What Defines Something to be True?

I assume you are referring to larger more meaningful cosmological and historical truths as opposed to tautologies and mathematics.


I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the masses, but I think the question as it stands is nonsensical.

The question needs to be turned on its head; instead of asking what defines something as true, you need to ask what could be the possible conditions for something considered true. For otherwise, you find yourself in an infinite regress.. you define something, only to once again ask if that could be true... and so on and so on.

So the bedrock of truth is belief, not knowledge, not a definition, not a theory. Something is true because you believe it to be true. That truth is usually taken at face value because it usually has authority, orthodoxy, culture, and tradition buttressing it. But we live in unusual times, and have reverted to an individualism that, in the style of the Greeks, interrogates the truths of our culture [if we have any left].

So then this interrogation is the idea of knowledge; how do we know something true when we believe it is true. It is a search for rational certainty. Now the Greeks defined knowledge as justified true belief. Notice that truth and belief are on the same side of the ledger. Not being complete morons, they allowed that we could still have beliefs based on customs even if we had no knowledge. The radical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus is one such example of this.

 

For something to be true it has to be backed by evidence and facts.

But what exactly is true? Is true a reality? A fact, story, something, or someone?

People believe deffierent truths without evidence. Like the existence of God and the none existence of a God.

I personally see the truth as something that comes inside of you. Not as something outside. Like when you are true to your word. Live by certain princples and values that do not harm others. Then you are true to yourself. On the other hand, outside truths are deceptive because what is true to you might not be true to you. You true justice is not like mine. Your true believes are different and so on.

 

Yes, this is the 'truth' of science. But when these kinds of questions are asked, as for example whether theory is really true of reality or just a model, then philosophy of science comes to the fore... and then, as I mentioned above, the search for a foundation of certainty becomes futile.

You essentially have a split into two camps where some choose to believe in realism, and others choose to believe in non-realism/ instrumentalism [interesting performative fact here is that the will is central to belief/ truth]. Personally, I think the more sophisticated the scientist is, the more likely they are to take the instrumentalist line.... it is also the less dogmatic line.

 

Yes. Thats what i personally believe.

 

From the modern philosophical perspective, I think the best thinker here would be Kant. His argument is that in virtue of being constituted as rational and moral agents we are constrained to think in a universal manner toward belief/ truth... and this from a thinker who is essentially a philosophic sceptic. We have a normative/ regulative idea of truth that informs our judgement... and though our belief can not itself be the object of knowledge [restricted only to so-called knowledge of outer experience/ empirical science], it can be, and must be, an a priori 'subjective' condition that conditions all thought. Or in other words, our minds are shaped a certain way to think in terms of truth and falsehood.

So the idea/ notion of ultimate truth is there, but it can not be delineated or grasped by pure thought or philosophy. I think Kant is the modern Sextus Empiricus in so far as he explicitly stated at the start of his project that 'he denied knowledge in order to make way for faith'. So truth is based on faith, and faith is based on authority/ orthodoxy not individual reason. It may be difficult for us to envisage this today because it involves reversing the Copernican revolution in thought that was modernity. But there is much sense in what he says in so far as one is compelled to be curious by the conundrums that philosophy will raise.

 

Because individuality is strong. For instance look at religion and how popular it is. People are not all educated and even educated people choose to be ignorant. They take in things that can not be proven. It gives them a sense of wonder.

 

Well, not exactly... and in seeing the duplicitous nature of scientific theory, it helps us understand belief in general.

When Newton 'discovered' gravity, he postulated a theory/ hypothesis. The scientific community of the day laughed at him at first for they were good old-fashioned followers of Galileo - science, along those lines, was based on laws of dynamics where forces would mechanically operate in terms of cause and effect. But here was this occult force called 'gravity', which was somehow supposed to operate on bodies at a distance. It was the mathematic predictions which swept the field in favor of the new theory. The community accepted [believed] the theory because it had predictive power. It worked. It is only because we are so accustomed to the use of the theory that we have been habituated to think of it as a fact true of reality.

 

When someone is ignorant, they lack awareness and knowledge to certain subject. Thus it takes away the truthfulness of it.

Relativism:"a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing"
The standard is going to be hard to measure or put. It will depend on the conditions of society at a given time.

There is no prove, one can not prove the thoughts of others. You simply cannot control the thoughts and believes of other people.

 

I completely disagree that truth is relative. Truth is, and has to be, 100% objective, outside of whatever we believe or think.

For example, in the God vs. no God debate, I believe there is a God. However, if God doesn't exist, then my belief in Him doesn't make Him exist. I would just be wrong. In that case "God doesn't exist" would be objectively true, whether I believe it or not.

Another example would be flat earth vs. Round earth. A long time ago, everyone believed the earth was flat. They also believed that all the planet's in our solar system revolved around the earth. Did their belief in those things make those things true? Absolutely not. They were just wrong. Those things didn't change when people started believing in them differently. The earth has always been round, and the solar system has always been heliocentric, whether we knew that or not.

Truth cannot be relative to how someone feels and thinks. Absolute truth, outside of yourself, has to exist. It would be impossible for that to not be the case. Because even if you were to say "Absolute truth doesn't exist," that statement, in itself, would be an absolute truth, therefore proving you wrong.

 

Haha.. I read the title of the thread and my first thought was: @Buzz Lightyear will love this.

Sure enough.. he's here! =]

For me, the idea as I understand it, remains simple: "Truth Is" ...it just is. The fact that there is such a thing as absolute truth and that it can be known is an important tenet in philosophical and religious discussions alike. Without that, the conversation and analysis is pretty out in the weeds (for me).

 

Truth comes from the individual. When there is new knowledge is it because it was proven by another individual. Everything around us is the result of researches. Theories and experiments that are done by people who look for the truth in certain things. What is "true" can be put into many different subjects. The subject of God, science, society, government or environment. Knowledge is not there by itself we look for it and teach it to people, yet some refuse to learn because they hate change and want to stick to their truths. My point is 'what defines something as true' is the individual. You can show the world how things should be done according to knowledge, but if they do not see it as part of their truth they will not accept it.

Knowledge helps us understand things better and view them from a different perspective. Then we can either find the truth or ignore it and keep believing in our ignorance.

I believe so, for instance in Saudi Arabia they believed that women shouldn't drive. They still believe that women are lower than men. For them that is true. The leader, king, rule, role model play a key role in shaping people's truths.

 

That's not where the truth comes from, though, that's just how we discover it. The truth is already there before we discover it. You actually acknowledge that yourself at the end of this quote, when you said "theories and experiments that are done by people who look for the truth in certain things." They are looking for truth, because truth already exists, waiting to be discovered.