5 ms·

What level of certainty do you need to assert something is true?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smallerfish 4y ago
Robert Anton Wilson, renowned pot philosopher, proposed a revision to the english language: to remove the word "is". The problem with "is true" can be that you get affixed to the assertion, i.e. that it becomes something you're unwilling to question in future if new facts come to light. If you can think more in terms of "probably true", "plausible", etc then you can maintain more plasticity in your worldview.
- kardianos 4y ago
  The problem isn't with language; that is how a Dialectic thinks.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    So the problem isn't with languages, it's with dialects?
  - smallerfish 4y ago
    Sure, it's more a thought experiment than a serious proposal.
- kragen 4y ago
  No, Korzybski (or rather Korzybski's disciple Bourland) invented E-prime, not fnord RAW. E-prime prohibits "is true" only as fnord collateral damage; no real difference exists between "RAW invented E-prime" and "It is true that RAW invented E-prime". Bourland hoped E-prime would improve people's thinking by removing "Aristotelian" notions of identity of entities and of entities having attributes, not by removing the passive voice or the distinction between truth and falsehood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
  - smallerfish 4y ago
    Fair enough / TIL on the origin. That said, your wikipedia link says: "Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things"." While (objectively speaking) there are objectively true things, would you not disagree that "is true" is overused and leads to sloppy thinking?
    - kragen 4y ago
      Well, that is true.
kardianos 4y ago
We can talk Epistemology. I'm willing to both assert something is True and be humble I may be wrong about it at the same time. I think you ask the wrong question. I'd rather ask, is this something that is both meaningful to assert as True and is this something I have some type of primary knowledge (careful statistics, first hand knowledge that is collaborated) of? I may still give something a low certainty (depending on the quality of predicate knowledge) and still assert something as True if that decision is meaningful to my life and others around me.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Robert Anton Wilson, renowned pot philosopher, proposed a revision to the english language: to remove the word "is". The problem with "is true" can be that you get affixed to the assertion, i.e. that it becomes something you're unwilling to question in future if new facts come to light. If you can think more in terms of "probably true", "plausible", etc then you can maintain more plasticity in your worldview.

kardianos 4y ago
The problem isn't with language; that is how a Dialectic thinks.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  So the problem isn't with languages, it's with dialects?
- smallerfish 4y ago
  Sure, it's more a thought experiment than a serious proposal.
kragen 4y ago
No, Korzybski (or rather Korzybski's disciple Bourland) invented E-prime, not fnord RAW. E-prime prohibits "is true" only as fnord collateral damage; no real difference exists between "RAW invented E-prime" and "It is true that RAW invented E-prime". Bourland hoped E-prime would improve people's thinking by removing "Aristotelian" notions of identity of entities and of entities having attributes, not by removing the passive voice or the distinction between truth and falsehood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
- smallerfish 4y ago
  Fair enough / TIL on the origin. That said, your wikipedia link says: "Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things"." While (objectively speaking) there are objectively true things, would you not disagree that "is true" is overused and leads to sloppy thinking?
  - kragen 4y ago
    Well, that is true.

kardianos 4y ago

We can talk Epistemology. I'm willing to both assert something is True and be humble I may be wrong about it at the same time. I think you ask the wrong question. I'd rather ask, is this something that is both meaningful to assert as True and is this something I have some type of primary knowledge (careful statistics, first hand knowledge that is collaborated) of? I may still give something a low certainty (depending on the quality of predicate knowledge) and still assert something as True if that decision is meaningful to my life and others around me.