2012/11/11 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > On 11 Nov 2012, at 01:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > It is an observable fact. is obviously true that if you live in a > society where everyone take something as true , no matter what, then it is > true for one of its members, you, for example. > > > That's correct. But that still does not make it true. Sometimes everybody > can be wrong. > > That´s the reson why truth can only be defined in objective terms as a belief (except perhaps in the realm of mathematics). When I say this is true, I´m saying that I believe that this is true.
So truth in the realm of experience means "accepted as truth" in a certain context. We can´nt go further than that if we want to stay objective (or tautological). Thay point of view would be pure relativism unless natural selection is considered. The absolute requirement of existence of the minds which habites in the environmment of the laws of reality makes certain truths possible and certain alternatives impossible. For example, that "electrons collapse in the nucleus is" can never be true for any living being. neither "Mothers don´t love their children" for the very same reason in humans. Because these candidates for truth are incompatible with the existence of minds (1) and the human mind (2). In the middle, there are many truths that can be accepted as truths in some contexts, no matter if they are later refuted. Our time is by no means any different from other times in history. Almost all that we known can be proved wrong in a way or other. except perhaps mathematics (and not even that, if we don´t consider life ( autopoietic computation) as criteria for existence). To summarize, to say that all may be wrong is not an impediment for a objective study of truth as as a evolutionary phenomenon and his closed identity with what exist and is perceived good . I mean, that this historic consideration is the only objective non speculative method of considering the notion of Truth, whatever if it is considered in capital letters or not. I may say that truth is an evolutionary (historical) path to Truth. (1) What is objective is the study of beliefs (historical truths) and the testing of hypothesis of why these beliefs (truths) exist. and others do not. (2)What is speculative, and has no firm ground, is to say "This is true" without concern for the fact that this is the expression of a *belief*. the people in (2) are a subject of study for the people in (1). modal logic is something instrumental for (1) pure logic is instrumental for (2) people in (1) must explain the reductions from (1) to (2). I gave here a way to do this last. I still did´nt do that formally. > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.