Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_jbf9mus wrote

Reply to comment by IAI_Admin in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin

I agree with the premises but not the conclusion. It is true that we tend to define "true" as those beliefs we hold that are both useful and cohesive with our other beliefs. It is further true that those criteria aren't definitive - we can never be certain about truth, and spend roughly a third of our lives in dreams that are pure illusion. Nevertheless, the inability to be certain of the truth doesn't mean that separating truth from fiction has no benefit or isn't meaningful. There is a reason a society based on the scientific method ends up much more advanced than one based purely in myth.

16

[deleted] t1_jbfip0f wrote

Do you mean, the inability to separate (uncertain, you admit) truth from (likewise uncertain) myth is meaningful, as borne out through a society's technological advancement? This seems like a nod to choosing a truth-position mostly based on its utility...

Well and to provoke a little, I would ask you to show me "a society that is based on the scientific method". I have not seen one lately.

If you admit that the truth is uncertain, but something like "rigorous justification" should be adopted within certain human modes (like tech or science), then it seems like you agree with the OP.

7

XiphosAletheria t1_jbflb1p wrote

>Do you mean, the inability to separate (uncertain, you admit) truth from (likewise uncertain) myth is meaningful, as borne out through a society's technological advancement? This seems like a nod to choosing a truth-position mostly based on its utility...

Sure, yes. That's largely why we care about the truth, after all. We believe operating on truth will result in better outcomes than operating on lies (in general, I'm sure you could come up with specific tortured examples in which that isn't the case). But generally, we care whether X is true because what we should do to get the outcomes we want changes depending on if it is or not. If "easy access to guns leads to more homicides" is true, then banning guns will lower the homicide rate (useful). If it is false, then doing so won't impact the homicide rate while driving up resentment among those affected (the opposite of useful). So knowing whether the statement is true lets us pick the better policy.

And your comment, like OPs, seems to imply a false dichotomy between "certain" and "uncertain". But we have degrees of certainty, and saying something is "true" has only ever meant that we have a high degree of certainty about something, and that is still a meaningful statement.

Basically, just because you can be wrong about what is true doesn't mean that truth should be dismissed as unimportant.

9

[deleted] t1_jbfoy4h wrote

I can understand all of that, but it seems like you would agree with the OP. There is no BIG T Truth, but there are many little truths and should be sought out on the bases of utility.

I don't think that professor Blackburn thinks the truths are unimportant at all, but he might say that Truth big T is ineffable.

2

XiphosAletheria t1_jbg8ifr wrote

I am not sure that Truth with a big T even makes sense. Unless you are religious maybe, but even then the truth about the existence of God, although very important, would still be a truth about a specific thing, and so a "little" truth in that sense.

3