Talk:Truth/Archive 15

message: A section is needed on Nietzsche and Foucault (at the least). Banno 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche! Nietzsche! Nietzsche! (OK, he's one of my favourites.  ;)  <font
==Truth in Jurisprudence==
I just noticed that this section of the article (in Truth#Truth_in_specialized_contexts) might violate NPOV because it says nothing about Klingon or Ferenghi jurisprudence.  More seriously, this section is written about common law jurisdictions (UK, US, etc.).  Should this be qualified in some way?  I believe it's quite possible some jurisdictions might actually refer to their courts as, for instance, "finders of truth", but don't know for sure. The idea of referring to a court as a "finder of truth" gives me the willies-- not completely sure why at the moment; maybe it reminds me of Orwell, or maybe of recent events in the US. ... Kenosis 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In German criminal procedure, which is an inquisitorial system, the evidence phase of the court proceedings is often referred to as Wahrheitsermittlung, which means something like "determining the truth", or "investigation of the truth". --Lambiam[[User talk:Lambiam|Talk 22:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth and Power 

message: I have no extremely strong opinion on the order of presentation of the views of notable philosophers on "truth".  I do, though, happen to think the historical order of presentation (chronological) is a more relevant way of presenting these views.  This is because each of these philosophers was building in various ways on the work of those that came before. ... Kenosis 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and suggest to use the date of birth for ordering, while also indicating for each the life period, such as "Aquinas (c. 1225 – 1274) and the scholastics" and "Baudrillard (b. 1929)".  --LambiamTalk 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Chronological ordering makes the most sense as one can follow the flow of the philisophical discussion.  •Jim62sch• 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of presentation of notable philosophers' views

message: The intro was hashed over and over by many editors some months ago.  The longstanding version introduces the subject properly.  Contrary to recent attempts to qualify the disagreements of definition of truth as limited to philosophy, after much research by many editors it was quite clear that even dictionaries differ widely in how to define it.  Please do not change it into a personal POV about the subject. ... Kenosis 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joseph.  I appreciate the comments.  The added material did not belong in the section on Correspondence theory.  It may have a place in other sections.  I also think you may have a point about the intro, and the idea that there are certain agreements within limited fields about the idea of true/false propositions in limited realms such as the digital data realm, logic and math.  Once of the problems is a lack of sourcing (WP:VER, WP:OR).  Also, the added material needs some more work on the writing to make better sense and not be "all over the place" in its meaning.  A great deal of debate went into arriving at that brief intro, by at least seven or eight editors. ... Kenosis 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent attempts to rewrite intro

message: JA: I count 3 reverts by User:Stevertigo since this one:
15:14, 2 August 2006 Stevertigo (Talk | contribs) m (restoring my lede reverted by Kenosis - not an anon - not "vandalism" of course - just a clarification to make a sad theoreticist intro a more balanced and happy one)
JA: More importantly, the lead he/she keeps insisting on is not even grammatical.  Jon Awbrey 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaprop Lead & XS Reverts 

message: JA: Da capo al infinito ...  In a case like this, it's perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even preferable, to begin an article with a synopticon of dictionary definitions.  I wrote five or six of these myself just last winter.  The array of meaning is actually quite rich in all of the customary connotations of the word, both salient and silent, and, no, despite some opinions to the contrary, none of these nuances boil down to "the correspondence theory of truth", partly because they encompass such a diversity of senses and partly because there is no such thing as "the" X theory of truth, in particular, where X = correspondence.  And starting with dictionary entries is a perfectly good way of reminding readers of this fact, since all intelligent readers are used to the idea that dictionary entries are not "real" definitions, but only tell us about the customary linkages among largely undefined words, pointing for instance to further undefineds like accord and correspondence in the case at hand.  And intelligent readers understand what a far cry dictionary entries are from any brand of theoretical definition of a concept.  But at least a competent synopsis of lexical glosses serves to get the article off \square 1.  Jon Awbrey 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See New essay Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer (WP:NOTLEX). Please feel free to have it out there once and for all. MPS 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Devil and Noah Webster

message: A careful analysis of what Kant is saying here can help to explain why there are so many theories of truth on the contemporary scene
Who says it does? Banno 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Banno means is where's your source - an often used diatribe. -Ste|vertigo 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cant

message: (I was in the process of modifying this posting when I noticed too late that it was linked to another site...please advise...)
 
In the bible is this remarkable story of Adam and Eve in the garden, opening this 'pandora's box' by taking of the tree of knowledge and believing that they would be like God to know the Truth, as God would.
 
Having discovered the negative dimension to Truth back in 1994, it is with great priviledge that I make this entry concerning Truth.
 
There are several new dimensions to the concept of half-truths. Several new types have been recently identified and presented to wikdictionary.org. with corresponding changes to the definitions to the concepts of 'truth' and 'lie'.
 
One particular type of half-truth is the statment that is part of a greater truth. This suggests the half-truth is in fact a truth, yet it may form a deceptive lie; the paradoxical nature of truth.
 
This phenomena also allows for truths, minor or half-truths to be both aboslute and relative; a duality of truth. ( Source: The Jesus Christ Code. ) The classic example is the two opposite sides to a coin, each representing an absolute truth, both relative to the frame of reference. It is also important to appreciate that a coin has three sides, and the third is not visible from either side, the depth of truth; which raises the question who knows The Truth in the infinite sense ?
 
The philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, is quoted as saying, "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." So Mr. Whitehead comes close to suggesting that all truths are half-truths, yet does not label them as potential lies. While Mr. Whitehead does mention the devil he may be closer to the truth of this matter than he may have ever believed.
 
Truth appears dimensional, that is it exists in true nature on different levels, within certain 'boxes' of philosophy. The challenge of connecting truths within different levels is the challenge of logic.
 
When one views the hidden and deceptive world of half-truths, in reference to the original sin and the garden of eden, the potential origin of this inability to see this negative side to truth may be explained.
 
A scientific model for Truth can be found in LIGHT. The refracted colors of colorless forming the political half-truths of Truth.
In the matter of intentional lies, it is a fact the current definition of 'truth' makes no mention of 'half-truths', the bible says that the devil lied to us, ie Adam and Eve...so would this be considered an intentional lie to us by the devil ?
 
(Source: The Jesus Christ Code.  Caesar J. B. Squitti  )
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is intereseting, perhaps you could add a section to the main article "truth in politics" and read some history on it, add a paragraph on that history and then you'll have plenty of scope for saying "half truths" (of which, luckily, I've never been told).--Lucaas 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there's just one problem: see WP:NOR •Jim62sch• 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The website fails WP:RS.  As for the rest, he who asserts must prove. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, no. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-truth; Truths Paradox 

message: Any reference to Truth should include a mention of Jesus Christ considered the son of God by some, a prophet by others, but no doubt a philosopher of sorts.
Most notable claim involving truth, is the quotation, " "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100201.htm
More directly was the claim by Jesus Christ to be  "The Light of the World".
The first chapter of the Gospel of John can be divided in two parts :
The first part (v. 1-18) is an introduction to the Gospel as a whole, stating that the Logos is "God" (divine, god-like, a god according to other translations) and acts as the mouthpiece (Word) of God "made flesh", i.e. sent to the world in order to be able to intercede for man and forgive him his sins (The Good News of the Gospel). This portion of John's gospel is of central significance to the development of the Christian doctrine of Incarnation. Comparisons can easily be drawn from this part to Genesis 1 where the same phrase In the beginning first occurs along with the emphasis on the difference between the darkness (such as the earth was formless and void, Genesis 1:2) vs light (the ability to see things not understood/hidden by the darkness, John 1:5). The summation of this comparison occurs in the statement, the law given through Moses...grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (v. 17, NIV). Here John successfully bridges the gap for the reader -- including Jewish readers well-versed in the Torah -- from the Law to the One who would fulfill the Law (such as the requirement of animal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, Hebrews 9:22), Jesus.
   John 1: Wikipedia Encyclopedia 
The second used light to provide us with a concept as a gateway to a deeper understanding to Truth, as Jesus himself had said, the life, the truth and the way, to it.
:Uh, no. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: I've removed the following sentence from the intro to the section on "Philosophy of truth". The reason I removed it is in the edit summary. ... Kenosis 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that the sun exists is not true.  All we can say is that it existed 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago (roughly).  If it blinked out at the moment you read this, you'd be oblivious to its demise for 8 minutes and 20 seconds.  Thus, we assume that it exists at this particular moment based on experience and an expectation of continuity. •Jim62sch• 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, of course, possible to assume that something is true and for it to actually be true. It is also possible to assert something without actually knowing it. For instance, when people lie. Also, when people make mistakes (a phenomenon which has been known to occur from time to time). Jim62sch, the third and fourth sentences you wrote in the above do not support the first two sentences. Sententiae tuae prima secundaque non sequuntur. Suppose someone says "the sun exists", and eight minutes, twenty seconds later you find out that it, in fact, did exist at the time the statement was made, what you find out is that the statement was true when it was made. (Assuming some reasonable choice of intertial frame of reference). 71.154.210.175 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: In logic and with the scientific method the notion of true and false statements is widely accepted because of specific and clear evidence. The most primitive definition is by demonstration, such as pointing to the real, universal, existing sun or moon and giving it an etymological, common, or even a new name. The statement that the sun exists is true, just as many other natural facts, sensory observations, can be proven by anyone, at anytime in history, and anywhere. There is the true existence of the sun even with a variety of more specific definitions about the changing sun. Universal facts and claims of knowledge are widely accepted and agreed upon by many in all nations, and throughout history, because of the universal nature of giving evidence and proof for one's claims that are not mere opinions or superstitions. The scientific method that uses true or probable statements, induction, and deduction has discovered true and probable conclusions about the world around us that very few can deny.
Correspondence theory is used by all of us, and used very often.  You cannot walk down the street with dangerous cars passing by if you do not have any correspondence theory that works because it actually does accurately describe some of what exists.
--joseph 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correspondence theory 

message: How come the article does not mention Objectivist_epistemology? Here is a possible start: "Truth is an epistemological unit: the recognition of a fact." There is not a single word 'recognition' in the entire article. I propose to start a section on Objectivist view on 'truth'. Oleksandr 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current organization of the article, which took very extensive work by many editors and countless person-hours, I'd suggest putting Ayn Rand in the notable philosophers section, and proceeding from there.  What you've pointed out also anticipates the need for a future section on epistemology generally, with one or more "main article" links to the appropriate topic fork(s). ... Kenosis 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Objectivist view of truth isn't notably different from the garden variety correspondence theory as presented here and in its own article, as your quote indicates. --Christofurio 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth definition from Objectivism 

message: I'm tired'a arguing about this pic every two weeks.  We compromised a couple weeks back the last time editors were moving images back and forth, and ended up with no images up in the intro.  Now La Verite is in the article twice, once in the intro and once farther down.  This is not an issue of censorship or defending anything; the image doesn't explain anything about truth and neither do any of the other ones, so there's no need to have La Verite, or any of them, up front in the article. ... Kenosis 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, trying to provide tangibility to an abstact is perty near impossible.  And you kin take that to the bank.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Keno, I dont think president Bush will be looking in at it, in his own immortal words: "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."  Lucaas 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic again 

message: Unsure about this new section on Whitehead, quote is out of context.  At least with the earliar Adam/Eve story, it was intersting; "Mythology about Truth" might be an interesting section to add.  
On Whitehead: What is truth for "process philosophy"?  Not sure what the point of existing paragraph on him is.  Should we also include all other quotes, Shakespeare, plus anyone vaguely witty, whenever they use the word "truth"?
Much better to remove this section and update the Hegel section, wherefrom Whitehead got his ideas on truth (as something that moves, is realised/revealed, and NOT 'constructed' as it hints earliar) and is more interesting.Lucaas 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Whitehead 

message: This may be a silly point - but would it not make sense to hold truth in science to be *the* truth according to which humans live?
:Yes, it would not. Banno 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an extremely controversial point, at the least. Just for example: I don't know how my life is changed by whether physicists discover proton decay in one of those big underground tanks where they've been waiting on that discovery for twenty years now. Certain models as to the  unification of forces will change, and that may or may not indirectly affect my life or that of later generations if I don't live long enough. In the meantime, the truth according to which I live is the truth of the phenomenal world, where tables are solid brown objects and my body is another solid object which might bump into the table if I'm not careful. --Christofurio 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We can consider that difference if you like, but the anonymous editor above spoke of scientific truth as the truth "according to which humans live." Known truth is that according to which we live. At any rate, I didn't say that the observation was necessarily wrong, only that it was "extremely controversial." You said the same, without the adjective. --Christofurio 13:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth in Science 

message: I have removed the following newly added material from the section on "Correspondence theory" for discussion and sourcing.
*Philosophers who adhere to this theory state that underlying this theory is the notion that the human being's intelligence and sense perception are capable of capturing the essence of the known object. Most of these philosophers also warn that to deny this capability risks falling into relativism, whereby each person constructs his own truth, and thus lives egoistically, out of touch with the demands of reality.  .... 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have just taken it out and shot it.  •Jim62sch• 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed correspondence-theory material 

message: What criterion are being used for inclusion in this list? Can anyone add their favourite? Perhaps those that consist of a quote should be removed? Banno 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I have no objection to Bohr and Whitehead being included for now.  If it gets out of hand, there'll be a stronger basis for removing some of the less "notable" views.  Maybe I'll defer to Jim62sch; if he really wants he can take a couple out and "shoot them", as he said above. As long as there are no serious objections by other editors to such a removal, I'll support it. ... Kenosis 02:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Philosophers" 

message: Multi-dimensional truths.
In the arena of mathematical truths, one plus one equals two, but only within certain dimensions.
In the pure concrete world 1 + 1 = 11, in the pure abstract world 1(a) + 1(b) = 1(c) where  1(c) is greater than the other two. Example the amalgamation of one city with one city is still one city.
What i call 'thinking outside books'
We must appreciate that many truths are based on  the relative position of reality subject to the realities of position.
 The Jesus Christ Code.
While this may be (original research that I cannot quote, someone else can quote it, as it is not their original research)
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-dimensional truths 

message: This section seems to me to be too brief. My recollection is that he describes truth an power as two sides of the same coin;  bringing to the fore the difference between the analytic approach and the continental approach by emphasising the political impact of what is true and what isn't. I;m sure that his writing should have more prominence, but not being that interested in continental philosophy, I don;t have the citations at hand. Someone must. Banno 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foucault 

message: I've substantially re-structured the article. The aim was to bring disparate sections together in the hope that they can be linked by some sort of narrative. Comments? Banno 00:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting approach. Among other things in the way here is that the scholastics, if the editors ever get around to developing that little section, are not properly sectioned under classical philosophy.   Alfred North Whitehead isn't continental, and Fromm very arguably doesn't belong in that grouping either. I'm a bit disappointed that the trio of "Truth in Mathematics", "Truth in law" and "Truth in science" never came to fruition to round out the perspectives, but personally can live with what you've done, so long as the basic presentation of the four or five major "substantive" theories and the deflationary theories remains fundamentally intact. (I also wonder how long it will take before someone comes in and says essentially, "well, technically the "Formal theories section aren't formal, but rather are yada-yada..."? I think I can hear it already: "The mathematics section is actually composed of arguments about formal proofs rather than formal theories of mathematical proofs", and "Tarski's semantic theory is a metaproposition, not a formal theory." or whatever.)  Overall I have no objection to attempting this approach.  ... Kenosis 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then replace Classical with historical or antiquated and remove Whitehead (which doesn't add much anyway). I think we can get away with leaving Fromm where he is. I'd like to fill out the formal maths section more, which contains the proto-"Truth in Mathematics" stuff. Perhaps we can work on it together. Glad the changes didn't meet with outright rejection - thanks.  Banno 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-structure 

message: I believe I started the inclusion of Kripke ; as I recall Nathan Ladd placed the present version, after some discussion (see archive 4); it of course is quite different from what is in the actual Kripke article. Nathan appears to be inactive at present. Banno 20:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kripke 

message: If something has arguments on whether it is true or false, then it is in fact not true. The only thing that can be true is something universally accepted, such as this statement "The sky of the planet Earth appears to be the color blue to those who do not suffer from color blindess". Everyone agrees on that being true I'm sure. Anyway this article makes truth seem as if it's an opinion. The Truth is what is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.224.106 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Truth 

message: The article might want to distinguish truth from the Truth or Truths. Examples of the latter are commonly found in religious texts eg  John 18:37, 'witness to the Truth', and the Buddhist Noble Truths. m.e. (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth and The Truth 

message: There are no Universally Accepted propositions. 
Is the sensation which I call blue really the same as that which my neighbor calls blue? Is it possible that a blue object may arouse in him the same sensation that a red object does in me and vice versa? (Bridgman, P. W. - Logic of Modern Physics - p30 - Nobel prize winner in 1946)
"The Truth is what is" smacks of the Correspondence Theory, which has been Discredited.
According to this theory (correspondence), truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view ... seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth. The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.
In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison? (Randall, J. & Buchler, J.; Philosophy: An Introduction. p133)
The Randall book is an excellent introduction to philospophy.
--Berjm 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universally Accepted? 

message: There is an explicit contradiction in Augustine's definition. He first says: "Even if every created thing ceases to exist, Truth will continue to exist.", and then "Without a mind, truth could not exist." Does anybody know of some author who has pointed to this specific contradiction?
:Didn't Augustine believe in the existence of One mind that was not a "created thing"? I'm not sure I see the alleged contradiction. --Christofurio 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Augustine's contradiction

message: Is it possible that truth may be an "unconscious object" common to all?
unconscious = Truth",  "My" definition of Truth - the degree of best fit, of data coming in from the reality, super-imposed on an "unconscious" philosophical model of reality and interpreted as a feeling. Example I point at an "object" a person is sitting on and call the "object" a "chair", other people in the vicinity of the object have the same model which they call a "chair”. In this case the object "chair" is a truth for all the people perceiving the object. (This truth is this case, is limited by the experience of the reality, these viewers have had i.e. how evolved is their conscious model of reality?) Absolute truth is an unconscious (objective) model, which describes all objects, events, perceptions, nothing is left out of this model. This model is common to all in this reality, though only part of the model is conscious, i.e. accessible to any one individual’s conscious mind, at any given point of time.Allan52 08:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement; is it possible, that truth may be an "unconscious object"? (an attempt to define a model of Truth?) 

message: ...is this page protected?!--Ioshus(talk) 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least someone add :la:Veritas. Sheesh...--Ioshus(talk) 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why... 

message: Sorry,  I'm not sure how to add that the ref for 44 is m-w.com.
Simplywater 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I simply changed the reference to http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth (see plain links without square brackets).--Kevinkor2 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It would be great to show examples of statements which would be true under some of the theories but not true under other(s). James S. 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples please 

message: Listen, my friends, who have assembled, nurtured, and protected this gem of an article on truth.  I came by here as a user, looking for connections to what all the wonderful women and men of history have written about truth.  And what I found here was -- not only incredibly useful in saving me time to dig through to get to all of what you have mined already for me here -- but also very inspiring to me in providing me with a concrete example of a Wikipedia page that is perfect.  And I know it will evolve.  Go forth, thank you.  And my congratulations to you.  --Rednblu 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: Someone should add a link to Validity in the Logic links section.  Unfortunately, if I do it, I'll screw up the columns... FerralMoonrender 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity 

message: I am new to this, so apologies if I am approaching it the wrong way. I was wondering if a Baha'i perspective to truth could be added to this page, as in the faith the founder states that "Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues" (Baha'u'llah quoted in Shoghi Effend - Advent of Divine Justice, p. 26) so it may be interesting to add.
--Shinshin 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'i position on Truth 

message: The Buddhist section is pretty weak; all that is discussed is the concept of the "Four Noble Truths".  While this does contain the word "truth" in it, the Nobel Truths are really more about psychology than epistemology. However, I do think that the concept of truth and how human beings can discover truth is central to Buddhism. Buddha said that the ultimate source of suffering was ignorance or delusion. I'd like to totally re-write this section to discuss the Buddhist view of the importance of truth and the problem of delusion and self-deception.  My sources would be directly from online transcriptions of the Pali Cannon such as www.accesstoinsight.org and maybe a few modern books on Zen.
I've never edited a Wikipedia article before so any hints would be welcomed. Mattcool97 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise Buddhist section 

message: Duality of Truth.
Two of the greatest errors in the perception of Truth, is the inability to see two properties.  The duality of truth, (original research) and the divisive nature of truth, the Light theory of truth. (orginal research)
The first relates to the second definition of half-truth, circa 1994 whereby a truth is absolute, yet relative to the perseptive of the observer.  A classic old story is that of the blind men and the elephant, however, seldom if ever is the appropriate duality of truth conclusion reached.
The second relates to the divisive nature of truth, relating to the rainbow of truth, that is that while The Truth is colorless, a truth is merely part of the whole truth.  To understand this concept puts one on the way to understanding the divisive nature of Truth.   I would suggest that this was the  intended suggestion of the prophet Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the way, the life and the truth, and also the light of the world.  What I call the bridge between science and religion.
I hope someone has time to consider the important implications of this original research into expanding the definition of truth.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duality of Truth. 

message: Hello User:Transitioner - Thanks for recently providing a hotlink reference to "unversalism". However, I've had to revert two examples of "universal truths". 2+2=4 is not a universal truth. While it is true independent of location in space and time (i.e. "everywhere in the universe" as was stated), it is only true in certain mathematical systems. In others, like e.g. a modulo 3 ring, this is not true, instead, 2 + 2 = 1 there. Similarily with laws of deduction and inference, which are true in formal Logic; nevertheless, logic is a defined framework, relative to which the laws of deduction and inference are true. Thanks,  One4OneWorld 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rewrite looks good to me and accomodates my concern I had with the initial post. We need to provide a better reference to who actually holds these believes (individuals, groups, organizations, etc). Reference to universalism alone appears a bit too ambiguous. And I also agree that the two examples with economics and ethics appear insufficiently motivated. So, to the least, we're now having examples from mathematics, logic, microeconomics, and ethics. Thanks, One4OneWorld 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2+2=4 and deduction "truths" 

message: The material on truth in religion should be moved into a separate article. The present article is way too long. The main article should maintain its emphasis on philosophy. Removing the religious material will also give the main article a better chance at stability. Banno 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article can withstand it either way.  But personally, I'd like to see a section on "truth in religion" remain, with a link to a main article.  The reason has to do with the important concept called "justification". A brief section noting that "religious truth" typically is justified, in the minds of those asserting it, to scripture, "faith", or other form(s) of religious authority, would be important to this article I would think. This would, if implemented, allow further discussion of these methods of justification to be discussed at greater length in the new "main article" being proposed by Banno. ... Kenosis 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split [[Truth (religious)]] 

message: I have simply copied the content of Truth#Religious views to the new article, leaving a copy of the first paragraph here as a lead-in to the new article. Others, especially Rick who seems to have a handle on what is needed, might like to change the paragraph here and the new introduction inthe other article. Banno 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synchronise 

message: *What happened to any attempt to deal with "truth in art"? --JimWae 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is beauty and beauty truth.  That's all I know and all I need to know. Rick Norwood 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the statement: "Truth is beauty and beauty truth" a true statement or a beautiful statement?Lestrade 15:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth in art

message: In the world of  truths concerning math, (original research lead) there is the inheret logic of math that suggests a multi-truth solution to a basic algerbraic problem.
1 + 1 = 2
or 
1 + 1 = 1
The solutions are based on the relative nature of what each 1 represents.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "inherent"........"algebraic" Lestrade 15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Caesar, the Wiki cannot publish original research, and the resources used used must be reliable. Banno 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math and Half-truths 

message: WP:LEAD says articles of this length should have three or four paragraphs for their lead.  Is a two or three-paragraph survey summary of the article feasible? ←BenB4 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've done with the introduction.  Do you want to try to turn it into a short summary of the article? Rick Norwood 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short lead 

message: I have no objection to the attempted rewrite of the first sentence/paragraph of truth.  But, this article was one of the worst tarpits on the wiki until a number of us dug in on it roughly a year ago, and involved extremely time consuming research, point/counterpoint and consensus process to get to its current form. I'll support your proposed rewrite, but please articulate a case for it on Talk:Truth. Thanks. ... Kenosis 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right. I am not proposing to do anything controversial. Clearly, the "factual" aspect of the word has some preponderance today. It will still not do to distill secondary and tertiary meaning and present it in the lead as "a common dictionary definition", without giving others. The meaning of "truth" is clearly, and according to both dictionaries cited, (1) faithfulness, fidelity, honesty in general, and (2) factuality, agreement with reality. I am not trying to muddy the issue, to the contrary, I insist the semantic facts belong on the table. --dab (𒁳) 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: the problem is that "truth" is both a neurological (mental, psychological) phenomenon, and an abstract empiricist (scientific, logical) concept. My involvement is due to the fact that I noted myth goes completely unmentioned in the article. This is unpardonable, since myth is at a very deep level closely related to the psychological notion of truth (while, ironically, "myth" has a secondary meaning of "untruth"). The dilemma is reflected in the existence of truth (religious). A more valid dichotomy would be truth (psychology) vs. truth (logics), since "truth" in the sense of "fidelity, good faith" goes far beyond religion in particular. Again, I do not intend to unduly mix the logical and the psychologial concepts, to the contrary, I want to make plain their correlations. 
I have inserted the following:
Thus, truth in its original sense is the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity",[ OED on true has "Steadfast in adherence to a commander or friend, to a principle or cause, to one's promises, faith, etc.; firm in allegiance; faithful, loyal, constant, trusty; Honest, honourable, upright, virtuous, trustworthy; free from deceit, sincere, truthful " besides "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity; Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is; Real, genuine; rightly answering to the description; properly so called; not counterfeit, spurious, or imaginary."], and the narrowed sense "in agreement with fact or reality" is a secondary development coupled to the process of "Enlightenment" in 17th century philosophy.[ Attested since the early 17th century. E.g., Shakespeare in As You Like It (5.4) has "If there be truth in sight, you are my daughter."]
this state of affairs needs to be reflected in the lead. To give "a common dictionary definition" in the lead, but picking a secondary meaning instead of the primary one clearly qualifies as weasling and/or cherry-picking. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on Dbachmann (DAB)'s talk page, I support the use of a broader definition in addition to the correspondence-theory-based definition presently included in the article. DAB implemented that proposed change here and I reverted, but am prepared to support the inclusion of the broader definition, on the condition that it's very brief and that it immediately moves on to the statement that there are competing theories, none of which have gained complete scholarly agreement about being a definitive description of "truth". If Dbachmann(DAB) adds it again, I'll leave it stand with the provided OED reference and maybe see where it goes from there, what kind of tweaks may be offered by passersby and/or the long-term participants in this article who are familiar with the debates that have attended to the article. ... Kenosis 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying everything I wanted to say in the "Etymology" section. I do not demand that the lead is burdened with this over-much. Clearly, etymological (terminological) background was missing from the article, but if people will let my discussion under "Etymology"  stand, I'll be content. --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, and am interested in seeing whether it'll hold up well. Myself, I'll gladly defend the new first sentence as superior in terms of WP:NPOV, given several past assertions of a correspondence-theory bias in the article. ... Kenosis 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have problems with that, too.  I hope "meaning" is an acceptable alternative. ←BenB4 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough :) --dab (𒁳) 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: When you trace out all availible information from science and experiences, they all trace back to one core understanding, namely, that everything perceived is generated by the perceiver and is thus not a completely reliable guide to reality nor truths about reality. What is a dreamer to do? The dreamer explores his dreams and notes consistancies and descrepancies and developes a concept of truth which arises soley from consistancies of experience. There can be consistancies among dream characters which do not match the dreamers experiences. Like when everyone tells the anorexic that she is as skinny as a skeleton but her perception is that she is grossly fat. Most dreamers are unaware that they are dreaming until they awaken and most anorexics will likewise perfer their personal perception over everyone elses and see them as insane or delusional until other expeirences become more difficult to reconcile and ignore.  The man of faith accepts the ideal world he has been taught to see over the world he experiences and believes that the experienced world is a delusion. The buddhist is taught that the world of experiences are samsara or delusions of the mind and to seek something beyond expeirences in deep meditation.
I have concluded that experiences are facts, [B]elief [S]ystems about them are largely BS. and so I live every move as a gamble to some degree and use science as the best odds maker I have discovered so far.Jiohdi (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are beliefs discovered by most people in their sophomore year. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  solipsistic truth 

message: I just removed a Word to Avoid (claim) that was used for the correspondence theory, a word that is hardly used in other theories in this article. The word "claim", seen at the very beginning of the section, weakens the credibility of the theory and forewarns the reader that what he is about to read can be dubious. This may imply a problem of NPOV or neutrality. 
I also find the two paragraph criticism of correspondence theory within its own section unusual in the whole article. It is, I believe, one of the few instances, if not the only one, where there is a disproportionately big amount of criticism found in the same section. I believe that this has to resolved, for it shows an inconsistency in the article. 
It seems to me strange as well, that Alfred Tarski's theory is mentioned here with this special phrase: "whose semantic theory is summarized further below in this article." Marax (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section consistency and NPOV 

message: I have removed the following NEW sentence from the very top of the article:
:The word truth labels or describes particular arguments or statements as being in accord with reality —in opposition to statements which are false.
One reason I did so wass because it appears to give a preferential treatment to the correspondence theory of truth. The language/syntax also has problems. I do not see that it contributes anything new (that is not also contentious) to the article. --JimWae (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed first sentence 

message: As it is the bridge between the mathematical and philosophical concepts and that held by most modern scientists and mathematicians. Lycurgus (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Correspondence theory of truth|Tarski's formulation not given sufficient weight]]