Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HamiltonBrae t1_jc95vmi wrote

I dont know exactly what truth means, probably something similar to what many people think; "what is the case" or "what are the facts" but what does this mean? I don't think it can be specified in some way that reflects some objective standard.

"predictive modeling" maybe is a standard for belief (just in the sense of changing beliefs with regard to evidence), but it is not enough for truth.

>So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling?

ha this is almost like asking "did you come up with this belief via thinking"

1

zms11235 t1_jcclz35 wrote

Thinking rarely involves predictive modeling.

Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

1

HamiltonBrae t1_jcdohzh wrote

All Ive been talking about is how beliefs are supported by evidence and I think thats how most people think. They change their minds if they feel that their beliefs are no longer supported by the evidence they see.

As for non-contradiction, I don't know. It seems an obvious part of my general thought the overwhelming majority of the time but I do understand there are people with views and who have created logics that are not so strict about that. I am open to logical pluralism and/or nihilism.

1

zms11235 t1_jche50v wrote

So it's okay if we contradict ourselves? We shouldn't strive to have coherent paradigms?

1

HamiltonBrae t1_jcni16m wrote

well according to those logics and views there are some contradictions that are acceptable. im not saying that arbitrary contradictory sentences make sense and i dont even know too much about those views but im open to the idea that logic can be done in different ways.

 

even so, i dont think the idea of non-contradiction is enough to pick out truth because truth depends on the premises and if these are blurry or underdetermined or context dependent then its not straightforward.

1