Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of skepticism deny that rational knowledge or belief is possible and cause us to suspend judgment on the attribution of truth in many or all controversial issues. More moderate forms of skepticism only claim that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about the „big questions“ of life, such as whether God exists or whether there is life after death. Religious skepticism is „doubts about basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).“ [47] Scientific skepticism is the testing of the reliability of beliefs by systematically examining them using the scientific method to find empirical evidence against them. A variant of redundancy theory is discitation theory, which uses a modified form of the Tarsk scheme: saying that „P“ is true means that P. One version of this theory was defended by C. J. F. Williams in his book What is Truth? Another version of deflationism is the prosentential theory of truth, first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and Nuel Belnap as an elaboration of Ramsey`s claims. They argue that phrases like „That`s right,“ when said in response to „It`s raining,“ are propositions, phrases that merely repeat the content of other sentences. In the same way, it means the same thing as my dog in the sentence My dog was hungry, so I fed him, it`s true is supposed to mean the same thing as It`s raining – if you say the last one and then I say the first.
These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is not a property, but can be understood to mean that, for example, the statement „P“ may well contain an essential truth, and theorists in this case only minimize the redundancy or proposition associated with the statement such as „this is true“. [8] Beginning in the mid-19th century, this criticism led some philosophers to believe that they should focus on broader theories, rather than individual sentences or statements. Truth, from this point of view, must be a characteristic of the whole body of faith, which is seen as a system of logically interconnected components – the so-called „web of faith“. It could be, for example, an entire physical theory that makes a living by making predictions or empowering people to control things, or by simplifying and unifying otherwise separate phenomena. An individual belief in such a system is true if it is sufficiently consistent with or rationally logical in sufficient other beliefs; Alternatively, a belief system is true if it is sufficiently consistent internally. These are the views of British idealists, including F.H. Bradley and H.H. Joachim, who, like all idealists, reject the existence of mind-independent facts by which the truth of beliefs could be determined (see also Realism: Realism and Truth). The truth predicate „P is true“ has great practical value in human language and allows us to effectively support or challenge the claims of others, to emphasize the truth or falsity of a statement, or to enable various indirect (Greek) conversations. [68] Individuals or corporations sometimes punish „false“ statements to deter falsehoods; [69] The oldest existing legal text, the Ur-Nammu Codex, lists penalties for false accusations of witchcraft or adultery, as well as perjury in court. Even four-year-olds can pass simple „false faith tests“ and successfully judge that another individual`s faith deviates from reality in some way.
[70] As adults, we have strong implicit intuitions about „truth“ that form a „popular theory“ of truth. These intuitions include:[71] Pragmatism and negative pragmatism are also closely related to the theory of the coherence of truth, since each test should not be isolated, but should involve knowledge of all human endeavors and experiences. The universe is a complete and integrated system, and tests must recognize and take into account its diversity. As Feynman said, „. If he does not agree with the experience, it is false. [32] Although little known, a new variant of pragmatic theory was successfully defined and applied from the 20th century onwards. This variant, defined and named by William Ernest Hocking, is known as „negative pragmatism“. Essentially, what works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works.
[30] Richard Feynman also attributed to him: „We are never definitively right, we can only be sure that we are wrong.“ [31] This approach incorporates many of the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey. For Peirce, the idea of „. Endless research would tend to produce scientific beliefs. corresponds to negative pragmatism, because a negative pragmatist would never stop testing. As Feynman noted, an idea or a theory.“ could never be proven right, because tomorrow`s experiment might succeed in proving what you thought was right. [31] Similarly, James and Dewey`s ideas also attribute truth to repeated tests that „self-correct“ over time. Friedrich Nietzsche believed that the search for truth or „the will to truth“ was a consequence of the will to power of philosophers. He thought that truth should be used as long as it promoted life and the will to power, and he thought that lying was better than truth if he had this improvement in life accordingly. As he wrote in Beyond Good and Evil, „The falsity of judgment is not necessarily an objection to judgment for us. The question is to what extent it promotes life, maintains life, preserves species, perhaps even the reproduction of species. (Aphorism 4). He proposed the will to power as truth only because, in his opinion, it was the most assertive and sincere perspective one could have.
Komentari su zatvoreni.