Truth is Relative (Not Subjective) or the Coherence Theory of Truth

[Josh F]

I'm interested in fleshing out some of these ideas, introducing a more nuanced idea of post-modernism, and correcting some common assumptions.  I'm very familiar with the common arguments presented against post-modernism within Objectivism, so my goal is to discuss those criticisms from a very specific post-modern argument.

 

Primarily, Post-Modernism is generally considered a fairly broad term and as such it is hard to narrow down a specific thesis. Commonly, but not necessarily accurate, it is considered to be the argument that "truth is subjective."  This is NOT the argument being made in this post.  Many post-modern philosophers diverge greatly in their arguments, from Derrida's ideas on symbols and Rorty on the idea of metaphor and contingency.  I'd like to discuss a specific post-modern idea.  Unlike the majority of post-modernists who argue for an idealist and subjective epistemology, this theory makes a slightly different argument.  

 

The theory is called the Coherence Theory of Truth.  This is not a subjective model of truth, which would make claims like "truth is in the eye of the beholder."  This is a relative theory of truth, in so much as truth is neither said to exist in 'reality' nor to exist exclusively within a single subject (meaning truth isn't just random made up crap by some guy, nor is it something which exists extrinsically).  

 

This is the definition of the Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is that which is coherent within a specified set of propositions.  There is no single set of truth, but rather an assortment of truths relative to their coherence within a system or set of propositions.  I will give examples in a second (holding on to the edge of your seat, I know).  

 

This theory is in contrast to the Objectivist theory of truth called the Correspondence Theory of Truth.  In the Objectivist model, truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true".

 

Now lets get to some examples of the Coherence Theory of Truth.  The best and most practical example comes from the history of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Newtonian Physics, and Euclidian Geometry.  (Run for the hills, this is about to get nerdy!)  Newtonian Physics were based in large part on Euclidian Geometry.  Euclidian Geometry is based on axiomatic proofs.  One of these axioms is the Parallel Postulate, also called Euclid's Fifth Postulate.  It states "for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there is exactly one line through A that does not intersect ℓ"

 

Within normal Euclidian Geometry, this axiom is true.  However, Euclid made an assumption which went unchallenged for centuries.  He incorrectly, though intuitively, defined space as flat planes.  Regardless, Euclid's axioms are all internally consistent and excellent for basic geometry.  In the Euclidian model, for example, we all know that the shortest path between two points is a straight line.  

 

There are, however, two equally consistent and axiomatic propositions for geometry which contradict Euclid's Fifth Postulate.  The first is Elliptic Geometry and the second is Hyperbolic Geometry.  These non-Euclidian types of Geometry proves to be essential to Einstein's Theory of Relativity (specifically Hyperbolic Geometry).  The difference is that these types of Geometry do not treat space as a flat plane.  In the Elliptic version, space curves in on itself like a sphere.  Think of the Latitude lines on a map of the Earth.  In this model, parallel lines are impossible as eventually all lines intersect (at the North and South Pole, so to speak).  The axiom is written as "In the elliptic model, for any given line ℓ and point A, which is not on ℓ, all lines through A will intersect ℓ."

 

The Hyperbolic model, however, places space on a saddle shape (and infinitely outwardly extending curve, generally in the shape of a Pringles' Chip).  In this model, the axiom is written as "In the hyperbolic model, within a two-dimensional plane, for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there are infinitely many lines through A that do not intersect ℓ."  The point being that there are infinite non-intersecting lines.  

 

While Euclidian geometry is essential to modern Physics, Hyperbolic Geometry is used in Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  So what is the point?  Well each type of Geometry is based on internally consistent axioms, yet contradict one another.  They all have practical utility, from building a table or house to space travel and planetary orbit.  

 

This is not a debate about which theory of Gravity is correct, ignoring perhaps new theories in Quantum Gravity, Eistein's model is far more accurate than Newton's (which was, for example, unable to explain the orbit of Mercury).  The point is the similarly functioning, yet fundamentally contradictory models of Geometry.  

 

To tie this into the Coherence Theory of Truth.  The Coherence Theory of Truth states that each Geometry is true within its own set or system of axioms.  Though the theories contradict one another, they are consistent unto themselves.  This is the purposed definition of Truth, that which is consistent within its own limited context.  This reconcile's Post Modern epistemology, which states that Truth is contingent and contextual, with the Objectivist argument that truth corresponds to 'reality'.  This also reconciles Argumentation Ethics, and does not dismiss the majority of conclusions within Objectivism.  Instead Truth is that which is internally coherent, without conforming, corresponding, or congruent to an external reality (Objectivism) and without being subjective, inconsistent, or pragmatic (Subjectivism).  

 

Sorry for the wall of text, wish I was better at explaining this.... let me know what ya'll think.  

•  

[J. D. Stembal]

Rather than calling truth relative, say that truth is continually sharpened or refined based on empirical observations. This is how we can have disparate mathematical models for defining physics existing side by side. I'm not well versed in math or physics, so I can't intelligently comment on the specifics of your post. One question pops into my mind, though. What does all this have to do with philosophy, seeing that this post is in the philosophy sub forum rather than the science sub forum? I am having trouble imagining how we can take the abstractions that you've presented here and connect them to our personal or social lives in a philosophic manner.

[Josh F]

Rather than calling truth relative, say that truth is continually sharpened or refined based on empirical observations. This is how we can have disparate mathematical models for defining physics existing side by side. I'm not well versed in math or physics, so I can't intelligently comment on the specifics of your post. One question pops into my mind, though. What does all this have to do with philosophy, seeing that this post is in the philosophy sub forum rather than the science sub forum? I am having trouble imagining how we can take the abstractions that you've presented here and connect them to our personal or social lives in a philosophic manner.

Well to your question, this is not about math.  I don't think I'm personally capable of debating math with any real mathematician.  I think I can generally explain these ideas and their implications and why they're relevant to the Coherence Truth Theory.  This is very much a philosophical question, primarily epistemological, though subsequently metaphysical as well. 

 

To your point about truth as a system which refines itself based on empiricism: empiricism is a consistent (coherent) and valid 'set' of principles.  In this way we can take something like the Theory of Evolution and say that it is valid according to the principles of empiricism.  We couldn't say that the Theory of Evolution is valid according to the principles of mathematics.  This doesn't invalidate mathematics or the Theory of Evolution.  Geometry would be the inverse, as it conforms to the principles of Mathematics but not with Empiricism (as it is not a byproduct of observing reality).  

 

So this theory doesn't invalidate empiricism or reason, but it does validate several other schools of thought that are essential to post-modernism: specifically deconstructionism.  Deconstructionism is a postmodern idea that, without getting into a ton of detail (as it requires), meaning is a fluid, transitory, unstable and a metaphoric process limited by its context, contingency, etc.  One idea being that all meaning is within a context of the meaning of other things, all of which are in a constant state of flux.  That idea is called Deference.  

 

I'd love to discuss the implications of these philosophical proposition as I think there are many, but I fear it may distract from and be irrelevant towards understanding the argument itself outside of consequential outcomes.  So I'm going to mention a couple without trying to debate the merits of those particular theories: Queer Theory is a big one, another one is what is sometimes called Political Correctness which is changing words like fireman to firefighter in order to change the value of a word without changing its literal meaning.  

[J. D. Stembal]

I've often heard sexuality described as a spectrum rather than a polarity. Not everyone desires having sexual relations with just the one gender, but we tend to favor one or the other when pair bonding. I have been attracted to both men and women, but I am clearly more strongly attracted to the opposite gender. I have a personal obstacle applying moral philosophy to sexuality because sexual preference is subjective. To make an allusion to musical aesthetics, "I like Jazz, and you like Rock and Roll." While it is unclear whether we can shape our own sexual preferences (is it biological determinism, environment or both?), we have the right to pursue that which makes us happy regardless of philosophy as long as it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.

 

Political correctness doesn't have much philosophic value because language gymnastics are primarily designed to confuse people and obfuscate reasoning. Philosophy plays the game by the rules by providing clear reasons and definitions for using particular words.

[square4]

This is the definition of the Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is that which is coherent within a specified set of propositions.  There is no single set of truth, but rather an assortment of truths relative to their coherence within a system or set of propositions.

Consider the following statement: IF {a specific set of propositions}, THEN {a conclusion}. Suppose the statement is logically valid. The coherence theory would say that {a conclusion} is true relatively. The objective theory says that the whole statement is true, and that {a conclusion} is true if the mentioned propositions are true. The coherence theory cannot handle the whole statement, because it has a truth value that it cannot express. We would need another term to describe such truths. On the other hand, the objective theory of truth can already handle conditional statements just fine.

 

[Sal9000]

I really enjoyed reading your post Josh. You put a lot of thought into it and made your point very clear. I will have to think about that for some time. A minor correction though:

 

Within normal Euclidian Geometry, this axiom is true.  However, Euclid made an assumption which went unchallenged for centuries.  He incorrectly, though intuitively, defined space as flat planes.  Regardless, Euclid's axioms are all internally consistent and excellent for basic geometry.

 

The axioms constitute a geometry. Mathematicians tried for centuries to make the fifth axiom shorter or to derive it from other axioms. Then during the 19th century two mathematicians found out at the same time that you can get valid geometries when you change that axiom. Nowadays most mathematicians would say that axioms constitute a mathematical theory. One of them, David Hilbert made this very clear. He said that you could replace geometrical terms with mundane objects (chair instead of point or cup instead of line) and you would still have a valid theory. In short, this axiom created the Euclidean geometry if you change it, you generate other valid geometries.

[MMX2010]

Josh F - Your post is interesting and well-communicated, but I don't get the point.  The only use I see in your post is clubbing nihilists over the head with it.  But I don't know the degree to which anyone else can club me over the head with it. 

[Josh F]

I've often heard sexuality described as a spectrum rather than a polarity. Not everyone desires having sexual relations with just the one gender, but we tend to favor one or the other when pair bonding. I have been attracted to both men and women, but I am clearly more strongly attracted to the opposite gender. I have a personal obstacle applying moral philosophy to sexuality because sexual preference is subjective. To make an allusion to musical aesthetics, "I like Jazz, and you like Rock and Roll." While it is unclear whether we can shape our own sexual preferences (is it biological determinism, environment or both?), we have the right to pursue that which makes us happy regardless of philosophy as long as it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.

 

Political correctness doesn't have much philosophic value because language gymnastics are primarily designed to confuse people and obfuscate reasoning. Philosophy plays the game by the rules by providing clear reasons and definitions for using particular words.

I would love to discuss these topics, truly, but I'm going to avoid it in this particular thread if you don't mind.  If you'd like we can even briefly chat about it privately, or make another thread to discuss it.  I'll just caveat by saying Deconstructionism or post-modernism isn't about those ideas, but that those ideas use deconstructionism to reach their conclusions.  

 

 

Consider the following statement: IF {a specific set of propositions}, THEN {a conclusion}. Suppose the statement is logically valid. The coherence theory would say that {a conclusion} is true relatively. The objective theory says that the whole statement is true, and that {a conclusion} is true if the mentioned propositions are true. The coherence theory cannot handle the whole statement, because it has a truth value that it cannot express. We would need another term to describe such truths. On the other hand, the objective theory of truth can already handle conditional statements just fine.

 

Alright, first of all thanks for this reply.  I think I understand your point.  The only difference I see between the If/Then statement in the Coherent Theory of Truth compared to the Correspondence Theory of Truth is that the Coherent Theory says it is true within the "if" or the "specific set of propositions" whereas the Correspondence Theory says it is true within reality.  The correspondence model is a metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, the coherent model is ametaphysical, meaning it isn't dependent on any externality called reality.

 

I really enjoyed reading your post Josh. You put a lot of thought into it and made your point very clear. I will have to think about that for some time. A minor correction though:

 

 

The axioms constitute a geometry. Mathematicians tried for centuries to make the fifth axiom shorter or to derive it from other axioms. Then during the 19th century two mathematicians found out at the same time that you can get valid geometries when you change that axiom. Nowadays most mathematicians would say that axioms constitute a mathematical theory. One of them, David Hilbert made this very clear. He said that you could replace geometrical terms with mundane objects (chair instead of point or cup instead of line) and you would still have a valid theory. In short, this axiom created the Euclidean geometry if you change it, you generate other valid geometries.

 

Thank you.  And yes exactly, and thanks for the clarification.  If memory serves, this is the story of elliptical geometry, and even more guys came in and created hyperbolic geometry.  What is interesting about the different geometries is that they invalidate each other.  For example in Euclidian Geometry adding the angles of a triangle always equals 180 degrees.  In the other two models, adding a triangle's angles up yields in one case always less than 180 degrees and in another case always more than 180 degrees.  Additionally, while Euclidean geometry is very functional on a small and observable scale, there is an argument that these theories do not conform to reality because space is never flat, though on a micro-scale close enough to being flat as to be negligible.  

 

 

Josh F - Your post is interesting and well-communicated, but I don't get the point.  The only use I see in your post is clubbing nihilists over the head with it.  But I don't know the degree to which anyone else can club me over the head with it. 

Thank you.  I tried to explain the point briefly to EndTheUsurpation above, but in a nut shell this epistemology opens philosophy up to several new and very interesting concepts and approaches to problem solving.  Clubbing nihilists over the head is just a welcomed byproduct, though in fact the post-modernist canon does include Nietzsche who is sometimes considered to be a nihilist.  It borrows heavily from the existentialists and the language philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, who are fascinating philosophers not often discussed here mostly because they don't fall into the classic or metaphysical canon (Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, etc) or the moral philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, Rand, Hume, Russell, etc) who are also extremely interesting.  In a longer project, philosophically, I'd like to reconcile the principles of FDR with this other canon as well: specifically Private Property, Peaceful Parenting, Rational Ethics, Anarchy, etc.  I think in doing so there is great value to the movement, which often appeals more to traditionalists and conservatives because it is objective, but whose principles may also appeal to a wider net of people who are more 'left' but not necessarily passionate advocates of the state.  One example I'll mention is Queer Theory and the Gay Rights Movement, which talks often about issues like the violence of state power, empathy and peaceful parenting and in practice is extremely similar to our community with much different philosophical origins.  

[dsayers]

this epistemology opens philosophy up to several new and very interesting concepts and approaches to problem solving.

 

In what way? I try to keep things simple. The opening post has so many references to -isms that I cannot tell what it's trying to say, nor is it engaging enough to make me want to try and figure it out. Not saying that your conclusion is wrong, but I think your explanation fails the 4 year old test.

[cynicist]

This reconcile's Post Modern epistemology, which states that Truth is contingent and contextual, with the Objectivist argument that truth corresponds to 'reality'.

 

Why did you surround the word 'reality' with quotation marks in this sentence? I'm guessing you are changing the definition of reality here, because otherwise I don't see the reconciliation. 

 

To your point about truth as a system which refines itself based on empiricism: empiricism is a consistent (coherent) and valid 'set' of principles.  In this way we can take something like the Theory of Evolution and say that it is valid according to the principles of empiricism.  We couldn't say that the Theory of Evolution is valid according to the principles of mathematics.  This doesn't invalidate mathematics or the Theory of Evolution.  Geometry would be the inverse, as it conforms to the principles of Mathematics but not with Empiricism (as it is not a byproduct of observing reality).  

 

So this theory doesn't invalidate empiricism or reason, but it does validate several other schools of thought that are essential to post-modernism: specifically deconstructionism.  

 

Empiricism is not a set of principles at all. It's knowledge based on sensory experience, which your theory does invalidate. (you are saying that something can fail to be in congruence with reality but still be true if it is internally consistent) That's the main problem that I see. You can't define truth as a relative thing like you have without divorcing it from reality, which ends up not making sense.

[Josh F]

In what way? I try to keep things simple. The opening post has so many references to -isms that I cannot tell what it's trying to say, nor is it engaging enough to make me want to try and figure it out. Not saying that your conclusion is wrong, but I think your explanation fails the 4 year old test.

Yeah I can see that.  The thesis is called the Coherence Theory, and it states that things are true when they are coherent within a set of principles.  It is in contrast to the Objectivist counterpart called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which states things are true based on their correspondence with reality.

 

Why did you surround the word 'reality' with quotation marks in this sentence? I'm guessing you are changing the definition of reality here, because otherwise I don't see the reconciliation. 

 

 

Empiricism is not a set of principles at all. It's knowledge based on sensory experience, which your theory does invalidate. (you are saying that something can fail to be in congruence with reality but still be true if it is internally consistent) That's the main problem that I see. You can't define truth as a relative thing like you have without divorcing it from reality, which ends up not making sense.

 

I'm not changing the definition of reality, only that within this model of truth there is not considered to be a tangible or objective reality, so the quotes are there to imply that it is fictional or conceptual, but the meaning is the same.  In post-modernism reality is considered to be conceptual, bound by our experiences, language, etc. and incapable of being observed objectively.  Sartre explained it this way, "Existence precedes and rules essence."  In other words, perception (existence) defines what we consider reality (essence).

 

Empiricism is a set of principles comprising a theory that knowledge is obtained through observation.  Einstein said, "It is the theory that describes what we can observe."  We don't consider Empiricism to be the only mode of truth, which brings me back to some of the above examples of Geometry.  The principles of geometry are axiomatic, as is math and logic.  Truth is not deduced through observation, but self-evident truths called axioms and the extension of their logical implications.  Even within objectivism there is considered to be two separate modes of acquiring the truth, reason and science (logic and empiricism).

[cynicist]

I'm not changing the definition of reality, only that within this model of truth there is not considered to be a tangible or objective reality, so the quotes are there to imply that it is fictional or conceptual, but the meaning is the same.  In post-modernism reality is considered to be conceptual, bound by our experiences, language, etc. and incapable of being observed objectively.  Sartre explained it this way, "Existence precedes and rules essence."  In other words, perception (existence) defines what we consider reality (essence).

 

That is definitely a change in the definition of reality. Every dictionary definition I've ever seen has defined it as the opposite of conceptual/fictional. Here is an example just from Google:

 

 

re·al·i·ty

rēˈalədē/

noun

noun: reality

1. 1.

   the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

   "he refuses to face reality"

   synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality; More

    

    

    

   antonyms: fantasy

   • a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic.

     plural noun: realities

     "the harsh realities of life in a farming community"

     synonyms: fact, actuality, truth

     "the harsh realities of life"
   • a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind.

     "the paperless office may yet become a reality"
   • the quality of being lifelike or resembling an original.

     "the reality of Marryat's detail"

     synonyms: verisimilitude, authenticity, realism, fidelity, faithfulness

     "the reality of Steinbeck's detail"

     antonyms: idealism
   • relating to reality TV.

     modifier noun: reality

     "a reality show"
2. 2.

   the state or quality of having existence or substance.

   "youth, when death has no reality"

   • PHILOSOPHY

     existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.

 

Empiricism is a set of principles comprising a theory that knowledge is obtained through observation.  Einstein said, "It is the theory that describes what we can observe."  We don't consider Empiricism to be the only mode of truth, which brings me back to some of the above examples of Geometry.  The principles of geometry are axiomatic, as is math and logic.  Truth is not deduced through observation, but self-evident truths called axioms and the extension of their logical implications.  Even within objectivism there is considered to be two separate modes of acquiring the truth, reason and science (logic and empiricism).

 

You continue repeating that empiricism is a set of principles. Would you mind enumerating what those are for me? The simplest way for me to understand empiricism is as a theory that all knowledge derives from sensual experience. You are incorrect about Objectivism as well, not that it would sway me if you were. Ayn Rand actually claims the opposite of what you are saying here, as I will quote from The Objectivist:

 

Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience.

 

 

Truth is not deduced through observation, but self-evident truths called axioms and the extension of their logical implications.

 

How are these truths you call axioms self-evident, if not through observation?

[Josh F]

That is definitely a change in the definition of reality. Every dictionary definition I've ever seen has defined it as the opposite of conceptual/fictional. Here is an example just from Google:

 

You continue repeating that empiricism is a set of principles. Would you mind enumerating what those are for me? The simplest way for me to understand empiricism is as a theory that all knowledge derives from sensual experience. You are incorrect about Objectivism as well, not that it would sway me if you were. Ayn Rand actually claims the opposite of what you are saying here, as I will quote from The Objectivist:

 

How are these truths you call axioms self-evident, if not through observation?

 

When I say it is the same definition, it is akin to an atheist talking about 'god,' he means the same thing but doesn't believe it.  But I understand your point.

 

The principles of empiricism are the scientific method, sensory experience, evidence, etc.  Then within different sciences there are more principles: Archimedes principle, principle of binominal nomenclature, anthropic principle, principle of relativity, uncertainty principle, cosmological principle, etc. Freud even authored one called the pleasure principle.  Science even has principles on the roll of the observer.  Physics is full of principles.  

 

Now, I've seen the argument that logic is a type of observation, but I have to be honest that I don't really understand the argument.  In the quote by Rand, does she go on to prove the argument that logic doesn't exist apart from experience?  

 

When contemplating a simple math problem in your head, are you using observation of the phenomenal world to prove or falsify the information?  

[Josh F]

 

How are these truths you call axioms self-evident, if not through observation?

 

Let me be clear, these are not my terms.  Axioms are common within math and philosophy.  Praxeology is an axiomatic approach to economics, for example.

 

They are self evident because of their definition.  1+1=2, for example, strictly by definition of 1, +, =, and 2 in mathematical nomenclature.  One does not need to count apples, repeatedly, collect data and validate a hypothesis to prove that 1+1=2.  None of these terms necessarily relate to physical or phenomenal objects, though they can of course be applied to physical objects.  

[Phuein]

The statement that logic is based on experienced is not an argument, but rather a definition. Our logic is purely reflected in our experience of reality. We have 1+1=2, because this is our unchanging experience. It seems unjustified to suggest a logic that is either not, eventually, based on experience, or that is divorced from experience, completely.

 

Josh, how do you respond to the claim that any two theories that are useful, but contradicting, and each has errors in certain experimental situations, are both wrong? They are correct, to a useful extent, but eventually erroneous.

 

The conclusion from the above is that there is a correct understanding of reality, which had simply not been arrived at, and then documented. It gives disagreement to your fundamental conclusion; that we should accept such contradictory but useful theories, as somehow "true".

 

And yeah, well written OP.  

[cynicist]

When I say it is the same definition, it is akin to an atheist talking about 'god,' he means the same thing but doesn't believe it.  But I understand your point.

 

No it's not the same. If I refer to the christian god I am still talking about an all powerful, all knowing entity described by the bible, even if I don't believe that it exists. The way you are describing reality is the opposite of what that word means. It would be like an atheist describing god as a, 'completely impotent being with zero knowledge'.

 

The principles of empiricism are the scientific method, sensory experience, evidence, etc.  

 

The scientific method is an example of empiricism in practice, not part of empiricism itself. You could make the argument that empiricism is itself a principle (fundamental truth from which others are derived from) but the case that it's a set of principles is a weak one.

 

Now, I've seen the argument that logic is a type of observation, but I have to be honest that I don't really understand the argument.  In the quote by Rand, does she go on to prove the argument that logic doesn't exist apart from experience?

 

If you think that what I quoted is an argument that logic is a form of observation you have misunderstood it. Her point was not that logic doesn't exist apart from experience, it was that truth can only be arrived at when you utilize both logic and empiricism, and that divorcing one from the other results in a failure to know the truth. 

 

Let me be clear, these are not my terms.  Axioms are common within math and philosophy.  Praxeology is an axiomatic approach to economics, for example.

 

They are self evident because of their definition.  1+1=2, for example, strictly by definition of 1, +, =, and 2 in mathematical nomenclature.  One does not need to count apples, repeatedly, collect data and validate a hypothesis to prove that 1+1=2.  None of these terms necessarily relate to physical or phenomenal objects, though they can of course be applied to physical objects.  

 

You need to be more precise here. It's true that axioms are common within both math and philosophy but they don't necessarily mean the same thing in both disciplines. A mathematical axiom does not have to be a self-evident truth for example. Quoting from Wikipedia:

 

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic).

 

I'm not surprised you are choosing to use math as an example though. It fits within your framework, which is basically identical to pure logic. I'd recommend some of Ayn Rand's epistemological material for more on why that doesn't work when it comes to establishing truth. Basically summed up as, contradictions do not exist in reality yet as you pointed out they can exist when considering two internally consistent logical arguments, and when that happens we must abandon one in favor of whichever one does not contradict the real world. To put it another way, when you try and separate what is true from all sensory experience as you are doing here it falls apart since all knowledge comes from our experience of reality. (think about how arithmetic began, which certainly wasn't just popping into our heads out of nowhere) 

 

I have a feeling that this theory comes out of a desire for contradictions to be able to exist, which would explain why you would try to disconnect the truth from empirical reality. Are there any circles you are trying to square in your mind using this theory?

[Josh F]

The statement that logic is based on experienced is not an argument, but rather a definition. Our logic is purely reflected in our experience of reality. We have 1+1=2, because this is our unchanging experience. It seems unjustified to suggest a logic that is either not, eventually, based on experience, or that is divorced from experience, completely.

 

Josh, how do you respond to the claim that any two theories that are useful, but contradicting, and each has errors in certain experimental situations, are both wrong? They are correct, to a useful extent, but eventually erroneous.

 

The conclusion from the above is that there is a correct understanding of reality, which had simply not been arrived at, and then documented. It gives disagreement to your fundamental conclusion; that we should accept such contradictory but useful theories, as somehow "true".

 

And yeah, well written OP.  

 

Ah so for example, the above geometries are all wrong (or incomplete)?  Is that what you mean?

 

 

The scientific method is an example of empiricism in practice, not part of empiricism itself. You could make the argument that empiricism is itself a principle (fundamental truth from which others are derived from) but the case that it's a set of principles is a weak one.

 

 

If you think that what I quoted is an argument that logic is a form of observation you have misunderstood it. Her point was not that logic doesn't exist apart from experience, it was that truth can only be arrived at when you utilize both logic and empiricism, and that divorcing one from the other results in a failure to know the truth. 

 

So help me understand this then.  While certainly any empirical conclusion which is irrational is suspect, I see logic as self-contained.  That is to say logic is not invalidated or validated by any sense data.  Sense data, on the other hand, certainly needs to be processed using logic.  We can't, for example, observe gravity and then conclude "mass always repels."  So while both contribute to objective truth, they operate on different principles (or methods).  Is this right?

 

 

 

 

You need to be more precise here. It's true that axioms are common within both math and philosophy but they don't necessarily mean the same thing in both disciplines. A mathematical axiom does not have to be a self-evident truth for example. Quoting from Wikipedia:

 

 

I'm not surprised you are choosing to use math as an example though. It fits within your framework, which is basically identical to pure logic. I'd recommend some of Ayn Rand's epistemological material for more on why that doesn't work when it comes to establishing truth. Basically summed up as, contradictions do not exist in reality yet as you pointed out they can exist when considering two internally consistent logical arguments, and when that happens we must abandon one in favor of whichever one does not contradict the real world. To put it another way, when you try and separate what is true from all sensory experience as you are doing here it falls apart since all knowledge comes from our experience of reality. (think about how arithmetic began, which certainly wasn't just popping into our heads out of nowhere) 

 

I have a feeling that this theory comes out of a desire for contradictions to be able to exist, which would explain why you would try to disconnect the truth from empirical reality. Are there any circles you are trying to square in your mind using this theory? 

Well I'm into Objectivism, been here on this website a long time.  I think that when it comes to technology and science there is nothing relevant in post-modernism.  The circle I am trying to square is post-modernism and objectivism (I know, sounds impossible).  Whats interesting about post-modernism is that it doesn't negate empiricism as a useful practice.  Certainly the majority of post-modernists employ empiricism on a daily bases.  

 

I don't know if you saw a recent FDR video where Stef was making fun of the "argument by quantum theory" malarky we hear so often.  He was saying that if you think quantum theory throws physics out the window, you might as well jump off a building and try to fly.  Fundamentally, quantum physics doesn't negate actual physics, yet it is valuable regardless.  Unlike physics, quantum physics attempts to explain sub-atomic phenomenon which seems to contradict basic physics.  Similarly, and this is just an analogy not an argument, I think post-modernism is a school of thought full of extremely valuable tools which explain how our perception of reality forms within our mind regardless of how it actually 'is'.

 

Let me repeat an above example to explain this point.  There was an effort by people to stop using terms like 'Policeman' and 'Fireman', and instead replace them with gender/sex neutral terms like 'Fire Fighters' or 'Police Officers'.  The goal is to change the value, not the meaning, of those words.  The idea being that by changing it we don't automatically assign the profession to a specific sex.  This is a small example of deconstructionism. We libertarians attempt to do the same thing as well, they create their entire own vocabulary and change the value of specific terms: taxes, government, statism, etc.  Taxes are theft, government is violence, statism is a religion.  

 

Now, I don't want to debate my motives, but if you're curious I can explain it simply.  It is naive to think libertarianism/objectivism is appealing to the majority of the planet.  The world contains, for example, 1.6 billion muslims completely uninterested in free markets (as the Koran encourages the mosque to set prices, welfare, etc).  The world contains a vast number of secular, relativists, as well.  While objectivism has been an epic tool for developing ethical principles that I value greatly, it is unappealing to many people.  Secularists tend to fear anything objective since that sounds religious to them, and religious people already have their own goofy objective arguments.  I think squaring the principles of free markets, volunteerism, and most importantly peaceful parenting with other ideologies is a useful approach to changing the world.  And since this is a field of philosophy I'm fairly well versed in, I thought I'd give it a shot.  

[cynicist]

So help me understand this then.  While certainly any empirical conclusion which is irrational is suspect, I see logic as self-contained.  That is to say logic is not invalidated or validated by any sense data.  Sense data, on the other hand, certainly needs to be processed using logic.  We can't, for example, observe gravity and then conclude "mass always repels."  So while both contribute to objective truth, they operate on different principles (or methods).  Is this right?

 

Yeah this is correct, except I would add that that sense data can contribute to objective truth without requiring logic while logic cannot do the same. Logic itself is reliant on some fundamental axioms that we derive from sense data. (like the consistency of matter and energy for example)

 

Similarly, and this is just an analogy not an argument, I think post-modernism is a school of thought full of extremely valuable tools which explain how our perception of reality forms within our mind regardless of how it actually 'is'.

 

I don't know much about post-modernism besides what I've read on the internet and from Stefan's e-book (The God of Atheists), but is that extremely valuable tool comprised of euphemisms? As far as I can tell, post-modernism is simply language manipulation of some form or another.

 

Now, I don't want to debate my motives, but if you're curious I can explain it simply.  It is naive to think libertarianism/objectivism is appealing to the majority of the planet.  The world contains, for example, 1.6 billion muslims completely uninterested in free markets (as the Koran encourages the mosque to set prices, welfare, etc).  The world contains a vast number of secular, relativists, as well.  While objectivism has been an epic tool for developing ethical principles that I value greatly, it is unappealing to many people.  Secularists tend to fear anything objective since that sounds religious to them, and religious people already have their own goofy objective arguments.  I think squaring the principles of free markets, volunteerism, and most importantly peaceful parenting with other ideologies is a useful approach to changing the world.  And since this is a field of philosophy I'm fairly well versed in, I thought I'd give it a shot.  

 

Thanks, that's very helpful. I understand what you are attempting to do now. I don't think it's possible since philosophy is fundamentally opposed to things like religion, and so trying to make them compatible would involve watering down one or the other to something that scarcely resembles what you started with, but I won't try to dissuade you from it.

[J. D. Stembal]

There was an effort by people to stop using terms like 'Policeman' and 'Fireman', and instead replace them with gender/sex neutral terms like 'Fire Fighters' or 'Police Officers'.  The goal is to change the value, not the meaning, of those words.  The idea being that by changing it we don't automatically assign the profession to a specific sex.  This is a small example of deconstructionism. We libertarians attempt to do the same thing as well, they create their entire own vocabulary and change the value of specific terms: taxes, government, statism, etc.  Taxes are theft, government is violence, statism is a religion.

 

Don't forget mailman. It appears all the state-funded professions were targeted specifically. Could it be that this was a result of political feminism?

 

What you describe libertarians as doing is the opposite of deconstructionism. They are taking politically obfuscated words and making them true and useful again. Unfortunately, there's still the desire to call hitting your child spanking, though.

 

 

 As far as I can tell, post-modernism is simply language manipulation of some form or another.

 

It certainly appears to be the case.

 

From PhilosophyBasics.com:

 

 

 

Deconstructionism is notoriously difficult to define or summarize, and many attempts to explain it in a straight-forward, understandable way have been academically criticized for being too removed from the original texts, and even contradictory to the concepts of Deconstructionism. Some critics have gone so far as to claim that Deconstruction is a dangerous form of Nihilism, leading to the destruction of Western scientific and ethical values, and it has been seized upon by some conservativeand libertarian writers as a central example of what is wrong with modern academia. Richard Rorty (1931 - 2007) has attempted to define Deconstruction as the way in which the "accidental" (or incidental) features of a text can be seen as betraying or subverting its essential message.

 

Talking about such topics is like fencing with a ghost to put it bluntly.

 

A quote from PBS.org invokes the victim card:

 

 

 

A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.

 

By the very action of defining the reality of history, you run the risk of dominating the victim classes. Sheesh.

 

[MMX2010]

I would love to discuss these topics, truly, but I'm going to avoid it in this particular thread if you don't mind.  If you'd like we can even briefly chat about it privately, or make another thread to discuss it.  I'll just caveat by saying Deconstructionism or post-modernism isn't about those ideas, but that those ideas use deconstructionism to reach their conclusions.  

 

Alright, first of all thanks for this reply.  I think I understand your point.  The only difference I see between the If/Then statement in the Coherent Theory of Truth compared to the Correspondence Theory of Truth is that the Coherent Theory says it is true within the "if" or the "specific set of propositions" whereas the Correspondence Theory says it is true within reality.  The correspondence model is a metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, the coherent model is ametaphysical, meaning it isn't dependent on any externality called reality.

 

 

Thank you.  And yes exactly, and thanks for the clarification.  If memory serves, this is the story of elliptical geometry, and even more guys came in and created hyperbolic geometry.  What is interesting about the different geometries is that they invalidate each other.  For example in Euclidian Geometry adding the angles of a triangle always equals 180 degrees.  In the other two models, adding a triangle's angles up yields in one case always less than 180 degrees and in another case always more than 180 degrees.  Additionally, while Euclidean geometry is very functional on a small and observable scale, there is an argument that these theories do not conform to reality because space is never flat, though on a micro-scale close enough to being flat as to be negligible.  

 

 

Thank you.  I tried to explain the point briefly to EndTheUsurpation above, but in a nut shell this epistemology opens philosophy up to several new and very interesting concepts and approaches to problem solving.  Clubbing nihilists over the head is just a welcomed byproduct, though in fact the post-modernist canon does include Nietzsche who is sometimes considered to be a nihilist.  It borrows heavily from the existentialists and the language philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, who are fascinating philosophers not often discussed here mostly because they don't fall into the classic or metaphysical canon (Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, etc) or the moral philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, Rand, Hume, Russell, etc) who are also extremely interesting.  In a longer project, philosophically, I'd like to reconcile the principles of FDR with this other canon as well: specifically Private Property, Peaceful Parenting, Rational Ethics, Anarchy, etc.  I think in doing so there is great value to the movement, which often appeals more to traditionalists and conservatives because it is objective, but whose principles may also appeal to a wider net of people who are more 'left' but not necessarily passionate advocates of the state.  One example I'll mention is Queer Theory and the Gay Rights Movement, which talks often about issues like the violence of state power, empathy and peaceful parenting and in practice is extremely similar to our community with much different philosophical origins.  

 

 

I think your original post suffers from an insurmountable weakness: the transition from physical objects to intangible abstractions.

 

When you described how Euclid's fifth postulate must get re-worded, depending on which physical object you're describing, I was filled with happiness and a sense of deeper understanding.  But once you start talking about Queer Theory and Political Correctness, I'm filled with annoyance and confusion.

 

I respect that you've studied Queer Theory more than I have.  But if we all agree that gender is a continuum, and that a number line is a continuum, then I can argue that no one has the exact same gender as anyone else.  (Like this: Picture a number line from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning "extreme male" and 10 meaning "extreme female".  With clever use of decimal point, I can assert that there are "hundreds of thousands as many different genders as there are humans on the planet", thereby mathematically proving that no two people have the exact same gender.  Basically, the number 5.5555555555556 is not the exact same number as 5.5555555555557.)  This argument is only possible due to the abstract nature of both gender and numbers.)

 

At some point, arguments that assert "the fluidity of meaning" become bogged down by ever more "precise" arguments that assert the "fluidity of meaning". 

[Phuein]

Ah so for example, the above geometries are all wrong (or incomplete)?  Is that what you mean?

 

Yes, they are both wrong and incomplete, and misleading because of that. However, their utility is undoubted. It's like reaching the correct answer, without using any of the correct premises. A mixture of luck and circumstance. Happened to me in a geometry test. 

 

To argue from utility is very different to arguing from truth. Wrongs can be very useful. We use true generalizations, to often make false assumptions, which is very practical.

[Josh F]

 

I don't know much about post-modernism besides what I've read on the internet and from Stefan's e-book (The God of Atheists), but is that extremely valuable tool comprised of euphemisms? As far as I can tell, post-modernism is simply language manipulation of some form or another.

Yes, a large part of it is about manipulating language.  Not unlike the libertarian examples, terms like firefighter over fireman is a refinement that is also more accurate and though fireman isn't a government euphemism, it is a term with implications inherited from a time when women couldn't participate in that job.  As with the spanking example, euphemisms can be cultural.  Post-modernism spends a large amount of time focused on those euphemisms (they often call them metaphors).  We inheret a language with implicit values and changing them is a project to refine those assumptive values.  Post-modernists do not spend time trying to redefine biological terms or chemistry or other hard sciences.  They focus on cultural metaphors.  

Post-modernist Richard Rorty has a chapter in his book Truth, Contingency, and Solidarity about the former (Solidarity).  He argues that people with cultural values that are bigoted, normative, etc. reduce solidarity.  Without going into tons of detail, he compares how different european cities felt about Jews and how that translated during the Holocaust.  In places where Jews were considered anything from insects to viruses to sorcerers (like Poland) they were not protected by their neighbors.  In places without those connotations, like Holland, far more people were willing to hide Jews.  

 

Don't forget mailman. It appears all the state-funded professions were targeted specifically. Could it be that this was a result of political feminism?

 

What you describe libertarians as doing is the opposite of deconstructionism. They are taking politically obfuscated words and making them true and useful again. Unfortunately, there's still the desire to call hitting your child spanking, though.

Right, so spanking isn't a politically obfuscated term.  It is culturally obfuscated.  Post-modernists deal with this stuff often.  

 

I think your original post suffers from an insurmountable weakness: the transition from physical objects to intangible abstractions.

 

When you described how Euclid's fifth postulate must get re-worded, depending on which physical object you're describing, I was filled with happiness and a sense of deeper understanding.  But once you start talking about Queer Theory and Political Correctness, I'm filled with annoyance and confusion.

 

I respect that you've studied Queer Theory more than I have.  But if we all agree that gender is a continuum, and that a number line is a continuum, then I can argue that no one has the exact same gender as anyone else.  (Like this: Picture a number line from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning "extreme male" and 10 meaning "extreme female".  With clever use of decimal point, I can assert that there are "hundreds of thousands as many different genders as there are humans on the planet", thereby mathematically proving that no two people have the exact same gender.  Basically, the number 5.5555555555556 is not the exact same number as 5.5555555555557.)  This argument is only possible due to the abstract nature of both gender and numbers.)

 

At some point, arguments that assert "the fluidity of meaning" become bogged down by ever more "precise" arguments that assert the "fluidity of meaning". 

Yes, gender is an abstract concept which can't be determined by observation, it is subjective.  Objectivist often dismiss or struggle to explain cultural, subjective, linguistic or aesthetic concepts.  Objectivism, for a less politically charged example, has very little to say about fashion.  Rand did have something to say about architecture, but in general these are areas where Post-Modernists have really dominated.  

 

Alright I think we made some progress on this topic.  I'd like to introduce another idea here: literary criticism.  Literary criticism is a favorite amongst post-modernists.  I think the best way it has been described as to "drill sideways".   To examine a piece of literature from the perspective of another piece of literature.  For example, a Marxist interpretation of Oliver Twist, or a Capitalist interpretation of the Wizard of Oz, or one I've seen here an Objectivist interpretation of Harry Potter.  I know Stefan enjoys this stuff, he's done a few podcasts like the Truth about Frozen, etc.  I think the post-modernists would be especially right to say that calling a literary interpretation "Truth" is fairly inaccurate and ironic.

 

Now, if we can image a room filled with books.  Each book contains its own metaphors, style, arguments, etc.  Each tells its own story.  Then we can take any of these books and think about any other book from the perspective of that first book.  In other words, we can examine each book not head on, but by drilling at it sideways, taking the arguments or metaphors of one book and applying them to another.  In many ways, this is how a post-modernist sees the truth.  Each book is a self contained baby truth, a truism, or true with a lowercase t.  We can refine our truths through comparing them to other truths.  Similarly, post-modernists consider each human an author of their own book, called an artist or poet (Nietzsche or Derrida).  

[labmath2]

 

I'm interested in fleshing out some of these ideas, introducing a more nuanced idea of post-modernism, and correcting some common assumptions.  I'm very familiar with the common arguments presented against post-modernism within Objectivism, so my goal is to discuss those criticisms from a very specific post-modern argument.

 

Primarily, Post-Modernism is generally considered a fairly broad term and as such it is hard to narrow down a specific thesis. Commonly, but not necessarily accurate, it is considered to be the argument that "truth is subjective."  This is NOT the argument being made in this post.  Many post-modern philosophers diverge greatly in their arguments, from Derrida's ideas on symbols and Rorty on the idea of metaphor and contingency.  I'd like to discuss a specific post-modern idea.  Unlike the majority of post-modernists who argue for an idealist and subjective epistemology, this theory makes a slightly different argument.  

 

The theory is called the Coherence Theory of Truth.  This is not a subjective model of truth, which would make claims like "truth is in the eye of the beholder."  This is a relative theory of truth, in so much as truth is neither said to exist in 'reality' nor to exist exclusively within a single subject (meaning truth isn't just random made up crap by some guy, nor is it something which exists extrinsically).  

 

This is the definition of the Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is that which is coherent within a specified set of propositions.  There is no single set of truth, but rather an assortment of truths relative to their coherence within a system or set of propositions.  I will give examples in a second (holding on to the edge of your seat, I know).  

 

This theory is in contrast to the Objectivist theory of truth called the Correspondence Theory of Truth.  In the Objectivist model, truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true".

 

Now lets get to some examples of the Coherence Theory of Truth.  The best and most practical example comes from the history of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Newtonian Physics, and Euclidian Geometry.  (Run for the hills, this is about to get nerdy!)  Newtonian Physics were based in large part on Euclidian Geometry.  Euclidian Geometry is based on axiomatic proofs.  One of these axioms is the Parallel Postulate, also called Euclid's Fifth Postulate.  It states "for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there is exactly one line through A that does not intersect ℓ"

 

Within normal Euclidian Geometry, this axiom is true.  However, Euclid made an assumption which went unchallenged for centuries.  He incorrectly, though intuitively, defined space as flat planes.  Regardless, Euclid's axioms are all internally consistent and excellent for basic geometry.  In the Euclidian model, for example, we all know that the shortest path between two points is a straight line.  

 

There are, however, two equally consistent and axiomatic propositions for geometry which contradict Euclid's Fifth Postulate.  The first is Elliptic Geometry and the second is Hyperbolic Geometry.  These non-Euclidian types of Geometry proves to be essential to Einstein's Theory of Relativity (specifically Hyperbolic Geometry).  The difference is that these types of Geometry do not treat space as a flat plane.  In the Elliptic version, space curves in on itself like a sphere.  Think of the Latitude lines on a map of the Earth.  In this model, parallel lines are impossible as eventually all lines intersect (at the North and South Pole, so to speak).  The axiom is written as "In the elliptic model, for any given line ℓ and point A, which is not on ℓ, all lines through A will intersect ℓ."

 

The Hyperbolic model, however, places space on a saddle shape (and infinitely outwardly extending curve, generally in the shape of a Pringles' Chip).  In this model, the axiom is written as "In the hyperbolic model, within a two-dimensional plane, for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there are infinitely many lines through A that do not intersect ℓ."  The point being that there are infinite non-intersecting lines.  

 

While Euclidian geometry is essential to modern Physics, Hyperbolic Geometry is used in Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  So what is the point?  Well each type of Geometry is based on internally consistent axioms, yet contradict one another.  They all have practical utility, from building a table or house to space travel and planetary orbit.  

 

This is not a debate about which theory of Gravity is correct, ignoring perhaps new theories in Quantum Gravity, Eistein's model is far more accurate than Newton's (which was, for example, unable to explain the orbit of Mercury).  The point is the similarly functioning, yet fundamentally contradictory models of Geometry.  

 

To tie this into the Coherence Theory of Truth.  The Coherence Theory of Truth states that each Geometry is true within its own set or system of axioms.  Though the theories contradict one another, they are consistent unto themselves.  This is the purposed definition of Truth, that which is consistent within its own limited context.  This reconcile's Post Modern epistemology, which states that Truth is contingent and contextual, with the Objectivist argument that truth corresponds to 'reality'.  This also reconciles Argumentation Ethics, and does not dismiss the majority of conclusions within Objectivism.  Instead Truth is that which is internally coherent, without conforming, corresponding, or congruent to an external reality (Objectivism) and without being subjective, inconsistent, or pragmatic (Subjectivism).  

 

Sorry for the wall of text, wish I was better at explaining this.... let me know what ya'll think.  

•  

 

 

I think the idea you are communicating has to do with models. Math, language, scientific method are all models. The confusion, i think, stems from the way we think about them as true in some fundamental sense. They are ways of approaching problems. In the math case, one model is more generally applicable than the other.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

truth is relative to falsehood: does anything else need to be said?

 

(not being facetious, let me know if there is something in this thread that expands on this idea without contradicting it)

 

Edit:

 

I have now read the OP.

 

I think this issue is explained better without reference to some new term, "coherence theory," but simply by refining our understanding of validity, truth, and falsehood. A valid theory is that which is consistent internally. A "truth" is that which is consistent internally and with objectively observable events. A valid theory could be true in some cases and not true in others, but it will always be valid. 

 

I don't understand the importance of the physics analogy (though that could be my fault) but I did think it was interesting. They essentially to me sound like two ways of describing space, to yield different types of predictions. They can make different predictions correctly, and that is the sense which they are true. When physics experiments are done in a lab, the results they get are true for the very conditions in which they were proven true - remember, truth in the hard sciences are just a collection of verified and reproducible data, interpreted by a valid theory; which is then used to predict the outcome of future events. The extent to which it can reliably predict future events is the sense in which a theory is robust, but it is only true for the particular predictions that have been verified, which exist as historical data subject to future verification. For bodies of theories like relative and Newtonian physics, the amount of verified predictions that have occurred over the decades and centuries since their founding, in technology, flight, etc ad nauseam provides a proof of concept of these theories for the types of predictions they can be used to make - and from this fact we gloriously have verified some fundamental physical principles.

 

I believe Ludwig Von Mises "Theory and History" breaks this down even further, but I am only half-sure what I just described coincides with his taxonomy since I haven't actually read the book. Let me know if I made sense.

[Carl Green]

nobody (the member) showed me this YT channel. I've been finding it very helpful in explaining philosophical topics like this. Things are often explained in both the 'pure' logical terms, which often go over my head, and in examples, which I can sometimes understand. They're all short and concise which I really appreciate.

 

https://youtu.be/Oyf0vHpdIFs?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdtycrFYOrO9zxszamWbSimh

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What theory of truth would you say you used to arrive at your conclusions?

[bugzysegal]

In this case the "4 year old test" or whether or not a 4 year old might understand the theory, might be a poor tool. It's possible that the correct theory of truth is actually quite complex and when simplified, loses significant explanatory power. Just a thought.