Talk:Truth/Archive 6

message: Dot six, I appreciate the fact that you're an admirer of the Philosophy banner, but it's already been posted three times in this talk page, and doesn't need to be posted in the main article. If you look at the other articles in the WikiProject Philosophy, you'll find that none of the articles put the project banner on the article page. It's not done, it's not necessary, and it makes the page look ugly (the latter is my POV and is not the reason why it should not be up). Wikiproject banners go on the talk pages (see guidelines).
You also insist on putting the NPOV banner up. Could I suggest you replace it with  in the appropriate section, so that the specific area of dispute can be highlighted? — Asbestos | Talk 17:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've been asked before not to edit people's comments. That includes removing section headings in the talk page. — Asbestos | Talk 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy banner and NPOV banner 

message: See edits at [] where .6 attempts to remove the Justified True Belief theory form the article knowledge! Such extraordinary behaviour may need to go to arbitration. Banno 21:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I had a hunch you might be stalking me, Bananas. Thanks for being so prompt confirming it. 8^) DotSix -- 67.182.157.6 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge 

message: Commenting on the contributor, personal attack, is argument ad hominem. See Wictionary.
And don't try to argue, "She/He started it." That is ad hominem tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right. Set a good example and just remind the alleged miscreant of the policy: No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
This is not rocket science. 
--207.200.116.133 08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No personal attacks]]. Comment on content, not on the contributor. 

message: This article and others that are being criticized by Dot-Six make me think that Wikipedia should have a procedure to enable specified articles to be protected from anonymous edits.  This protection should only be given to articles that have been edited multiply by anonymous editors within a 24-hour period, in which case the multiple anonymous editors may all be sockpuppets.  
::Presume they may all be sockpuppets when there is no proof that they are? Begin with a presumption of guilt? That ain't right. --67.182.157.6 09:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, because most people go around complaining about "obscurantists" and "argumentum ad numerum". Sockpuppets are so hard to spot. Rhobite 16:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that some Wikipedians think that such a policy would be a bad idea.  I think that the inability to turn on such a feature in special cases is a lack.  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)
thread_title:  Structure of the Article 

message: :It seems highly atypical of encyclopedias to prefer adjectives over nouns for the titles of their articles. Additionally, the notion that the philosophical subject relating to the concept of "truth" is actually derived from the term "true" seems highly specious. Philosophers do not refer to the "theory of true," they refer to the "theory of truth" (as in Tarski's truth theorem). And to suggest that such conventional use of the term constitutes tyranny of the majority strains the English language, IMO, in the attempt to protect one's arguments from discussion or debate. Wikipedia stresses the importance of consensus. Individual editors championing their particular interpretation of terms, advocating an heterodox terminology, run roughshod over the principle of cooperation. This is not about the oppression of minority views, it is about the spirit of cooperation and fair play. Parker Whittle 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on redirect

message: There is another point that applies here, about minority views demanding equal validity:
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
While this specifically refers to pseudoscience, it applies to any minority view. The simple fact is that the vast majority of philosophy courses and philosophers do not find it problematic to refer to the various theories of truth, or to truth as a concept about which philosophers have theories. Therefore, there is little case that can be made for changing the title of the article, or for flouting the well established and non-controversial conventions followed, without difficulty, by the philosophical community. Your particular reading of the deflationist/reductionist can and should be fairly stated and included in the article (if there are suitable references). But it should not be allowed to suppress the standard use of terms among the community of philosophers. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has the following entry on The Deflationary Theory of Truth.
--Parker Whittle 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: response from Parker Whittle

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: Wow, my "criticism" actually found its way into the lead section. 
As the article is curently locked I post a new suggestion for the lead section here. 
:A person calls a assertion true, if it agrees with their point of view. Which assertions those are, thus depends on the individual and is subjective. A definition of truth tries to objectively define what is true. 
:Frequently truth is first stated as a goal and only after that an exact definition is sought. So when people are arguing about the definition of truth they may be arguing about the goal to which they should aspire. Truth is often associated with religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, or science, yet those fields use different methods and seek different goals. Not surprisingly, using a single word in all these contexts is very likely to cause confusion and conflict.
:Much of this article is about philosophical ideas regarding what sorts of things should be called true, and how truth can be defined. In addition it discusses some particular and peculiar uses of truth.
Markus Schmaus 23:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: :I took the liberty of removing an almost identical statement of this question, above, and promoted it to its own section, here. There is no offense intended by this, and I'll happily agree to a revert if the author feels it important to have both sections remain. My only intent is to prevent having two almost identical discussions on the same topic. And pardon me if I did so mistakenly. --Parker Whittle 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my complete statement carefully, you will notice that I agree completely that the minority view must be included. I also added additional policy statements the clarify exactly how such minority views should be handled. Do you take issue with the official policy on majority/minority positions? --Parker Whittle 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Mr. Whittle and the rest of the majority side