[FoRK] RE: Is Truth an Accident? What would that mean?!
Russell Turpin <
deafbox at hotmail.com
> on >
Fri Sep 22 07:11:40 PDT 2006
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at radicalcentrism.org>:
>To what meta-paradigm are you appealing to state that your paradigm is
>"true" and mine is "false"?
I have no idea what it means for a paradigm to be "true."
I know what it means a mathematical statement to be true: that it is
valid in every model of the logical system to which the statement
belongs. That is not an accident for any sense of "accident" with
which I am familiar, but a necessary property of the logical system.
I also know what it means for some other kinds of statements to be
true. It is true that there is a pen on my desk, and false that there
is an elephant on my desk. It is pretty much an accident that there is
a pen on my desk. Sometimes, there isn't. The state of my desktop
varies, and sometimes it has some pens on it, and other times not. On
the other hand, the absence of an elephant has so far been constant,
and is not accidental, since I neither keep elephants, nor would my
desk hold even a small one. I think it is fairly important that this
sense of truth is different from the logical truth I explained in the
paragraph previous. A lot of sloppy philosophy derives from the
*assumption* that there is singular sense of "truth" that covers both
of these assertions, and everything else the philosopher wants to label
But paradigms? I have no idea what it means for one to be true. Can you
explain that? I have some sense of what it means for various states of
affairs to be an accident, as I discussed above. I have no idea at all
what it would mean to say that "truth" is an accident. So you have
raised some questions that I simply don't understand. I have no basis
for discussing the truth of paradigms, or the accidental nature of
>You may not find religious belief justified by your paradigm..
I didn't refer to a paradigm. I referred to the various arguments that
theists make to justify their belief.
>I don't find your lack of belief justifiable within *my* paradigm.
I find it very strange to require justification for LACK of belief.
Do you believe in every statement you stumble across, until something
causes you to lose that belief?
More information about the FoRK