "if the majority doesnt want it, it goes" or "that sort of musing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - such references are often appropriate, but in the proper place. It may belong somewhere down a couple paragraphs, where we can make finer distinctions. :) We are working top down - sentence by sentence - something that may be best done at a draft version: here we go: Im copying the sentence by sentence edit scheme above to Truth/draft. -Ste|vertigo 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This has the result that any changes to the draft will not show up on the watchlists of many of the editors. Banno 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hadnt considered that problem. I will work on a technical solution, and get back to you shortly. -Ste|vertigo 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ive got it! People can choose of their own volition to add Truth/draft to their watchlists. That solves that problem -Ste|vertigo 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another try at a "tail's up" introduction