Ravi, (01)
We are not confusing 'truth' with anything else. (02)
> Are we confusing abstract concept such as "Truth" with
> "laws of physics" (relative, from Newton to Einstein to
> Hawking) and "forces of life and knowledge" that either we
> acquire or are born with? (03)
No. The basic definition by Aristotle corresponds to the way
ordinary people have used language for centuries: (04)
To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is,
is false,
while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not,
is true. (05)
Except for the peculiar syntax, it also corresponds to the way
educated and uneducated people talk when they are not "in the grip
of a theory" -- to use a term that philosophers often apply to
people who let their theories distort their common sense. (06)
> The closest the meta-physicists and philosophers in some cultures
> have come to realize "Truth" is by what they call "Self Knowledge".
> Hence, it is "relative" for them. (07)
Those are people who are "in the grip of a theory". Their theories
may be profound, and they may have valuable insights. But they are
not using language in a way the words are normally used. (08)
> In common parlance "Truth" is reasonably independently verifiable
> by multiple people, is relative to time space and context and
> usually repeatable. But really no two instances of verification
> or measurement are identical, only approximately identical as
> the universe is changing every moment. (09)
No. That is not the way the word 'truth' is commonly used.
For example, the sentence 'It is raining' may be true in one
context and false in another. That does not imply that truth
is relative. (010)
It merely means that the sentence 'It is raining' is spoken
in a particular context. When taken out of context, it is
necessary to include information about the context; e.g., (011)
At 1 pm on Friday, 28 March 2008, in Croton on Hudson, NY,
it was raining. (012)
A statement of that form can be evaluated for its truth or falsity.
When taken out of context the question whether 'It is raining'
is true or false is meaningless. (013)
> If we consider stochastic and non-deterministic processes,
> this even becomes more relevant! (014)
I don't know what you intend the word 'this' to refer to. But
issues of truth or falsity about probabilities and processes
are no different, in principle, from the issues concerning
any other kinds of statements. (015)
I am not claiming, by the way, that it's easy to determine
whether a statement is true or false. Just consider the
problems that scientists and law courts have. But the
claims that truth is relative are only made by people who
are "in the grip of a theory". (016)
John (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (018)
|