Truth, Reality and Correspondence Theory

[@Evitable]

Thank you for the thoughts, Ozy. And thank you for updating your Armchair Reflections playlist with the last several videos.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

A quick video I hammered out in a hurry to address some recent confusions I'm hearing frequently repeated in my little corner of GoogleTube.

[@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas]

Just never actually google tube. Trust me things can't be unseen. :) Ozy to rescue.

[@kgdblade]

Thanks Ozy. I'm a scientist and my pursuits of knowledge and research activities generated towards advancing theory are solidly grounded in how you defined these terms. But, I'll admit to having used truth and reality as synonyms many times. [Segway], I'm reminded of a trip to the UAE working there for research purposes. I travelled there from Canada and having a 12 h timeshift to deal with I simply couldn't go to sleep. I found myself at the bar, a nice thing to be able to do given that Dubai has them as opposed to much of the UAE, I then started talking to a businessman from London in a similar jetlag predicament. Somehow we got to the topic of the pursuit of truth, which I emphasized that, as an academic, I was engaged in pursuit of. KGD "I want to make sure that our theory and models are right." The businessman's response was one of a big grin. He drank the rest of his drink and slapped me on the back and then said - "Well, I always know if I right or not". KGD - "Oh, how is that?"...Businessman says - "If I made money, I was right!".

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

kgdblade Terrific story, kgd. What you said about how this relates to your work as a science researcher reminds me of what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould used to say. He used to remind his audiences that every scientist assumes a reality which he or she strives to model as accurately as possible, and that without such a working assumption, a scientist could not motivate himself or herself to do the hard, tedious, and thankless drudgery that's involved in carrying out experiments. That's not to say that the correspondence theory is the only or best theory of truth (I leave that for my viewers to decide on their own), but it is the operative assumption that most of us live by and which serves to motivate a love of pure research.and the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Thanks for commenting. Cheers, - Ozy

[@guillatra]

So, when you are in a hurry you look like this.

[@dmsexton888]

kgdblade"Segue." (Sigh) Yeah, I'm THAT guy.

[@uncommonhandle8896]

I probably lol'd a little too hard at "That's not a proposition. It's a *mug*."

[@1140Cecile]

You're an excellent teacher, Ozy.

[@benaberry578]

I agree these words are being all lumped together. A recent discussion with a pressup supports your points here. I asked - "what do you mean by objective?" and they held that objective, that which is, truth, reality are interchangeable.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

bena berry Yes, unfortunately, our workaday vocabulary is replete with semantic overlap and people tend to err in one of two directions: using words interchangeably without attention to the subtleties of actual patterns of usage or else an artificially imposed rigor and specificity by construing the words very narrowly, resulting in ordinary words being turned into stipulative jargon which is divorced from any useful application in the real world. Words such as 'true', 'fact', 'actual', 'real' 'objective' and many others are words which have overlapping patterns of usage, but not completely overlapping, which means one has to attend very carefully before one tries to insist that one word or expression is synonymous with another. Synonymy is rarer than people imagine. Cheers, - Ozy

[@TechGamesAU]

Thanks Ozy. As someone with an interest in philosophy but no time to study it professionally, I find your videos a great substitute to satisfy my curiosity!

[@vladtepes9614]

5:30-6:07 - Great point!

[@dewinthemorning]

Great analogy between truth and reality and a map and a territory! Reality (nature) is whatever is the case, as you say. We are part of nature, but because of our very complex brain which makes models of the world, we have achieved a sort of transcendence in the sense that in our mind we can transcend the place and time in which we are at the moment and we try to create a picture of reality (a map). To the extent of how close this picture corresponds to reality, our statements or beliefs about reality can be true or false.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thank you *****. I wish I could claim some originality with the map/territory analogy, but it''s a stock illustration. But I do think it's particularly apt and serves well in this discussion. Cheers, - Ozy

[@HogTieChamp]

Ozymandias Ramses II Oh, sure, you won't take credit for the idea (or even the words to express this important idea), but watch out... The next time someone in a Hangout says, "The map is not the territory!" the response from a pre-supper will be, "Oh, you're just parroting Ozy!" (Strangely, I highly doubt they would say, "Oh, you're just parroting Korzybski!" LOL) Of course, you should take credit for packaging this idea into digestible KZbin yumminess.

[@djhalling]

This man speaks reality.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I see what you did there. ;-) Cheers, - Ozy

[@AntiCitizenX]

I've lost count of how many times I've had to explain this distinction to apologists. They never get it.They just instinctively respond by shouting "that's relativism!!!!!"

[@deepashtray5605]

To paraphrase D.T. Suzuki, reality just is, which is a great thing to say when you want to completely baffle a presuppositionalist.

[@traog]

This reminds me of an incident when I was being given instructions on how to get to someones rural home. The verbal directions were confusing so I got a paper and asked them to draw a map and put in some land marks. I was able to use the map to get to their place just fine but all the directions were reversed, if the map didn't have landmarks on it I would have gone in the opposite direction. So even if our map isn't perfect representation of reality, if it has enough points of reference, it can still get us where we want to go.

[@tuttifongul2006]

Thanks for that video. I completely understand your point as ive seen it in my head though i lack the verbal prowess to express it. The best ive come up with is that reality is reality and truth is only used to describe reality. Ive had to argue a few times when folks act as though the words mean the same thing but ive used pencils instead of mugs. :)

[@davidmott2090]

Beautiful, thank you

[@DeadEndFrog]

Great video!

[@FreeTunes498]

This is very good. Thank you for this.

[@okzoia]

Propositional knowledge (Knowing THAT such and such is the case) is not the only kind of knowledge; I'm thinking of "knowledge by acquaintance" which Bertrand Russell discussed at length. One can "know" what it is like to undergo a variety of sensory experiences without forming any propositions about those experiences. This form of knowledge doesn't take propositions as direct objects of the verb "know": "I know the color red" or "I know real physical pain." But I'm sure most of you scholars out there are aware of these matters.

[@manthasagittarius1]

This is a very valuable analysis, and very clear. Without disagreeing with it in the least, I wonder about a use of "true" (and by extension, its opposite :false") to mean "real" (or "not real") that may be part of the tendency to conflate these words in ordinary usage. One can sense that the word "true" can't quite be replaced by "real" in a formulation like "the true king" or "the true grail," or calling someone a "true genius," or even a color a "true red." Is it only intended as more formal, weightier or more solemn, or as that about which an undeniable (or non-relative) truth may be stated? Is it used to make the point that errors or attempts at counterfeits can be and have been made, but this isn't one of them? either way, it's not quite a simple substitution -- something more seems to be intended. Of course if that "something more" distinction is not used consistently, the two words would tend to become carelessly conflated as you point out.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

I'm very happy to hear exactly how I see things explained so clearly, thoughtfully and fairly (as you always do.) Thank you Ozy. If I had to guess, this sort of confusion on the part of some has to do with Yahweh speaking things into existence and his/its word being synonymous with truth, and thus anyone who "speaks on his behalf" would therefore be prone to mistake their own words for truth. What do you think of that?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Mathew Steele I'm not actually sure where the idea that 'God is truth' comes from. I have two ideas. First, like you, I suspect that because they think their god is omnipotent and the cause of everything else and can simply will things into existence, they see him as that which _makes true_ everything that is true. But of course, this is confusing a truth-maker with a truth-bearer. Unless god is a proposition, he's not truth. A god could be many things - many wondrous things, but the one thing a god could not be, is truth itself. Truth, under correspondence theory, is predicable of propositions and other truth-bearers, such as sentences, statements and beliefs. Unless their god is a proposition or a sentence or a statement or a belief, it's not true. The other idea if have about why they say, "God is truth", is that it's just a kind of literalistic way of talking about their god which originally started out as a literal way of way of speaking about their theological beliefs - their articles of faith. People of various faiths are given to speaking of their faith as 'the truth', by which they mean, they think it's the only correct and accurate religions, as opposed to all the false ones out there. And this habit of describing their creeds and theology as true, and constantly repeating that their god is the only true god, gets shortened into 'God _is_ truth'...and over time this has come to be construed literally, which is just bad poetry masquerading as metaphysical profundity. That's my two cents. Cheers, - Ozy

[@danielpotter6653]

The proposition "This is a mug" can be true or false. Is this by consensus or by comparison to a definition? Which would be akin to presuppositionalism? The mug is real- as a proposition, what determines the truth or falsity of this statement? Is belief 'truly' a choice? Should my beliefs be chosen according to consequence? It is maddening to be sure. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity."

[@stevesmith9719]

Thanks for the video Ozy! Could you do an analysis of the "Does god exist? A.F. Ytinamuh" video? I'm feeling really torn if the argument is sound and valid. It would be awesome if you could. Thanks again!

[@estebanvaldez980]

Yes! Ozy please! I think it's more solid than Stevey here thinks, but we should get a professional opinion too

[@pokerk09]

Yea, plus he's not putting out anymore videos until that one gets enough views or something. I want to see his take on properly basic beliefs compared to Ozy's awesome video on them

[@PrincipledUncertainty]

"The totality of facts determines not only what is the truth but that which is not the truth." Wittgenstein. Sorry if I misquoted but it was from memory not google.

[@VYDZ]

Information certainly has a special place in quantum theory. The famous uncertainty principle (see what I did there:) - which states that you can’t simultaneously know the momentum and position of a particle - comes down to information. As does entanglement, where quantum objects share properties and exchange information irrespective of the physical distance between them. In fact, every process in the universe can be reduced to interactions between particles that produce binary answers: yes or no, here or there, up or down. That means nature, at its most fundamental level, is simply the flipping of binary digits or bits, just like a computer.

[@anitabonghit2758]

By what method are you determining what is reality? Some kind of divine revalation? seeing as i cant know what corresponds with reality i define truth as that which can make accurate predictions. For all you know, in reality, nothing exists but your own mind

[@ryleighs9575]

What do you mean by "make accurate predictions" without appealing to some extent reality from which those predictions are derived and within which those predictions are meaningful?

[@bg6b7bft]

Does the correspondence theory assume that there is only one reality that we all share?

[@bradchervel5202]

3:53 brain blew up with simple truth that others havent been able to voice.

[@Andres64B]

Hey Ozy, got another question for you. Hope you don't mind. I would assert that omniscience is impossible. There is no way, that I know of, to eliminate the possibility of an unknown, or an unknown unknown. So there would always be at least one thing that you don't know, that being, whether you know everything . Therefore you are not omniscient. What do you think?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Hmm, I'm not sure how this would pose a problem for the concept of omniscience. If a being were genuinely omniscient, it would know the truth value of every possible proposition. That is, such a being would, by hypothesis, know for each proposition, if it was true or false. There would be no state of affairs or fact, describable by a proposition, which it wouldn't know. So, by hypothesis, it would also have to know, of itself, that it knows every true proposition, including the proposition, "I know the truth value of every proposition, including this very proposition". So, I don't see that as a problem with the concept of omniscience, but perhaps there's something you're seeing here that I'm missing. In any case, good question. Cheers, - Ozy

[@Andres64B]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks again for the great reply. But couldn't it be the case that someone thinks that they are omniscient but they are not? How could one eliminate the possibility of an unknown, or unknown unknowns. Since the unknown is by definition unknown. Could it be the case that one actually *does* know everything, but they can't *know* that they know everything?

[@BurakovAS]

Hi Ozy, this is really a comment unrelated to a video, i'd just like your advice. could you recommend some literature on epistomology, formal logic and such? preferably something easily digestible by a person who isn't doing it for a living (e.g. in academia) but rather is interested in improving one's own understanding of how to correctly acquire (and verify) knowledge. in other words, something akin to The God Delusion of epistomology :-) (i.e. not necessarily factually correct, but interesting, entertaining and written in a way for layman to understand)

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I really don't know of a work that would give what you want, since epistemological theories are quite varied and so there's not as much consensus on what are called 'verification procedures' for establishing that one possesses knowledge. But if you want to learn some epistemology, the place to start is with nearly any introductory college text on epistemology - some anthology of key articles with commentaries. You local college or university bookstore will have at least one such text available, assuming they have a philosophy department. Unfortunately, college texts come and go, and I've not read an intro college text on epistemology in over 20 years, and couldn't even recall the title or editor (they mostly have similar sounding titles such as, "An introduction to Epistemology". With respect to logic, I'd recommend the same thing: pick yourself up a college level introductory text on _deductive_ logic or _formal_ logic. Such texts read almost like a math text however, so really the best way to learn logic is to enroll in an introductory critical thinking class in your local philosophy department. The very basics of logic will be taught there, and then one can take a course on formal logic. No doubt, someone's written a good lay-person's introduction to these subjects, but I have not had the pleasure of reading one myself, so can't be more helpful. With apologies, - Ozy

[@MsShisel]

The meaning of logic gets reuced with all ths tuid philoophical ideas. I a triangle logically different from a quar becaue diferen pcies observe the worrld ith different filter? Does the world really become less cohrent?

[@Andres64B]

Hey Ozy, Love your channel and videos. Very informative. A pet peeve of mine is people who call themselves agnostics like it's some sort of middle ground. I'm hoping you can help me shed some light on this issue. I would contend that in reality, everyone is agnostic when it comes to god(s). Just as it is impossible to prove the nonexistent of god(s), it is equally impossible to prove the existence of god(s). Since either position is impossible to prove, that would make everyone agnostic, no? In other words: can someone know something that they cannot prove? I don't think so. Thanks

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

A lot of people make insist that one may only assert a god exists or doesn't exist if one can definitively prove that a god exists or doesn't exist. This, I think, is a huge mistake. We don't proceed that way for other claims. For instance, I think Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster don't exist. I actually believe they don't exist. I have very good reasons why I think that (specifically owing to an absence of evidence where one ought to _expect_ to find it), but I can't _prove_ that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are impossibilities. One doesn't need to. If you ask me, "Ozy, do you think it's going to rain today?", and I consult the meteorological forecast, look at the weather radar and the gathering clouds and say, "Yes, I believe it will rain", I"m not saying I can prove that it will rain. I'm just saying that I believe it will rain. One doesn't have to be able to prove something necessarily true or necessarily false. If we did, we'd have to be agnostic about everything except a handful of propositions in math, formal logic, and set theory. A belief is what you believe to be true, nothing more. And a justified belief is when one has reasons which warrant the belief, and one can have a warranted a belief without being able to literally prove that what one believes is true on pain of the impossibility of the contrary. One can have good reasons, bad reasons, excellent reasons, terrible reasons, or even no reasons. The quality of one's reasons determines how confident one should be in one's assertions. One doesn't have to be able to prove something to a mortal certainty to be entitled to say "I believe X exists" or "I believe X doesn't exist". Justification admits of degrees. So why, when we're talking about gods, should we suddenly raise the bar and say "One could only truly claim to believe in a god or believe no gods exist if one could prove such positions"? We don't do that for anything else. Virtually everything we believe is conditional, provisional, and revisable. So if a god can't be proven to exist and can't be proven to not exist, that has no bearing on whether a person is entitled or justified in believing a god exists or not. As for the term agnostic, that's a term we reserve for those people who, whether they've considered the reasons or not, can't make up their minds (sometimes disparagingly called 'fence-sitter agnostics) and then there are Huxleyan agnostics who believe the question is unanswerable in principle. Huxleyan agnostics differ from fence-sitter agnostics in that the fence-sitters think the question is answerable in principle, but the don't know or have the reasons they feel they need to answer it. Huxleyans believe the question can't ever be answered, period. The Huxleyans might be right, but if so, the need an argument for their position, and that's a little harder to argue for than it appears to be at first blush. But let's assume that it IS impossible to prove the existence and the non-existence of god, does that mean everyone's an agnostic? No. That would mean (if that's correct) that people ought to be agnostics _if_ they had heard the reasons why Huxleyan agnostics are right and those reasons are good ones and people recognized that they are good reasons. A person is a theist is he or she thinks there's a god, no matter the quality or lack of quality or their reasons. A person is an atheist if they think no gods exist, no matter the quality or lack of quality of their reasons. And if one can't make up one's mind or thinks it's impossible to decide in principle, then one is an agnostic. I hope this clarifies my view of the matter. Cheers and thanks for the question, - Ozy

[@Andres64B]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks. I think we're getting somewhere. I was using agnostic in the Huxleyan sense. And in that case, is not everyone agnostic? How can anyone, theist or atheist, say that they *know* something (god does/doesn't exist), without being able to demonstrate that it's true?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Andres64B I addressed that question specifically in the first part of my response. You are using the word 'know' in an absurdly restrictive sense of being able to prove to a logical necessity. Well, that's not a requirement for knowledge. To accept such a restrictive definition of knowledge would be to evacuate the word 'knowledge' from our vocabularies, for the reasons I stated earlier. And remember, the words 'theist' and 'atheist' describe what people believe about the existence of god, not if they can prove it. You are a Huxleyan agnostic. You happen to think the question cannot, in principle, be answered. Now, if you mean "cannot be definitively proven beyond any possible doubt", then great. But then you'd have to be an agnostics on every single question you could ask about anything, since even a deductively valid proof of _any_ proposition rests on assuming the veracity of other propositions...any one of which could be doubted. But that would make the word 'agnostic' completely pointless. The word 'agnostic' exists in our vocabulary to _distinguish_ between those who _believe_ there is or is not a god from those who, for whatever reasons, think they can't assert either proposition. Well, there are people who believe and assert there's a god and there are those who believe and assert there's no god. And that means there are people who are not agnostic. It has _nothing_ to do with justification, but with what people think, believe, or opine is the case about god's existence. If you think there's a god (no matter your reasoning), you're a theist. If you think there's no god (no matter your reasoning), you're an atheist. And if you think you can't assert either proposition (no matter your reasoning), you're an agnostic. Cheers, - Ozy

[@Andres64B]

Ozymandias Ramses II I think we are in agreement. I am an Huxleyan agnostic and an atheist. I think the word agnostic, as I understand Huxley intended it, *is* pointless. Everyone is an agnostic. To say otherwise, to say that you are gnostic, you would have to have "justifiable, true belief" No? I do not think it possible to (dis)prove the truth of the god claim. Therefore everyone is agnostic and the lable becomes pointless. It would be like saying I'm a human.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Well, the difficulty is that the words 'theist' and 'atheist' refer to what people believe, not what people are justified in believing. You may, if you wish, recommend that everyone ought to be a Huxleyan agnostic, but you can't redefine the words 'theist' and atheist' to mean "a rationally warranted belief in god" and "a rationally warranted belief that no gods exist" and then say "Because nobody is rationally justified in thinking there's a god or no god, everyone is therefore an agnostic." The words 'theist' and 'atheist' refer to what people _believe_, not what they can demonstrate to be true (least of all prove beyond all doubt). An analogy might help. Suppose someone said, "Liberals can't justify their political position, nor can conservatives", therefore, nobody is actually a liberal, or a conservative. It doesn't matter if liberalism and conservatism are reasonable, unreasonable or even completely incoherent. What makes someone a liberal or a conservative is a matter of what they believe (in the domain of politics). Cheers, - Ozy

[@jjjccc728]

If I am part of reality isn't what I believe whether it's true or false also part of reality? This would make false beliefs part of reality.

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

Good. There's a need for this; some people were becoming quite confused on these issues, Those interested in the presup friendly alternative to correspondence, werein truth and facts are one an the same, might want to check this out: plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprising pilgrim father types sail off to colonize this new-found-land soon; leaving the old 'correspondence country' behind :)

[@ToddYorkadifferentstrummer]

So wonderfully clear, I, a simpleton got it! Thanks

[@hippocritic]

I wonder if this kind of equivocation goes unnoticed so often because, as listens, our mind is trying to make sense of what's being said and is almost unconsciously reinterpreting it into what we think they must mean. A bit like those texts that circulate on the internet that read something like this: "it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm." In other words, our mind does the unconscious editing work for sloppy language.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

C.B Black That's an interesting point. I suspect that's part of the story. Cheers, - Ozy

[@HucksterFoot]

Taht is interesting C.B Black ....it is also interesting when we see a fluffy white mug in the sky.

[@expaddler]

Boy, you sure cleaned up nicely after your appearance on the SyeTenAtheist video.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

It's amazing what a shave will do for a person, eh? :-) Cheers, - Ozy

[@HogTieChamp]

What?? A 15-minute video about 'truth' and 'reality' and yet not one word of explanation about 'objective truth' and 'objective reality'??? How am I going to learn these things?? Don't make me go watch BTWN videos!

[@Overonator]

Ozzy did you change your mind? I thought you subscribed to foundherentism as your preferred theory of truth and not correspondence theory of truth.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Overonator My view is more or less foundherentist with respect to _knowledge_, not truth, and even then, when it comes to truth, there's more than one sort of truth (empirical truth, lexical/analytical truths, logical truths, etc) and these can demand different analyses. But, broadly speaking, when it comes to empirical truths, I endorse correspondence theory. I hope that clarifies things somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy

[@Overonator]

Oh I confused theories of knowledge with theories of truth. I'm an idiot.

[@askirojadu]

How is the correspondence theory of truth even useful if you can never compare truth with reality to verify propositions? As I see it we are all looking at reality through rosy-colored glasses that we can't take off and all we can comprehend is the appearance of reality. If we compare truth with the appearance of reality we run into a ton of problems. How do you account for this problem that can make truth vary depending on appearances? Pluralism? Something else?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

askiro jaro You asked, _How is the correspondence theory of truth even useful if you can never compare truth with reality to verify propositions?_ It's not. It's not supposed to be. A theory or definition of truth needs to explain and capture what we mean by expressions such as 'That is true', or 'That is false' or 'That's not the case', or 'You're mistaken', etc. It is, in effect, a definition or formalization of how we use these expressions and so describes the operative assumption behind what we say and what we do. The issue you're raising is the issue of verification procedures for _knowledge_. That is, you're question goes to the issue of how we can tell if our perceptions of reality actually reflect reality or not. That's an important question and that's what the whole area of justification/warrant in epistemology deals with. But nothing in this video was about that question. What you're after is a theory of knowledge that includes a verification procedure for knowledge, which is not what a theory of truth is for or about. But before you can put forth a theory of knowledge, you at least have to have some notion of what the concept of truth is and how it fits into the idea of knowledge. The correspondence theory of truth is just one such theory. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers, - Ozy

[@askirojadu]

Ozymandias Ramses II I realize this is off topic to this video, but you sparked my interest. I don't think I am really appealing to verification for knowledge as I am claiming that by definition reality is a subjective experience and as such the process of corresponding truth claims to reality by definition leads to variability in what we call truth. So truth is a malleable thing regardless of how we verify our knowledge and most people who hold to the correspondence of truth seem to reject this. I think the coherence theory of truth handles this problem quite eloquently so I just wanted to understand your perspective. Anyway I love your videos and I would LOVE to see a video about your thoughts on the correspondence theory of truth vs coherence theory of truth.

[@MichaelSchiciano]

askiro jaro _"I am claiming that by definition reality is a subjective experience"_ I think this is phrased too imprecisely, and it would be better to say: "Reality is something we subjectively experience." To me this is a better phrasing of the statement while avoiding asserting that reality itself is subjective (which those that hold to correspondence theory would likely reject, if I'm not mistaken). _"How is the correspondence theory of truth even useful if you can never compare truth with reality to verify propositions?"_ I would say look at the scientific method and how theories have evolved over time. While not a perfect model of this in action, it indicates that as long as we avoid taking absolute positions with regards to whether a description is an accurate one with regards to reality. This, of course, hits into philosophical issues within the realm of science, but I guess my stance is that as long as we remain aware of the limitations of our ability to 'directly' perceive reality, we can at least do well with correspondence, and improve upon it as time goes forward and our tools improve (with regards to detecting/measuring reality).

[@askirojadu]

***** Honestly I think we can do well with any theory of truth because we likely borrow from the more plausible theory of truth either intentionally or unintentionally. By studying different theories of truth I think you gain a lot of insight that you normally would not have. For instance presuppositionalists like Sye can exploit problems in the correspondence of truth that he simply couldn't do with the coherence of truth. Most people don't realize the problems with Correspondence theory until someone like Sye comes along and makes you think just a little bit harder. And yes i don't really like using words like "subjective". I was just trying to get my point across. I acknowledge Kan'ts "noumenal reality" I just reject it out of hand as not useful because it is so problematic.

[@MichaelSchiciano]

askiro jaro _"Honestly I think we can do well with any theory of truth because we likely borrow from the more plausible theory of truth either intentionally or unintentionally. "_ I'd say this is very likely the case as well. As long as one approaches the topic with honesty and awareness of perceptual limitations, I think that either correspondence or coherence (as well as I understand the two) would do well for most cases. _"By studying different theories of truth I think you gain a lot of insight that you normally would not have."_ Also agreed on this case. I didn't even know about the coherence theory until you mentioned it here, so it's something I'm trying to read up on to get a basic idea. It does provide an interesting alternative to approaching the concept of truth. _"For instance presuppositionalists like Sye can exploit problems in the correspondence of truth that he simply couldn't do with the coherence of truth."_ Right, and someone who is fixed on ONLY speaking from correspondence would have a problem dealing with a Sye/Sye-bot abusing that exploit. _"Most people don't realize the problems with Correspondence theory until someone like Sye comes along and makes you think just a little bit harder."_ While true, I shudder to phrase it that way, as I think it gives Sye a bit too much credit when it comes to intellectual discourse. :P _"And yes i don't really like using words like "subjective". I was just trying to get my point across."_ I got what you meant, I've just dealt with a number of fans of Spirit Science and the like who try to take a relatively literal stance on 'subjective reality' to pull some really wonky talk. Thanks for clarifying your points!

[@Matthew4Nineteen]

Well said, or should I say read... #sarcasm

[@vickmackey24]

Ozy, I'm a little confused about your comment that "reality" is not the same as "our perception of reality." I think in _all_ cases, whether we're talking about external realities or realities we experience or even realities we dream of, we are referring to states of perception. Perception is inextricable. We have dream state realities, Matrix realities, Zion realities, and each of those realities exist within a particular framework of perception. If that were not the case, then how could we ever meaningfully discuss those realities or verify any claims about them? More on this later. That mug in your hand only exists according to your perception. If our eyes used infrared and our bodies did not have a molecular composition that would allow us to interact with that mug or to feel it, that mug would not exist in any meaningful sense. The concept of a "mug" exists within the confines of a particular perception of reality. Imagine how different the world would be if we could actually see and feel and smell dark matter all around us. In that perception of reality, it might then become "true" that there are 100 objects on my desk, not just 3. Truth is determined with respect to a particular intersubjective perception of reality. But because that's already implicitly understood in context, we drop the qualifier and simply call it "reality." In the movie The Matrix, a person might be tempted to call Zion "absolute" reality while calling the Matrix an "illusion" of reality, but I don't think that's a good way to describe it. In that movie, even Zion exists as just one of an infinite number of possible perceptions. "Reality" shifts depending on the context of experience, and that experience _is_ a perception. How could anyone ever hope to create a correspondence between a truth claim and a notion of "reality" that is completely devoid of any meaningful description or context? Perception is what gives reality its meaning. Am I missing something here, Ozy? (Btw, I was in the midst of writing a huge response to your last comment to me about teleonomic design, but my computer crashed and it got lost. I can't tell you how frustrating that is. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your lengthy response. I read it multiple times. I will go back and finish my response at some point, after I've gotten a chance to carefully listen to your follow-up video.)

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

vickmackey24 Yes, I think you are missing something here. The issue you're raising is the issue of verification procedures for _knowledge_. That is, you're question goes to the issue of how we can tell _if_ our perceptions of reality actually reflect reality or not. That's an important question and that's what the whole area of justification/warrant in epistemology deals with. But nothing in this video was about that question. This video was simply trying to clear up some confusions about an analytic distinction between what is meant by the terms 'truth' and 'reality' and what that distinction implies. Reality is, whatever is the case. If it turns out that we can't tell what reality is like, then that means we're not in a position to guarantee that our model/map of reality is correct, but that in no way threatens the distinction. Indeed, to say "I was mistaken" or "I mis perceived" is to grant that there's a difference, in principle, between one's model _of_ reality and what is real. One's map or model is never exhaustive, of course, and we revise and update our maps or models of reality ceaselessly (moment by moment, in fact), but the fact that our map doesn't record or register every fact within reality and only approximates reality (which is, after all, what we want from a map) doesn't mean there's no distinction to made. Indeed, the fact that you put scare quotes around the world 'realities' in your question shows that you are tacitly recognizing there's something not quite right about using the word reality in the plural. To use the word 'realities' is really to describe difference ways the one reality might be (possible worlds) or it can be used to referring to merely the very many models and maps there are. But reality is a big concept - the very biggest concept we have. It is, in a way, the grandest concept we have ever come up with - grander even than any god, since if a god exists -if a god is real - then such a being is, by hypothesis, a part of reality. There's no such thin as 'outside' reality. Reality is everything that is the case - absolutely everything. Hope this helps and thanks for asking. Cheers, - Ozy Sorry to hear you lost that comment about my other video. I know exactly how infuriating that is and how it leaves one despondent and without the will to start over. Been there myself, many times. Sigh.

[@vickmackey24]

Ozymandias Ramses II I don't think I'm talking about epistemology here. I'm not saying that we lack the mechanism or the vision to determine what is real; I'm saying that we need a cogent definition of "reality" for any sort of correspondence to be logically sensible or possible. The definition you put forward for "reality" (or "real") is certainly consistent with most dictionary definitions, but I don't think it jives with how we actually use the term in common parlance. Usage is what matters. To borrow your analogy, I believe we most commonly use the word "reality" to refer to the map (the perception), not the terrain (the world), even if that isn't immediately obvious. We call things "real" all the time, but that wouldn't be logically possible if reality were simply "everything that is the case." That definition is inherently ambiguous and doesn't refer to anything that could ever be meaningfully compared. "That which is" is purely a matter of interpretation and perception. For instance, what is the "real" color of the Sun? How many objects "really" exist in the world? Do Agents in the Matrix "really" exist? Do ideas "really" exist? These questions can't possibly be answered in any absolute, a priori sense of "that which is the case" because these concepts only have meaning within a particular framework of perception. There are a multitude of correct answers depending on the parameters we establish for the "existence" and "reality" of the concepts in question. The world is just an amalgam of energy states, and even _that_ is a perception. It doesn't have any intrinsic objects or colors or quantities. It is what it is, and what we _call_ "real" or "existent" is purely dependent on context as a matter of perspective. So it seems to me that reality and perception are inextricably linked. It isn't a matter of epistemology; it's a matter of language coherence. Let's return to the example from my previous comment. How many objects "really" exist on the table? According to my perception, there might be 3 objects, but to an alien who can only see dark matter, there might be 100 objects, and to another alien who can't see or interact with the table at all, the question might be totally incoherent. If you look at the Sun in space, it's white; from Earth's surface, it's yellow; and to a color blind person, it might be white or grey. So the notion of what is "real" or "reality" is entirely dependent on some context of perception, which in our case is usually the intersubjective perception of the world that most of us share and experience in a wakeful state. Reality is relative; the world is absolute. If every sentient creature were to drop dead tomorrow, the world would remain what it is, but any notion of "reality" would cease to exist. Anyway, as is often the case with philosophy, I think this ultimately boils down to yet another linguistic word game. Debates over the definition of reality, truth, design, atheism, morality, Christianity, blah blah blah. I think this is one of the main reasons people find philosophy to be such an unproductive waste of time. It's still kind of fun, though. :) P.S. I have no issue with the main thrust of your video -- I agree that "truth" and "reality" are not the same thing. I'm just quibbling with the idea that "reality" and "perception of the world" are actually distinct concepts. I think they _have_ to be the same for us to use the word "real" the way that we always do in everyday speech.

[@ryleighs9575]

How can "reality" and "perception of the world" possibly be the same thing? If that were the case, how could we learn anything new? If my perception WAS the state of affairs, I couldn't be mistaken about anything I perceived, and Ozy made exactly this point in the video.

[@ares106]

Ok but aren't we making a big assumption under the correspondence theory of reality. That is: we are assuming reality actually exists. To use your analogy we are assuming that there really is a land that our maps are describing. There exist many maps of Mordor, but Mordor doesn't exist. In this way every artist has the ability to come up with their own idea of what Mordor really looks like (within some canonical framework). Similarly it seems that so many people these days have different "world views" (for the lack of a better word) within a canonical framework of what the majority of people agree on about reality.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

Of course we're assuming reality actually exists. Why wouldn't we?

[@ares106]

Mathew Steele Why would we? I'm not trying to argue, I just want to figure this out.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

ares106 Mathew Steele Good question. Part of the difficulty here is that when people hear 'reality' in such discussions, they are thinking of some specific _way_ that reality is. For instance, you might be thinking that 'reality' refers to a physical universe of mindless matter in motion, that is, a mind-independent reality. But reality is a much bigger concept - it's the term we use when we want to describe _whatever is the case_ - the totality of all states of affairs, whatever they might be - and that doesn't prejudge the issue of what's actually real. For instance, If idealism is right, then there's no mind-independent reality, which means that reality doesn't ultimately consist of mindless particles colliding with one another in field of force, but rather reality consists of some ultimately mindful thing. Or, if solipsism is true, then the reality would be that there's nothing else in existence but you and your mind and everything you think is around you is just a product of your mind (though not necessarily directed by your mind, but more like a dream you don't control). Moreover, if absolutely nothing existed - a condition of absolute nothingness - then that would be the reality. There'd just be nothing in existence to know about it (or even to get it wrong). Reality, in other words, is a big concept. Indeed, it's the very biggest concept we have. It is, in a way, the grandest concept we have ever come up with - grander by far even than any god, since if a god exists - if a god is real - then such a being is, by hypothesis, a part of reality. There's no such thing as beyond reality. Reality is everything that is the case - absolutely everything - whatever that happens to consist of. It doesn't presume some particular _way_ reality is. Even if there were nothing - that'd be the reality. Hope this clarifies it somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy

[@ares106]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks for the reply, I tried reading it a few times to understand it, please let me know if Im still confused. Here is where im going with this to make it more concrete. Since we all experience reality through our subjective senses, do you think it is possible that the difference between atheists and theists is that theists have a lets call it "godly sense" whereas atheists lack the ability to sense it. Whenever I listen to Christians they always talk about the holy spirit and feeling the presence of god. What if its analogous to 2D Flatlanders and we atheists simply lack the ability to perceive and therefore understand the "god dimension". In other words god is a very real part of the theists "reality". Is it then correct for us to say that they are irrational for believing in god, since we can not feel god? We are then saying our map of reality is better then their map of reality, but since they have and extra sense their map contains geographical features and also borders and capitals while our atheist map only contains geographical features. Do they then belong to a different reality then us? hope my semi disorganized thoughts make some sense.

[@ryleighs9575]

ares106 So... you think it's a fair comparison between 2D vs 3D beings and atheists vs theists? How could you possibly justify such an unbridgeable gulf while assuming we're all the same species? Doesn't it seem unimaginably coincidental that the people who just happen to be born into theistic communities happen to be the ones with the "God sense", and people born into non-theistic communities just happen to not possess that sense?

[@okzoia]

Follow-up: It is impossible for God to know in a non-propositional sense what it is like for me to have a migraine and to fear its future effects, for if this were true, that God have MY experiences, I would be God and vice versa! (Heaven forbid!). Since God cannot have this knowledge (which only I can have since it's MY headache), God cannot be fully omniscient. In addition, God cannot fear anything unless He thinks there is a situation he cannot fully control, or if He believes He is in danger, both of which are inconsistent with His alleged omniscience and omnipotence.

[@MsShisel]

Toasume that reality is not what is percieved all of the time is a bigger error than to preume you're right about your conclusion. The imagined vacuum between concieving reality and the reality in itself i new age meaningle shit. People make errors and work thier way forward. They got a point bu they put it so religiously and overexaggerated.

[@integralmath]

Apparently, you're not familiar with the totally cromulent statement, "the cake is a lie". Checkmate, atheist!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

The Justicar, I'm afraid to tell ya, but someone beat you to the "the cake is a lie" line in the comments. Thanks for watching, - Ozy

[@integralmath]

Ozymandias Ramses II yes, but I didn't believe that cake, because it is a lie. =^_^=

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

LOL

[@TwilightMysts]

I hate Ozymandius ;) For those of you who don't know the joke, it is a reference to NCG.

[@Ostsol]

I'm reminded of assertions that "God is truth." It always seemed like a nonsense statement, to me. Read plainly, it clearly is. Perhaps it is merely a colloquialism for something meaningful, but in any intelligent discussion it is out of place. Also, I think that deriding another's statements as being mere semantical arguments can often be rather ignorant. It is perhaps true that semantics can be used to deflect the discussion from the original issue, but one should consider why semantics are brought up in the first place. It may simply be for the sake of precision in language. By making distinctions between words used interchangeably in common parlance one eliminates ambiguity. This is a sentiment for which I have immense respect.

[@screw0dog]

Dan Dennett has called statements like "God is truth" as "deepities". He defines them as statements that have two ways of reading them: one that is false, but if true, would be profoundly important, the other is true, but trivial. In this case, if they mean that God is literally truth, then this is just a definition and is trivially true. If they mean that the Christian creator God is somehow identical with the philosophical concept of truth, then this is false, but if true would have been profoundly important. I like this idea because once I'd heard it, I hear it whenever a theist talks about god.

[@FractalMachine]

just a small error a found: you use the mug,as an example of how the word truth is different from the word reality,in that you cannot say "this mug is true", but in fact,neither can you say "this mug is reality" this is nonsensical as well. i just don't think that it's a good example...not particularly disagreeing with your point though.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

FractalMachine You're right that one couldn't say "This mug is reality" But one could say "This mug is _real_.", meaning "This mug exists.", and _that_ would be a statement describing a state of affairs within reality, just as surely as saying "This mug is brown" or "This mug holds coffee." are statements about reality. Indeed, Anything you say _about the mug_ is a statement about reality, but what you can't say about the mug is that it's _true_. And that demonstrates that 'truth' and 'reality' can't be synonymous terms. There are instances (an infinity of them) where you simply could not say "X is true", but where you could say "X is real". Thanks for the comment. Cheers, - Ozy

[@FractalMachine]

Ozymandias Ramses II i don't think that "real" and "reality" are synonymous. in fact, "exists within reality" is only 1 of the possible uses of the word "real". real can be used as in "a real problem" or "really good". this is problematic,since "reality" is supposed to mean,the way things are,the actual state of affairs, regardless of subjective opinion. the word "real" can easily be used to describe opinions that vary between people. "presupositionalism uses really good/bad arguments" , for instance. real,in my opinion, is giving something the property of "existing within reality",while also meaning "existing within my personal point of view" or "my reality" even though "my reality" would be meaningless. the way i would use "reality" is to describe the sum of all things that are "really" real. regardless of subjective point of view. so saying "the cup is *real*" would be the same as saying "this cup *truely* exists" while saying "this cup is true" would compare to saying "this cup is reality" which are both nonsensical.

[@Durakken]

Ozymandias Ramses II FractalMachine Something existing and something being real are also separate issues. God exists, but isn't real. Similarly Existence and Reality are not the same. Existence is primary and just expresses a state of being of any sort. Reality is an existence of a specific sort which all things within are real within that frame. Virtual Reality vs "real" reality. If I interact with things in a virtual reality it is as real in that reality as doing that in real reality would be...

[@HucksterFoot]

Your 'P' is drifting and that is an illusion; just an observation. :]]

[@AnEntropyFan]

You cannot even type the word "correspondence" _truly_ every time, why should I believe that any words you're saying are _true_ and why should I believe that you even know what they mean? The day Grammar Nazism married Syeclonism!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

LOL. I was surprised no one caught the missing letter p in 'correspondence' before I corrected it with an annotation. Pity Christopher Maute didn't see it. He'd have loved it! Cheers, - Ozy

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

There is no distinction between "reality" and a person's worldview. Your worldview is what you interpret reality through. So the word "reality" is very subjective in that it will vary depending on the worldview of the person speaking. That's why appealing to "reality" as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious. And its why saying "truth is what corresponds to reality" is fallacious in a worldview debate, as it's equivalent with saying "truth is what corresponds to my worldview" (begging the question, since the two competing worldviews are precisely what is in contention)

[@ConceptCollection]

There is no distinction between ["God"] and a person's worldview. Your worldview is what you interpret [God] through. So the word ["God"] is very subjective in that it will vary depending on the worldview of the person speaking. That's why appealing to ["God"] as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious. And its why saying "truth is what corresponds to [God"] is fallacious in a worldview debate, as it's equivalent with saying "truth is what corresponds to my worldview" (begging the question, since the two competing worldviews are precisely what is in contention)

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@ConceptCollection You said "there is no distinction between God and a person's worldview." This is somewhat accurate, in that if it's a creator God then the worldview will entirely derive from that God as the foundation. So, in a sense.. the Christian God, for example, comes as a complete package WITH an entire worldview that cannot be separated from it. You continued "So the word God is very subjective in that it will vary depending on the worldview of the person speaking." This is true, there are many different versions of God people have come up with throughout human history. You continued "That's why appealing to God as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious." Depends on the God being described. For most Gods people have come up with, yes, it would be fallacious. But it's not the case for the Christian God as there actually is justification for the Christian God, unlike all others. Presup justifies the Christian God with transcendental argumentation (deductively valid form of justification), so it's not arbitrary or subjective. The Christian God objectively exists and this is deductively justified (which means it is necessarily true, not just probably true). You continued "And it's why saying 'truth is what corresponds to God is fallacious in a worldview debate, as it's equivalent with saying 'truth is that which corresponds to my worldview (begging-the-question, since the two competing worldviews are what is in contention)" Same difference as the previous quote: Justification is what wins debates. We have justified the Christian God's existence, so it's not fallacious.

[@ConceptCollection]

@@lightbeforethetunnel You said _"there is no distinction between [Reality] and a person's worldview."_ This is somewhat accurate, in that if it's a [Non-contingent Reality] then the worldview will entirely derive from that [Reality] as the foundation. So, in a sense.. the [Objective Reality], for example, comes as a complete package WITH an entire worldview that cannot be separated from it. You continued _"So the word [Reality] is very subjective in that it will vary depending on the worldview of the person speaking."_ This is true, there are many different versions of [Reality] people have come up with throughout human history. You continued _"That's why appealing to [Reality] as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious."_ Depends on the [Reality] being described. For most [Realities] people have come up with, yes, it would be fallacious. But it's not the case for the [Objective Reality] as there actually is justification for the [Objective Reality], unlike all others. [Transcendental Idealism] justifies the [Objective Reality] with transcendental argumentation (deductively valid form of justification), so it's not arbitrary or subjective. The [Objective Reality] objectively exists and this is deductively justified (which means it is necessarily true, not just probably true). You continued _"And it's why saying 'truth is what corresponds to [Reality] is fallacious in a worldview debate, as it's equivalent with saying 'truth is that which corresponds to my worldview (begging-the-question, since the two competing worldviews are what is in contention)"_ Same difference as the previous quote: Justification is what wins debates. We have justified the [Objective Reality's] existence, so it's not fallacious. In my initial response, I utilized your precise wording and replaced the term "God" with "Reality." In my subsequent reply, I replaced the phrase "creator God" with "Non-contingent Reality" and the word "Presup" with "Transcendental Idealism," while substituting the term "Christian God" with the concept of "Objective Reality." It was just to get you to think about the implications of what you've stated by parody of reasoning. Now I'll actually address your claims. 1. _"There is no distinction between 'reality' and a person's worldview."_ It is important to distinguish between objective reality and an individual's subjective interpretation of reality. Reality refers to the external world, independent of personal beliefs or perceptions. While a person's worldview influences how they perceive and interpret reality, it does not determine or alter the objective reality itself. If your claim were true, it would *imply that* a person's worldview and their perception of reality are inseparable and indistinguishable. In other words, how individuals view and interpret the world is entirely shaped by their worldview, and *there is no independent, objective reality* that exists apart from individual perspectives. This perspective suggests that *reality is entirely subjective* and *dependent on one's subjective beliefs, experiences, and perspectives.* 2. _"The word 'reality' is very subjective."_ The word "reality" itself is not subjective. However, people's interpretations and understandings of reality can be subjective based on their worldview, experiences, and biases. Different individuals may have varying perspectives on reality, but that does not make reality itself subjective. 3. _"Appealing to 'reality' as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious."_ It is not fallacious to consider objective reality as a foundation for one's worldview. Many philosophical and scientific frameworks are built upon the assumption that there is an objective reality that exists independently of individual perspectives. However, it is true that one's worldview and subjective interpretations can *influence* how they understand and interpret reality. 4. _"Saying 'truth is what corresponds to reality' is fallacious in a worldview debate."_ In a worldview debate, different perspectives on truth may exist, and individuals may hold different conceptions of reality. The statement "truth is what corresponds to reality" can be problematic in such a debate because different worldviews may have conflicting interpretations of reality. It is essential to recognize that truth claims and their correspondence to reality can be influenced by individual perspectives and different worldviews. Furthermore, the statement _"Saying 'truth is what corresponds to reality' is fallacious in a worldview debate"_ is not necessarily correct. While it is true that different worldviews can shape people's interpretations of reality and their understanding of truth, it doesn't automatically make the statement fallacious. In a worldview debate, the statement _"truth is what corresponds to reality"_ can serve as a metaphysical starting point or a shared understanding for discussing and evaluating different perspectives. It establishes a foundational principle that truth claims should align with the objective reality that exists independently of individual beliefs or subjective interpretations. However, it is also crucial to recognize that different worldviews may have varying interpretations of reality and different criteria for determining truth. The fallacy would arise if one assumes that their particular worldview is the sole arbiter of truth and dismisses other perspectives without proper justification or engagement (correct me if I'm wrong but, is that not essentially what you're doing?). It is important to approach worldview debates with open-mindedness, critical thinking, and a willingness to consider different interpretations of reality and truth. TLDR; While it is true that individual worldviews shape how people interpret reality, it is important to maintain a distinction between objective reality and subjective interpretations. The relationship between truth, reality, and worldviews can be complex and nuanced, and it is essential to consider the specific context and arguments being made in any given debate or discussion.

[@ajhieb]

@@lightbeforethetunnel _"There is no distinction between "reality" and a person's worldview."_ That's a weird thing to say from someone who goes on to immediately point out the distinction between reality and a worldview. _("Your worldview is what you interpret reality through. So the word "reality" is very subjective in that it will vary depending on the worldview of the person speaking.")_ _"That's why appealing to "reality" as the metaphysical foundation of one's worldview is fallacious."_ Sounds like more of your usual special pleading to me. Sounds like you're trying to suggest that we can't appeal to anything, independant of our worldview, except the Christian God, because you've tacked on some a priori attributes that you can't justify. _"And its why saying "truth is what corresponds to reality" is fallacious in a worldview debate, as it's equivalent with saying "truth is what corresponds to my worldview" (begging the question, since the two competing worldviews are precisely what is in contention)"_ It's the same thing you attempt to do with the TAG. P1) is simply a statement within the context of your own worldview, and the only conclusion that _can_ follow from that is going to be limited to the context of your worldview. You've made no argument for any sort of metaphysical necessity for God. You're argument is just saying that, _In your worldview_ God is necessary.