Talk:Truth/Archive 8

message: *Archiving 
*So, with all of the "DotSix" nonsense, the current archiving situation is a little confusing to me. There is content here that is currently duplicated at Talk:Truth/Archive 6. Someone with a lot of patience and who is familiar with the threads here might want to look at what should be archived and what shouldn't, as this page is a little long at this point. Func( t, c, @, ) 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no guarantee that the troll will not reappear. But one tactic that might be taken could be to append all trolling to Archive 7, and simply filter the content of the Talk page of all Trolling as simple noise. If no one objects, I can copy the entire current talk page to Archive 7, as Archive 6 was created by the troll himself as a usenet-style device to make a rhetorical point. If no one objects, we could then dump any trolling to 7, with legitimate content on the talk page itself. Ancheta Wis 14:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

message: *see archive 7 for the points raised by 
Robert McClenon 21:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Protection from Anonymous Edits 

message: Banno, I propose altering the last two sentences in the new first paragraph to something like these three sentences:
:Truth is sought in religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, and science; these fields use different methods and seek truth in order to serve different goals. Not surprisingly, using a single word in all fields is very likely to cause confusion and conflict. Yet truth, like goodness and beauty, is a perennial subject for humankind.
Ancheta Wis 15:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancheta, I would be happy for you to make these alterations - your wording is preferable. Thanks. Banno 21:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
====Systemic bias towards so-called 'revealed tuth'====
I take exception to any content including religion in a group of "methods of seeking truth" (where 'truth' is a statement known to describe the actual state of affairs because there is proof). Religion is not known to be a method of seeking truth, religion is known to be a method of convincing people that they ought to abandon logical, scientific investigation and instead just go right ahead and accept the tenets of the particular religion anyway, even though those tenets are not known to be statements accurately describing the actual state of affairs.  See the section on "Double Truth" in the article.
Our writing here is supposed to be without bias, and that includes any introductory material in the lead section of an article, but the proposed content, above, that in an offhand way lends credence to the idea of religion as a legitimate method of seeking truth exhibits a bias toward so-called 'revealed truth'  that is not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy. --67.182.157.6 19:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variation

message: I take exception to any content including religion in a group of "methods of seeking truth" (where 'truth' is a statement known to describe the actual state of affairs because there is proof). Religion is not known to be a method of seeking truth, religion is known to be a method of convincing people that they ought to abandon logical, scientific investigation and instead just go right ahead and accept the tenets of the particular religion anyway, even though those tenets are not known to be statements accurately describing the actual state of affairs.  See the section on "Double Truth" in the article.
Our writing here is supposed to be without bias, and that includes any introductory material in the lead section of an article, but the proposed content, above, that in an offhand way lends credence to the idea of religion as a legitimate method of seeking truth exhibits a bias toward so-called 'revealed truth'  that is not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy. --67.182.157.6 19:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic bias towards so-called 'revealed tuth'

message: Possibly this was the result of earlier edit warring, but the structure of the article, specifically the positioning of Deflationary Theories, is a little strange. If I understand the article correctly, the Deflationary Theories section is about the rejection of the idea that "2 + 2 = 4 is true" has any more meaning than "2 + 2 = 4". However, this is rejecting an idea which hasn't even been introduced in the article yet: discussions of the sentence "P is true" start in the next section, Formal Definitions. I'd say that the order of the Theories About Truth section ought to be: Formal Definitions, Robust Theories, Deflationary Theories. Even if this re-structuring isn't suitable, there ought to be at least some mention of sentences of the type "P is true" before we start saying "Some philosophers reject the idea that...". Also, as an aside, should there be any discussion about the truth-preserving nature of a logically valid argument? E.g., logical steps such as modus ponus preserve truth from axioms to conclusions. — Asbestos | Talk 21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same line, there are entire bodies of knowledge which parallel the article, but with a different vocabulary; I have in mind Richard von Mises, Probability, Statistics and Truth   (Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik und Wahrheit 1928 Springer) which can be had for less than the cost of a Cafe beverage. Ancheta Wis 00:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sasquatch, thank you for protecting the page; we even have a small change to the Introduction in the queue, awaiting our return to the state of happy editing. Ancheta Wis 22:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the Article 

message: I have protected the page and waiting for arbitrator opinions on what to do here. See WP:RFAr for the arbitration request going on and also the RFC that was already been filed. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Sasquatch, thank you for protecting the page; we even have a small change to the Introduction in the queue, awaiting our return to the state of happy editing. Ancheta Wis 22:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Hey there, when peace again reigns over our land of truth, would someone mind adding this to the external links section.  I'm systematically going through the SEP and I will probably forget to come back and do this.  Thanks in advance! --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Begin addition
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
**Coherence theory of truth
**Correspondence theory of truth
**Deflationary theory of truth
**Identity theory of truth
**Revision theory of truth
**Tarski's definition of truth
End addition
...
:::You are stating the deflationist position, as if it is the absolute truth (if I may permitted to use a meaningless term). Either you have come up with a new and novel argument, which, regardless of its truth (there it is again!), constitutes original research, or you have stated an argument published somewhere by some philosophers, which therefore must be cited as such, as one theory of truth (!!!) among many WP:NPOV. --Parker Whittle 05:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is what to do about an article on the subject of truth, and the various views and theories that surround that topic. If you just want to have a discussion about truth, then there are many forums for that. If you're suggesting a change to the article, then please address the points I raised, above. --Parker Whittle 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: My appoligies. It is very unusual to protect a talk page, but this one has been under constant attack all day long, so I don't know what else to do. To the anon with the many multiple IPs...what are you trying to accomplish here? Whatever it is, you obviously are not going to get it this way. Please stop. Func( t, c, e,  ) 22:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the "DotSix" vandal, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DotSix -- Curps 22:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: So, with all of the "DotSix" nonsense, the current archiving situation is a little confusing to me. There is content here that is currently duplicated at Talk:Truth/Archive 6. Someone with a lot of patience and who is familiar with the threads here might want to look at what should be archived and what shouldn't, as this page is a little long at this point. Func( t, c, @, ) 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no guarantee that the troll will not reappear. But one tactic that might be taken could be to append all trolling to Archive 7. Ancheta Wis 14:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: «In the course of human evolution, the need to co-ordinate action and to co-operate based on the exchange of information made it valuable to be able to distinguish messages that conveyed accurate information from those that did not.»
I don't think this should stay in an introductory section. First, «in the course of non-human evolution», every species has to be able to distinguish good and bad messages, unless you are presupposing a strictly human concept of message, which would be a bad idea in itself and would make the whole sentence hard to follow: I don't think there can ever have been a strictly human message without the ability to distinguish true from false ones. Second, the problem is not one of accuracy, but one of truth. Third, if we are talking about modern humans, the idea of (biological) evolution doesn't seem to be right. Fourth, but not least, the whole idea of linking truth and evolution seems to me either naïve or, at least, absolutely unable to gather consensus: evolution gave us nice brains; then language and truth started to be a problem. Truth itself can hardly be seen as an evolutionary issue.
:I am wanting to understand your meaning but am having a bit of trouble following you.  It seems to me that truth primarily is about the propositional form of accuracy, i.e. it is about the assessment of the communication of information in the form of propositions or "constative utterances".  Don't you think that this has to do with survival value in an evolutionary context?  The stuff that I've read about evolution seems to state or support that.  Also, everything I've read about human evolution is that the evolution of the human brain itself is in part the result of the emergence of language, i.e. that the human brain and language evolved in interaction.  So it's not as though we first had "nice brains" and then language.  Proto-humans that were able to communicate accurate or valid information through protolinguistic means and assess its validity (or truth) had a selection advantage over those who didn't.  See, for example, Merlin Donald's A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness (2001) and "Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition" (1991), Steven Mithen's "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science" (1996), and Jonathan Turner's On the Origins of Human Emotions: A Sociological Inquiry into the Evolution of Human Affect (2000).  Could you say a bit more to clarify your meaning? Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, in response to your point, I changed "messages" to "linguistic statements" and "accurate" to "valid".  This may not solve the problem, but from your next response I will probably understand the point better. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point here is that a mother bird who pretends to be injured in order to draw a hawk away from her young is, in some sense, acting out a lie.  Whereas my cat, when he stands at the door and meows, is, if he then goes out, telling the truth.  This, however, is rather stretching the use of "truth", and the main article, at least, should focus on the relationship between language and reality.  Since there is only conjecture on the evolutionary origins of language (see Pinker, The Language Instinct) the evolution of truth is even more conjectural, and should not be in the first paragraph. Rick Norwood 22:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth and Evolution 

message: I wound up makeing rather more changes that I thought I would when I started out, and so I should explain here.  As I read the article, it seemed to me that, on the subject of truth, people tended to use ten words when one word would do.  And so I have shortened the article a bit -- I hope with no sacrifice of truth. Rick Norwood 21:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much like what you have done and believe that it is an important contribution.  AND you have so much emphasized the difference between truth and falsity/insincerity/lying that, in my view, you have downplayed the equally significant difference between truth and falsehood, which is what much of the philosophical discussion is about.  Sometime soon I am going to try to work that into your new version.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sept 9 revision

message: I removed that: «Truth is a statement that corresponds to reality, as dictinct from falsehood or a lie (deliberate falsehood). Most people consider truth an important concept, even of transcendent importance. Some, however, deny the existance of truth, or even the existance of reality.
I did it because: (1) Truth isn't a statement; (2) correspondence theory is just one of the theories; (3) truth isn't just distinct from falsehood, it's the opposite of it; (4) that sentence about what most people consider doesn't seem proper in an encyclopedia article; (5) denials about the existence of reality should be at realism or something like that; (6) even if some people «deny the existence of truth», those denials don't seem to be so frequent or so apparently well grounded as to have a line in a three-line intro about truth; (7) we shouldn't start to talk about the "existence of truth" in the intro, since most relevant povs about truth aren't related to its existence. Velho 00:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your thinking on all of these points. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing what I thought was introd nonsense 

message: A self-evident proposition, sometimes misleadingly called a "self-evident truth" is a proposition which needs no evidence from outside itself to be justified. So it is a concept from theories of justification (specifically, foundationalism) not from theories of truth. If you are a foundationalist, a self-evident proposition can be used as part of the foundation from which other propositions are inferred. No truth, per se, is more "truey" than any other. A truth is a truth is a truth. A "self-evident truth," despite its (misleading) name is not a kind of truth.
Also, your references to Ayn Rand didn't make much sense. At any rate they seem to be about "self-evidence" is which not relevant to this article. See above. --Nate Ladd 16:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Source

message: Consider the statement, "1 = 1" "One equals one" is held to be a self-evident statement because the contrary, "One does not equal one" would be absurd. Isn't that what makes any self-evident statement self-evident, the fact that the contrary would be considered absurd by any reasonable person? For example, see We hold these [statements to be self evident]--Ehrlich 16:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-evident statements

message: I removed the introductory sentences on the following grounds:
#That people regularly distinguish between truth and falsehood is debatable (consider advertising and politics, for example).
#That those who are unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood suffer greatly is debatable (indeed, it has been proposed that the exact opposite is true, that those who are able to make that distinction suffer greatly).
#Rhetorical questions do not follow encyclopedic style.
-Seth Mahoney 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory sentences