QUESTION (REALLY) ON TRUTH
If I argue that truth is a spectrum with different standards, is this weaker than it is illustrative? In the sense that the erroneous conclusions that can be drawn are substantial vs incidental?
Please understand before you jump on me too much that I think I understand the rules of science and the rules of human interaction pretty thoroughly. And I am trying to describe the difference between the two in propertarian language (as, well, what you would think of as a supply-demand curve).
1) In order to state something is absolutely true, it must be a tautology, or perhaps better stated, an identity.
(The Correspondance Theory or Identity Theory of Truth)
2) In order to state something is scientifically true, the standard of truth is that one is describing causal relations that are free from error given the totality of scientific knowledge currently at our disposal. And given that so much scientific knowledge is correlative, this is a lower standard than identity.
(The Correspondance theory of Truth)
3) In order to conduct an exchange, the standard of truth is that I must not lie. Err is permissible, and it’s assumed that we err.
(The Pragmatic Theory of Truth)
4) An individual’s perception, (not statement) of truth is simply preference. We lie to ourselves as a matter of course. But the need to construct an intellectual compromise with our arational emotional framework, that allows us to act in order to suit our preferences is simply a functional necessity.
(The cohesive theory of truth)
5) Truth doesn’t exist, the only purpose of language is to obtain power, and the end justifies the means.
(The postmodernist/gnostic, Relativistic “Consensus” Theory of Truth)
Now, I keep shooting this full of (small) holes, but I can’t do any better. And I have to be able to say it in language that is at least vaguely comprehensible to non-specialists.
Help? Kenneth Allen Hopf? Matt Dioguardi? Anyone?
Thanks.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 07:41:00 UTC
Leave a Reply