Truth and context

[BadBoyofCosmology]

I point at the sky and say, "That is up", but for someone on the opposite side of the planet it is the opposite direction. That's an example of something truthful in one context, and false in another.

Ambiguous perhaps. Since flat Earth theory was dismissed, up is not always the same direction. The definition of "up" in this context, is relative to the earth.

My first impression is that there is nothing that is only true in its own context, that fallacies are created out of ambiguity and illogic. Untrue things, like earth centric theory, can make accurate predictions without being true. Not knowing better, you would say,"it is true in it's own context" which it is not...it just hasn't been disproven yet.

Tangent: Most people think the North pole of the Earth is up and the South pole is down. Not from the POV of space, just because it was people in the Northern Hemisphere who developed maps and globes.

[wuliheron]

I point at the sky and say, "That is up", but for someone on the opposite side of the planet it is the opposite direction. That's an example of something truthful in one context, and false in another.

Ambiguous perhaps. Since flat Earth theory was dismissed, up is not always the same direction. The definition of "up" in this context, is relative to the earth.

My first impression is that there is nothing that is only true in its own context, that fallacies are created out of ambiguity and illogic. Untrue things, like earth centric theory, can make accurate predictions without being true. Not knowing better, you would say,"it is true in it's own context" which it is not...it just hasn't been disproven yet.

Tangent: Most people think the North pole of the Earth is up and the South pole is down. Not from the POV of space, just because it was people in the Northern Hemisphere who developed maps and globes.

So now you know what most people think. That's good, we can open a new forum for psychics.

Up and down are demonstrably arbitrary directions and there is nothing ambiguous about it. To an astronaut in orbit up is whatever direction they choose to call up in the moment. I can look at some abstract statue and decide whatever side I want is the "front" or "back" or "top" or "bottom". They're just useful labels we give things and there is no proof they are anything more then that. In fact, I'd say the whole idea they must have some deeper absolute meaning is nothing more then primitive superstition. The whole shamanistic idea that somehow words have supernatural power. "In the beginning was the word..." and all that nonsense.

[BadBoyofCosmology]

Most people think the North pole of the Earth is up and the South pole is down. Not from the POV of space, just because it was people in the Northern Hemisphere who developed maps and globes.

So now you know what most people think. That's good, we can open a new forum for psychics.

Please stop quoting every entire post i do followed with some insulting remark. Quotes are for dealing with any individual points, not for just condemning every entire post of specific people or ideology.

For an unscientific statement like this to be ridiculed is unneccessary. I am supposed to provide a reference or written statements to prove that almost every person I meet thinks the North pole is up, like it is depicted in every map I have seen?

If you are not just being abusive answer me this question:
Have you ever seen a map or globe where the south pole is on the "top"?

Don't pretend you don't know what I mean by "top".

[wuliheron]

Most people think the North pole of the Earth is up and the South pole is down. Not from the POV of space, just because it was people in the Northern Hemisphere who developed maps and globes.

So now you know what most people think. That's good, we can open a new forum for psychics.

Please stop quoting every entire post i do followed with some insulting remark. Quotes are for dealing with any individual points, not for just condemning every entire post of people you hate.

For an unscientific statement like this to be ridiculed is unneccessary. I am supposed to provide a reference or written statements to prove that almost every person I meet thinks the North pole is up, like it is depicted in every map I have seen?

If you are not just being abusive answer me this question:
Have you ever seen a map or globe where the south pole is on the "top"?

Don't pretend you don't know what I mean by "top".

This is a philosophy forum within a science forum and to assume that philosophy just means expressing your personal opinions is mistaken. Like science academic philosophy demands explicit definitions, rigorous arguments, and evidence. If you want to express your personal opinions that's fine by me, but at least express them as such.

As for the north pole being "up", that is only in the context of when looking at a globe. Like I said, to an astronaut in orbit any direction can be up and appeals to popularity as evidence to the contrary is a fallacy. For a list of fallacies just do a google search.

[BadBoyofCosmology]

As for the north pole being "up", that is only in the context of when looking at a globe.

You also believe that North is up, after disagreeing with my assertion that most people believe that.(?!?!)

I asked you kindly not to quote my entire thread. You did it again, obviously out of spite.

Moderator?

[wuliheron]

LOL, quoting your entire post was just an accident on my part. It's a habit to ensure other people know I am talking to you in particular and to ensure you understand exactly what you said I am talking about.

You obviously still don't get it. Appeals to popular authority is a logical fallacy. The vast majority of humanity believed the earth was flat at one time, but it turned out they were wrong. It is simply not a valid argument by any academic philosophical standard.

Also, the idea that most people think of the north pole on a globe being "up" is not the same thing as saying they think of the north pole of the earth as "up". It means on the globe they think of that as up merely because that is a convention society has adopted. We've adopted countless other conventions such as calling electrons "negatively" charged when we could have just as easily called them "positively" charged. Like up and down the two terms define each other and they can be arbitrarily assigned to anything.

I run into the same issue a lot of time with people insisting everything is made of "energy" when, in fact, energy is defined by matter and its just circular logic and not even a tautological argument.

[BadBoyofCosmology]

Also, the idea that most people think of the north pole on a globe being "up" is not the same thing as saying they think of the north pole of the earth as "up".

You know how people think now? Hey earl, we got one dem psychics heer.

You obviously still don't get it.

Obvious to who? I don't get what?

It means on the globe they think of that as up merely because that is a convention society has adopted.

Thats what I said. You tell me I'm wrong by restating me? You're not very good at logical debate, are you?

You obviously still don't get it.

[BadgerJelly]

How about instead of dismissing each statement the other makes you both ask "WHY do you think that?" instead of using what to me seems like ridicule??

How can anyone learn anything like this? How does not agreeing help you learn?

[wuliheron]

How about instead of dismissing each statement the other makes you both ask "WHY do you think that?" instead of using what to me seems like ridicule??

How can anyone learn anything like this? How does not agreeing help you learn?

It doesn't and that's why I see no point in continuing.

[neuro]

This thread has been split from [Hawkins, "Phylosophy is dead"], because it raises a distinct question.
It would be nice that the topic itself were to be discussed.
Questions about how a debate should be conducted, and netiquette, can be specifically discussed elsewhere in the Forums.

[BadBoyofCosmology]

How about instead of dismissing each statement the other makes

Don't put me in his camp. He answers no questions i ask him. he wages war, doesn't seek any truth, only wants to derail anyone outside his circle.

I address every issue, logically without prejudice.

If you are his friend, you don't like that I stand up to him, i am handling his rudeness in the most appropriate manner.

I have been schooled in behaviour modification.

You are attributing his rudeness to the person handling the rudeness.

[owleye]

I point at the sky and say, "That is up", but for someone on the opposite side of the planet it is the opposite direction. That's an example of something truthful in one context, and false in another.

Ambiguous perhaps. Since flat Earth theory was dismissed, up is not always the same direction. The definition of "up" in this context, is relative to the earth.

I'm not up to speed on this topic, as it appears to have begun as an offshoot of another topic about which I wasn't a participant.

I would tend to align myself with you in the sense that the content of the cited remark isn't particularly coherent. Where I might differ is in what might be called the depth of your critique. My thinking is that what's wrong with "something true in one context, but false in another context" is that there is already an assumption that one's use of 'truth' and 'falsity' belongs to its context. It is something that one takes for granted. One cannot lift 'truth' out of the context of its use, as if its context can be separated from it. Now it may be that we sometimes are confused about the context, as for example, when we correct a mistaken direction ("No, I meant 'my left'.). The emphasis here is that there was some confusion over the context, not that the context independently makes statements true or not true. One might say that the truth or falsity depends on the context whenever there is a problem in interpretation, where there is a disagreement on what was meant by the author of the statement. In that case, if we are 'truth seekers', we will not be focussed on the "ambiguity" of the truth here, rather what we will be seeking is the context that was actually intended by the statement.

I hope this isn't too subtle a point, but I can sense that within your critique you seem to remain aligned to the idea that (at least in the matter of direction) we can place a statement's truth about it in some higher plane. I base this in how you characterized it in the following: "Since flat Earth theory was dismissed, up is not always the same direction." What I read by this is that you somehow think 'direction' has more truth in it than 'up' does. It's as if you think there is some absolute direction about which 'up' could be aligned with or not depending on its context. I suspect this would be a mistaken interpretation on my part, since you could respond by saying that what you meant is that your use of 'direction' was meant only to mean that if we changed the context to one in which it was aligned with something that is essentially fixed, then, obviously, the relative nature of 'up' will be clearly revealed. This form of thinking is more or less how we are taught kinematics. We establish a basic frame of reference and then transform all other frames into it. However, this is done for instrumental reasons. If one can show that some frame of reference is a 'natural one' because its motion is in large measure independent of other frames, then problems are more easily solved. What this should mean is that directionality and motion are not arbitrarily relative, but not so much as to say that we can adopt an absolute reference frame that covers all direction and motion.

James

(PS. This is analysis off the top of my head. I anticipate that there will be flaws in it. But I also anticipate that it is a well-established topic about which much has been written in current philosophy. I welcome both correction and anyone's recognition of arguments either aligned or contrary to what I argue for.)

[wuliheron]

The issue is what is demonstrable rather then what is the "real truth" or "absolute truth". Demonstrably what "truth" means depends on the context and people who insist there is some sort of absolute or ultimate truth fall into the category of religious and metaphysical nuts. Personally I couldn't care less if you believe the universe is made of lime jello or is a giant wind up coo coo clock, but the fact is it cannot be demonstrated that this is the case.

[owleye]

The issue is what is demonstrable rather then what is the "real truth" or "absolute truth". Demonstrably what "truth" means depends on the context and people who insist there is some sort of absolute or ultimate truth fall into the category of religious and metaphysical nuts. Personally I couldn't care less if you believe the universe is made of lime jello or is a giant wind up coo coo clock, but the fact is it cannot be demonstrated that this is the case.

This claim may fail of its own accord merely on the basis of its categorical nature. Would you say that the statement "all truths depend on their context" is true without reference to any context or would it imply there is some context in which it is true?

In any case, I'm not sure of the need to make such a strong statement about truths. It would be my understanding about context that statements in which they are needed in order to understand whether they are true or false could merely be altered to include the context within the statement. The contextual framework is usually omitted because it is often assumed and makes communication a lot easier.

James

[wuliheron]

The issue is what is demonstrable rather then what is the "real truth" or "absolute truth". Demonstrably what "truth" means depends on the context and people who insist there is some sort of absolute or ultimate truth fall into the category of religious and metaphysical nuts. Personally I couldn't care less if you believe the universe is made of lime jello or is a giant wind up coo coo clock, but the fact is it cannot be demonstrated that this is the case.

This claim may fail of its own accord merely on the basis of its categorical nature. Would you say that the statement "all truths depend on their context" is true without reference to any context or would it imply there is some context in which it is true?

In any case, I'm not sure of the need to make such a strong statement about truths. It would be my understanding about context that statements in which they are needed in order to understand whether they are true or false could merely be altered to include the context within the statement. The contextual framework is usually omitted because it is often assumed and makes communication a lot easier.

James

Your insinuation is a false dichotomy. What I am asserting is simple and straight forward: Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts.

As for making communication easier, that is not a measure of "absolute truth".

[owleye]

It doesn't appear you have addressed my criticisms. However, let me ignore that for the time being as your reply is troubling for a different reason.

In this latest post you introduce a translation of what you earlier claimed. In the earlier post you spoke about truths, whereas in this post you speak about meanings. Statements and propositions are what have truth value. Words have meanings. (Statements have meaning as well.) If I'm to understand what you mean in accordance with how you worded it in the two posts, it could be a sign you are confusing the concept of truth with that of meaning. Despite this, though, I find your latter post more agreeable, and I could reconcile the two sorts of claims you are making as they relate to the use of context as essentially the same thing by supposing that truth or falsity of a statement depends on the meaning of the statement as it is comprised of the words chosen to represent it, each having a specific meaning in the context of the intended meaning of the sentence. Presumably there is some relationship between the statement and the words that comprise it, each of which makes a contribution to it and in some sense establishes its meaning, or at least it would if there was ample clarification in the form of additional words.

One thing about this translation, however, is that it highlights my second criticism. In the way I tried to make sense of your translation I added a clause indicating a possible need to clarify the use of some of the words in some declaration in order to provide its context. In my view, this would be needed if there was some confusion. However, in the way in which you word your claim in the second post, it makes it appear as if the required context is something that is beyond language. When you claim words have meaning only in their context, it would seem as if there's something about the concept of context that doesn't allow it to have a meaning per se, or at least a meaning that can be put into words. But I suppose, there is another possibility. Which is that the words used to provide any meaning to a context must be once removed -- perhaps having some meaning in a meta-language -- and that this should be then applied recursively.)

James

[wuliheron]

You ramble. I suggest using more punctuation and limiting yourself to five sentences per paragraph.

Again, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function is specific contexts. That includes the "truth" or "falsity" of any statements. They only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. This is something that is easily demonstrated and any insistence they have some deeper absolute meaning is what needs to be proved.

[owleye]

You ramble. I suggest using more punctuation and limiting yourself to five sentences per paragraph.

Again, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function is specific contexts. That includes the "truth" or "falsity" of any statements. They only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. This is something that is easily demonstrated and any insistence they have some deeper absolute meaning is what needs to be proved.

Tell me what role 'context' is playing in your argument? After all, it's a word that I can only assume has some meaning. Right?

James

[CanadysPeak]

Since this thread is in Philosophy of Science, it seems correct to use standard scientific language and methods. In the same sense that "left" or "right" only have meaning relative to an observer (that's "left", not "left-handed"), so "up" and "down" require a reference.

"Down" is the direction of the local acceleration, preferably when seen through a very low pass filter. "Up" is the other way. No context is required since this can be observed and measured in the complete absence of language. That is to say, the simple act of allowing water to flow establishes "up" and "down" unambiguously and free of context.

[owleye]

Since this thread is in Philosophy of Science, it seems correct to use standard scientific language and methods. In the same sense that "left" or "right" only have meaning relative to an observer (that's "left", not "left-handed"), so "up" and "down" require a reference.

"Down" is the direction of the local acceleration, preferably when seen through a very low pass filter. "Up" is the other way. No context is required since this can be observed and measured in the complete absence of language. That is to say, the simple act of allowing water to flow establishes "up" and "down" unambiguously and free of context.

You may be presenting a counter-example but I might imagine that wulheron could regard gravity to be the context that gives 'up' its meaning. I can't be sure of this because I don't know exactly what he means by 'context'. I do know he has repeated his claim a number of times, perhaps motivated by some idea of truth being relative, or that there are no absolutes. What has bothered me mostly is that I've never once seen any reasoning that supports his claim. He seems to make it dogmatically. (On the other hand maybe he's given it somewhere that I haven't seen and he doesn't wish to repeat it. However, I have my doubts about this possibility since in one of his posts on this topic thread he seems to think he need not provide support because the burden should fall on those who would challenge his position.) If his position is that truth is relative, it has a kinship with what the sophists were emphasizing (they being lawyers), on which Plato strongly objected, providing a detailed and I think devastating argument against this possibility. (I'd have to dig into my library to find it, though I suppose it could be found quickly by way of Mr. Google.)

James

[CanadysPeak]

[You may be presenting a counter-example but I might imagine that wulheron could regard gravity to be the context that gives 'up' its meaning. . . .

James

I cannot speak for, or against, Wuliheron, but I believe, as have many philosophers, that context is always tied to language. A sophist might get away with arguing that gravity is a language-dependent construct, but I cannot admit that acceleration is. Even my cat is able to detect acceleration. My cat, of course, does not know the word "up", and one (again, I think, a sophist) might argue that the use of that label automatically puts the whole question back into a contextual one. I would argue that, were we to wander down that road, we should soon find ourselves little different from babbling babies who repeat sounds because it pleases them, or relieves gas, or some such self-contained motive.

Everything cannot be held to be relative to context or we lose the ability to communicate verbally. At some point, a word or two must mean something.

[owleye]

I cannot speak for, or against, Wuliheron, but I believe, as have many philosophers, that context is always tied to language. A sophist might get away with arguing that gravity is a language-dependent construct, but I cannot admit that acceleration is. Even my cat is able to detect acceleration. My cat, of course, does not know the word "up", and one (again, I think, a sophist) might argue that the use of that label automatically puts the whole question back into a contextual one. I would argue that, were we to wander down that road, we should soon find ourselves little different from babbling babies who repeat sounds because it pleases them, or relieves gas, or some such self-contained motive.

Everything cannot be held to be relative to context or we lose the ability to communicate verbally. At some point, a word or two must mean something.

What is a language dependent construct? Are you thinking of artificial languages, like computer languages, in which all its constructs refer to how they are constructed? Or perhaps something like "The cat is on the mat." which might depend on some artificial definition of 'cat', 'on', 'mat' and so forth that is merely conventional?

Pursuing this further, let me suppose neither of the above gets to what you have in mine. My supposition about language has been that it's not only a useful tool for dealing with the world, but one in which we can't escape, as it is pretty much an essential ingredient of our humanity. Now, my foray into literature has taught me that some (rather few) of us aren't well-equipped or possibly even feral with respect to our language capabilities, and it takes rather a genius like Faulkner to communicate it as he does in "The Sound the the Fury", or as Joyce or Wolff do in their narrative forms of writing, but I'm not such as to think that language in its utility is merely an artificially constructed game we are playing. Given this, I believe I can safely dissociate myself from having to take such cases into consideration.

So, when I regard words or sentences as having some meaning, I'm regarding that meaning as establishing a basis on which a word or a sentence, even in garbled forms, can be used to communicate or express something about the world in which we live. Said basis is sometimes conveyed in ways that are tailored to a particular context (as for example, in how a biologist understands the term 'selfish' when used to describe a gene). While it's true that some words have a number of senses (specific meanings), context could be a way of discerning which one is intended. Could this be what you mean? I find this idea of what a context is to be agreeable, and as such, I can't say as it should be something so significant that one would claim that every word requires one. Newly coined words (e.g., truthiness) usually don't have such contexts, though over time, they may acquire them because folks (or someone) may come to appropriate them for some new use.

However, if some aspect of the world can be regarded as a context, then, to use the example of gravity, 'up' and 'down' could be said to have no meaning in a zero-gravity environment. As previously indicated, I can't say whether wuliheron has this in mind, but I too would find this to be off-target, suggesting that there should be a better term than 'context' to describe this idea (i.e., it would be placed in a different category of relativity).

James

[CanadysPeak]

James,

I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing as zero gravity. Low gravity, but not zero. But, in any event, I think we could regard the question as leading to a "down" field, with a direction everywhere in space. But, I think we might not get too far discussing what Wuliheron meant when she's not here.

I agree that language is probably an integral part of our brain development and subsequent thinking process. Moreover, I also concede that symbols can have context as well as words can. Someone (can't remember who) just wrote a book on puns in heiroglphics, so context does count for a lot. I am just uncomfortable with context being the ultimate defining limit on meaning, as I think Wuliheron meant.

[owleye]

James,

I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing as zero gravity. Low gravity, but not zero. But, in any event, I think we could regard the question as leading to a "down" field, with a direction everywhere in space. But, I think we might not get too far discussing what Wuliheron meant when she's not here.

I agree that language is probably an integral part of our brain development and subsequent thinking process. Moreover, I also concede that symbols can have context as well as words can. Someone (can't remember who) just wrote a book on puns in heiroglphics, so context does count for a lot. I am just uncomfortable with context being the ultimate defining limit on meaning, as I think Wuliheron meant.

With respect to 'up' and 'down' in the world of the astronaut while in orbit I get the impression that they are used only with reference to the layout of the cabin or possibly the ship they are in. Otherwise and while on "space walks" they would generally say that there is no 'up' or 'down'. This implies only that gravity is sufficiently weak that it doesn't play much of a role in their reference frame. My use of "zero-gravity" didn't intend more than this. In any case, I would agree that in the absence of Wuliheron, this sort of reference frame may not be worth discussing further.

This issue of 'context' has considerable relevancy within Phenomenology and Jacques Derrida made his fame from his pronouncements about text and context. A simple Google search brought up this web-page, where I pick out one paragraph in which the journalism professor, Mitchell Stephens, is deconstructing Derrida as follows:

The problem, Derrida contends, is that meaning is always dependent on context. " 'There is nothing outside the text,' " he explains in a recent book, "means there is nothing outside context." And since the context in which words might be read or heard can always shift, meanings are impossible to completely pin down -- and the distinctions we base on them ultimately rest on sand.

James

[phillyjewels]

Truth has no context. Up and down/right and left/hot and cold, etc, are quite simply different degrees of the same thing. Truth has no variables. Reality, on the other hand, is dependent upon perception. Reality is based upon the ability to perceive. Truth is truth whether it is "perceived" it or not!

[neuro]

Truth has no context. Up and down/right and left/hot and cold, etc, are quite simply different degrees of the same thing. Truth has no variables. Reality, on the other hand, is dependent upon perception. Reality is based upon the ability to perceive. Truth is truth whether it is "perceived" it or not!

Hi philly,
I find all this rather confusing.

What do you mean by truth?
Doesn't Truth apply to statements about what exists?
Doesn't "to be true" mean for a statement to precisely correspond to reality?
But then you say reality depends on perception...

Are you claiming that TRUTH belongs to the domain of metaphysics, whereas REALITY belongs to that of epistemology?
Or possibly suggesting a view à la Plato?

Would you care to better specify?

[owleye]

Yes, he does seem to be mixing up truth and reality. It's an interesting metaphysics "It's real to me" is currency in this way of thinking and Truth is elevated above all. I suspect such a metaphysics is more likely to be found among those inclined toward certain religious explanations, where we find the Word of God representing Truth, and reality becomes the domain of mortals. As such, Platonism (though not quite Plato himself) was probably influential to such considerations.

James