Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Skeptic23]

Hi, I've been doing epistemology most of my life, and have finally arrived at a simple model I call "Paradigms of Truth". I wonder if you could let me know what you think about it?

//
There are two fundamental paradigms of truth. One is grounded, the other is not.

The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.

The untethered paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to what other trusted people say is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with credible narrators.

The grounded paradigm keeps our narratives about what's going on from floating off into the sky fueled by their own hot air.

The untethered paradigm inevitably breeds cults.
//

Thanks!

[Pattern-chaser]

There are two fundamental paradigms of truth. One is grounded, the other is not.

• The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.
• The untethered paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to what other trusted people say is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with credible narrators.

The grounded paradigm keeps our narratives about what's going on from floating off into the sky fueled by their own hot air.

The untethered paradigm inevitably breeds cults.

I offer my own reactions to your OP. They may not be what you are looking or hoping for, but they are the thoughts that occur to me as I read your OP.

Your first 'paradigm' seems to muddle together several different ideas. First, you suggest that Reality is the "ultimate reference", an idea that few would disagree with. And yet, philosophically-speaking, we don't know what Reality actually is. We could be brains-in-vats, for example, or simulations in some sort of programmed reality.

Secondly, you recommend that we accept the evidence of our senses, seeming to imply that our senses and our perceptual process are reliable indicators of what Reality is, when this is, at the least, a gross exaggeration. We see what we expect to see. This idea is now widely accepted, and there is much empirical evidence to support this hypothesis.

Therefore I conclude that your first 'paradigm' is not actually grounded, or perhaps that its 'groundedness' is exaggerated.




As to the second idea, it looks like an exposition of the logical fallacy 'Appeal to Authority'. It is true that there are experts who actually know what they're talking about, even though their opinions are not guaranteed to be true. It's just that they are more likely to be right than those of us who are less well informed in the subject of interest. And then there are self-appointed 'experts', who know no more than anyone else, who should probably be ignored ... but only if we can distinguish 'true' experts from charlatans.

If, as you say, the experts in question are trusted, deservedly so, then they are not charlatans. But even then, we cannot simply assume they are right, especially if so assuming leads to significant conclusions?

[Gee]

Hi, I've been doing epistemology most of my life, and have finally arrived at a simple model I call "Paradigms of Truth". I wonder if you could let me know what you think about it?

I would be happy to share information with you. Like most people, who study philosophy, I also have spent a great deal of time studying truth, and like you I have learned that truth is not a simple, static, singular thing. I wrote a thread in that regard, a few years back, that I called "Measures of Truth".

//
There are two fundamental paradigms of truth. One is grounded, the other is not.

This is true on a fundamental basis, but even the "grounded" truth is not always true as it is affected by time. I can say that I am alive, and it is true, but will it be true tomorrow? At some point, it will not be true.

The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.

Which is to say that truth is subjective just as experience is subjective. But this does not eliminate the possibilities of imagination or illusion or simple mistake, so subjective truth; although grounded, is not always true.

The untethered paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to what other trusted people say is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with credible narrators.

This sounds good. It's too bad that it often does not work. There is little more dangerous that a group of people who know what "is really going on" that confront another group who know what "is really going on". This is the stuff that riots and wars are made of.

The grounded paradigm keeps our narratives about what's going on from floating off into the sky fueled by their own hot air.

You have identified the worst weakness of philosophy -- believing our own imaginations and illusions. So how do we protect ourselves from floating off into the stratosphere with our imaginations and calling our imaginings truth?

There are three disciplines, that seek knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and Religion. I have found that if I hold one hand tightly to science and one hand tightly to religion, it prevents me from being betrayed by my own imaginings.

The untethered paradigm inevitably breeds cults.

This is also true, if you keep in mind that philosophy and science as well as religion can breed cults.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

There are two fundamental paradigms of truth. One is grounded, the other is not.

• The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.
• The untethered paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to what other trusted people say is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with credible narrators.

The grounded paradigm keeps our narratives about what's going on from floating off into the sky fueled by their own hot air.

The untethered paradigm inevitably breeds cults.

Your first 'paradigm' seems to muddle together several different ideas. First, you suggest that Reality is the "ultimate reference", an idea that few would disagree with. And yet, philosophically-speaking, we don't know what Reality actually is. We could be brains-in-vats, for example, or simulations in some sort of programmed reality.

Secondly, you recommend that we accept the evidence of our senses, seeming to imply that our senses and our perceptual process are reliable indicators of what Reality is, when this is, at the least, a gross exaggeration. We see what we expect to see. This idea is now widely accepted, and there is much empirical evidence to support this hypothesis.

Therefore I conclude that your first 'paradigm' is not actually grounded, or perhaps that its 'groundedness' is exaggerated.




As to the second idea, it looks like an exposition of the logical fallacy 'Appeal to Authority'. It is true that there are experts who actually know what they're talking about, even though their opinions are not guaranteed to be true. It's just that they are more likely to be right than those of us who are less well informed in the subject of interest. And then there are self-appointed 'experts', who know no more than anyone else, who should probably be ignored ... but only if we can distinguish 'true' experts from charlatans.

If, as you say, the experts in question are trusted, deservedly so, then they are not charlatans. But even then, we cannot simply assume they are right, especially if so assuming leads to significant conclusions?

I'm sorry, I somehow forgot to offer the central observation to this topic — Truth. The word has dozens of different meanings, all related, and all referring to truth in some way. A proper investigation of truth, in our philosophical sense, would take a book, or maybe a set of books, not just one topic.

Truths vary from 'my truth' — i.e. it's true for me; it might even be true for you too, maybe... — to the ultimate and absolute standard, Truth that conforms with what actually, and mind-independently, is, without contradiction.

[value]

The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.

What is determining the ultimate state of a reference? Would it involve the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy?

It reminds me of an assertion by a user on this forum:

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Would you agree with his assertion?

The idea that reality is 'really real' is based on a magical belief that underlays ontological realism. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking. The idea of an 'ultimate reference' seems to endorse such a belief.

[Pattern-chaser]

The grounded paradigm determines truth with ultimate reference to whatever is really going on, i.e., by experiential interaction with reality.

But what is "reality"? No, I'm not being deliberately mysterious. Is "reality" the world that your senses and perception show you? Or is it possible that the 'reality' apparent to you is not 'that which actually is, mind-independently'? In everyday terms, this is just, er, philosophy. But in philosophical terms, we try not to assert that of which we are unsure... Philosophically, it matters.

[Sea Turtle]

Hi, I've been doing epistemology most of my life, and have finally arrived at a simple model I call "Paradigms of Truth". I wonder if you could let me know what you think about it?

For me, truth is a choice. We decide based on our feelings. Nothing is automatically true for me. I must decide if it is true for me.

This word may be one of the most aggressively used tactics in the world to convince others of our opinion.

I can still remember the first time I found that a text book in school was incorrect. Yet it was being taught as the truth.

[rootseeker]

The two paradigms proposed are written in away that is vague. The contrast of the two paradigms is "experiential interaction with reality" with "experiential interaction with credible narrators" but because interaction with reality could include interaction with credible narrators the second paradigm is actually a subset of the first paradigm. Ultimate reference alludes to absolute objective truth. But there are paradigms of truth out there that don't involve an ultimate reference as relative truth.

"Truth may be discovered with exploration, instinct, and logic." -Rainbow Rock (book)

"There are three disciplines, that seek knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and Religion" -Gee (on this thread)

I would combine the Rainbow Rock ideas with Gee's by saying three paths to truth include the exploration of philosophy as a strategy, logic of science as tactics, and the instinct of religion as initiative. I think it can be said that truth is expressed as information. When someone has 100% confidence in a belief, they have a perception of truth. If that perception were shared by an all-knowing being having access to all information in the universe, then it would be absolutely objectively true. The point there is that truth can stated in absolute or relative terms, and a set of fundamental truth paradigms should address that.

Philosophy, science, and religion could all be considered branches of each other in some way so there is overlap there. But I do think the more useful interpretation is for science and religion to both be branches of philosophy. Religion is a lifestyle based on supreme being(s). Supreme being(s) control physics. Science studies physics. Philosophy studies both science and religion directly. Religion doesn't study philosophy so much as offer a philosophy.

[Good_Egg]

There is a distinction worth making between
- first-hand experience (I know that ghosts exist because I've seen one),
- second-hand experience (I know that ghosts exist because a person I trust reports having seen one)
- distant experience (I know that ghosts exist because it is reported that some people somewhere have seen them, even though I don't know exactly who/when/where that was).

But these all reflect the same underlying concept of truth. That there is an objective reality which can be perceived, and thereby at least partially known. And truth involves correspondence with that reality.

The fact that our perception and reporting are error-prone in various ways does not disprove that concept. But does mean that we tend to look for multiple independent observations where possible, rather than relying on one.

The brain-in-a-vat idea is a separate challenge. Which does not deny the existence of everyday reality or our ability to perceive it, but suggests that behind it lurks a deeper reality.