Three Theories of Truth and Epistemology

[RichardY]

Wondered what people think about the following three theories? Had a few ideas, but to flesh them out takes time, and my ego is finite. Curious to see what people think of the theories lay into Infinitism or The Correspondence Theory of Truth.

1) Correspondence Theory of Truth. Justified True Belief. Foundationalism. Hypothesis. Calculus. Rationalists. Freewill, Libertarians. Aristotle. Plato. Batman.
a) How can truth be based on a belief?
b) Why do I need to justify it, or myself?
c) What foundation is stable or do you hold as stable?
d) If not JTB what else?

2) Coherence Theory of Truth. Followed in my opinion by; leftists, Determinists, Isl@mists & psych0paths/Werewolves. I don't think that the coherence theory of truth is actual, as it still comes down to foundationalism or a form of double think. Absolute Idealism, Hegel. An unconscious form of empiricism.

3) Infinitism. Set Theory. Accepts infinite Regresses as logically plausible, tendency for people to go insane or crazy, although maybe it's humanity in general that's messed up. Emphasise consciousness instead of freewill. I would say empiricists, over rationalists. The Joker. Spiritual Nihilists/Vampires. Not as widely adhered to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth, Sextus Empiricus. Spinoza. Taoism. Pantheism.

4) Some other Theory.

I'm interested in Infinitism and Correspondence Theory of Truth, I think the coherence theory of truth is more of a psychological phenomena based on, tribalism rather than an actual theory of truth. Kind of split personally between the other two.

[GeorgeW]

I think you're confusing truth and knowledge. I think "Justified True Belief" is supposed to be knowledge, not truth.

I don't think JTB is any good as a definition of knowledge. It seems to founder on the "justified" part. That seems to me to imply that we "know" something  is true if 1) the strength of the evidence for it passes some threshold and 2) it happens to be the case that it is true. That is, we could "know" a  statement is true, and falsely believe some other statement for which we have equally string evidence. Unless "justified" is meant to imply that the statement could't possibly be other than true, in which case I don't see why we need "true" as part of the definition.

I think "knowledge" is the limit that confidence in a belief approaches. That is, we never actually "know" anything with absolute certainty, but with sufficiently strong evidence we can dismiss the possibility that we may be wrong as negligible.

[RichardY]

What would be truth to you? Or the best method of approaching truth. I don't like the term justified true believe, but as a process, what would epistemically as a base(or no base) be the best way of approaching truth, through knowledge already acquired. I don't like the term "justified" as it implies social agreement. I think truth should be able to be expressed through symbology created or observed by an individual. Effectively creating your own script, and not using the latin, at least in potentiality.

So lets say Justified True Belief is not an effective base to express truth through knowledge, what would be? 

3 hours ago, GeorgeW said:

I think "knowledge" is the limit that confidence in a belief approaches. That is, we never actually "know" anything with absolute certainty, but with sufficiently strong evidence we can dismiss the possibility that we may be wrong as negligible.

Would you say then as we can not know anything with absolute certainty, Ethics does not apply to me or indeed to thee. So in principle, if I could acquire various goods without reciprocating I should pursue that method and go scorched earth as the only way to be sure, in order to avoid possible retaliation? Perhaps like the mafia or mass graves in N.Korea. The only thing preventing me being a weakness of position and character. A Goodfellow?

[GeorgeW]

On 9/23/2018 at 3:11 PM, RichardY said:

What would be truth to you?

I think truth is a fundamentally concept and it doesn't make sense to try to define truth in terms of more basic concepts. You can give examples illustrating the difference between truth and belief (we can have different beliefs, our beliefs can be wrong, but there's just one truth) but it's futile to attempt a definition.

As far as I'm aware, the way we acquire  confidence in our beliefs is, we update our priors within the concept of a model using Bayes' Theorem. But where our fundamental models and priors come from I don;t know, as far as I can tell we're born with them, they;re a consequence of our DNA.

I don't at all get your train of thought by which a lack of absolute certainty absolves us from ethics. I sometimes dream and don't realize I am dreaming, so it's a t least conceivable that I am dreaming now. But I don't see how this possibility that I might be dreaming would absolve me of moral responsibility in the event that I am not.

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, GeorgeW said:

I think truth is a fundamentally concept and it doesn't make sense to try to define truth in terms of more basic concepts. You can give examples illustrating the difference between truth and belief (we can have different beliefs, our beliefs can be wrong, but there's just one truth) but it's futile to attempt a definition.

I think that is a good approach, there is isn't any more in saying "this is a rose, and it exists." So perhaps a reductionist approach to truth.

2 hours ago, GeorgeW said:

As far as I'm aware, the way we acquire  confidence in our beliefs is, we update our priors within the concept of a model using Bayes' Theorem. But where our fundamental models and priors come from I don;t know, as far as I can tell we're born with them, they;re a consequence of our DNA.

Not familiar with Bayes Theorem, although I have heard it mentioned a few times on the forum. Looking at Wikipedia, would you say it's an equivalent of a best guess? In which case then, belief itself could be coded into our DNA, in terms of our preferences towards others.

2 hours ago, GeorgeW said:

I don't at all get your train of thought by which a lack of absolute certainty absolves us from ethics. I sometimes dream and don't realize I am dreaming, so it's a t least conceivable that I am dreaming now. But I don't see how this possibility that I might be dreaming would absolve me of moral responsibility in the event that I am not.

I wouldn't say absolution, instead not relevant, kind of a “Begin as you mean to go on, and go on as you began, and let the Lord be all in all to you.”― Charles H. Spurgeon, All of Grace. But perhaps in a quest for perfection, if absolute certainty is impossible. Then how can we be certain about ethics itself? 

Although perhaps if "absolute certainty"(determinism) were possible, then truth would be impossible. Perhaps what it comes down to is who can sustain the longest stream of consciousness. A bit like rodeo cowboys playing cards in a bull ring.

[Jsbrads]

Epistemology isn’t the truth, it is analyzing how human try to approach the truth. Observation, philosophy, tradition, etc.