Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The true definition of fact.

Posted Jun 5, '14 at 2:32pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,942 posts

I read it, and a syllogism has 3 factors (P,Q,R) not 2 (P and Q). have you yourself read the article?


From The Article:
[...] the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced.

That is a syllogism; plain and simple.

If P, then Q [major premise; conditional]
Q is R [minor premise]
Therefore, P is ˺R [conclusion]

Here we have a hypothetical syllogism (authough an invalid one, because it equates ˺R with R), where R is "false".

I'm having some trouble following the previous paragraph, though. There are a few ways I can see your line of thought going, but I don't want to put words in your mouth


Well, if we start with the claim:
There are no objective truths.
and apply condition 2:
it is only true relative to some epistemic system.
we have to conclude that there are epistemic systems where the truth is objective. Because objective truth is universally applicable, the claim cannot be true in any system.
 

Posted Jun 5, '14 at 3:44pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,280 posts

Moderator

Oh I get it!! Hrrmmmm. There's a very similar line we could take to object to global relativism that I think you're after. More on this later.

So let's take some proposition, P. Once we're in some epistemic system, it's not that P becomes objectively true within that system. An objective truth is something that is true independently of what we think, believe, or accept. Since P is only true within a (or particular set of) epistemic system(s), it's not objectively true. In other words, it depends on what epistemic system we accept that determines whether or not P is true. So the truth of P depends on what we think, believe or accept and thus it's not an objective truth.

But maybe this is what you're after: suppose you accept global relativism and I accept some other epistemic system in which there are objective truths. Now it looks like you'd have to say that it's true that there are objective truths - at least relative to my epistemic system! So now what?

 

Posted Jun 5, '14 at 5:29pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,942 posts

But maybe this is what you're after: suppose you accept global relativism and I accept some other epistemic system in which there are objective truths. Now it looks like you'd have to say that it's true that there are objective truths - at least relative to my epistemic system! So now what?


I consider it more a question of what is correct than what is accepted. Because objective truth is, by definition, independent of circumstances, its existence is either universally true or universally false. Because the global relativist claim cannot be universally true, it cannot be true at all.
 
Reply to The true definition of fact.

You must be logged in to post a reply!