Hey Stef. I have been listening to you for around a year and this is the first time I have disagreed with you. So I’m probably wrong but I can’t see the flaw in my thinking and I’d love your take on it.
So it’s around your discussion about what is truth and if someone, say a madman says something that happens to align with reality before it can be proven is that a true statement?
My argument would be, yes it is a true statement, however this can not be known until it can be proven and the statement itself has no value other than vague interest.
So to take the example given a mad man happens to be recorded in say 500 AD saying the earth orbits the sun. He is dismissed as a lunatic. Was his random statement true? I would argue it was true however that could not be known until the point at which it was shown that the earth orbiting the sun fixed the irregular orbit issue. At that point however the madman would be proven to be speaking a true statement.
However it would be the first person to actually prove the theory that would get credit for the discovery, not the madman - who happened to guess correctly. At the point the theory was proven knowledge of the truth propagates both forwards and backwards in time and whoever said it, it would now be known to be true regardless of when or where they said it. It is still the case that although we now know that the statement was true when said they could not have known this as it was not yet proven.
So we have two things, objective reality that exists and our knowledge of it that can only be interpreted from evidence.
Another example is University exams. After the exam is sat the result is set. However that exam result can not be known until the exam has been graded and the result communicated to you. If you come out of an exam and say “I got 68.5%” then that could be true but it is just a guess. You would not for example be able to get a job on that assertion as it can not be proven.
When you open the envelope does not change the reality of how you did in the exam. It simply collapses the probabilities both backwards and forwards in time. At that point you know what your result when you took the test was. It has not changed since that point however you can only know it once you get the result at which point you can start using that result to say apply for jobs.
So in summary my argument is
- Objective reality exists
- Our knowledge of reality does not change reality
- Things are true or false based on their agreement to reality
- Statements are therefore true or false based on their alignment with reality, not our knowledge of it
- However we can not know what it true or false until it is proven
- We can only say of a statement was true or false after we have proven the reality, but when a statement was said does not change its truth.
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
Get Peaceful Parenting now!
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
Join us at Locals!