Talk:Truth/Archive 10

Archiving
I just noticed that I cut off some quite recent edits in archiving. Please move anything you consider important back to the main talk page, and accept my apologies. Banno 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wroking draft
In arguments, the term truth refers to the affirmation or "validity" of a statement, in whole or part. Statements which are contradicted by argument are referred to as "untrue" or "false." This basic binary usage is found in logic and philosophy as well, and within these areas the concept is typically abstracted to greater aspects of human thought to define both processes for deriving true statements as well as variances or valuations of truth.
 * arguments defines a very very broad context. Perhaps its not appropriate here, but any discussion of truth must rest on some logic. the generalization of logic to include human interaction is called "argument".
 * "whole or part" is redundant - a statement can refer to any atomic part of a larger statement -SV
 * Jim is right about this one - contradicted needs replacing. Using "invalid" would be prejudicing the outcome - some term which gives insight to the process of validation would be appropriate here -SV

In the transition from philosophy to religion, truth has come to have further abstracted meaning. An example is "truth" used as a singular concept which contains all elemental and fundamental truths, as they have come to be learned and understood within reality. In religious usage, "the truth" often refers to a spiritual concept of reality. -Ste|vertigo 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This defines the degrees of scale for which the term truth commonly applies. From the basic binary logic, to argument (with variable logics) to abstracted and generalized philosophy, to spirituality - which asserts its own definitions (frameworks) for universals and fundamentals. -SV


 * It should not need saying, but:


 * an argument can be valid without being true;
 * a statement can be true without being affirmed, and affirmed without being true;
 * it is debatable as to whether truth rests on logic, or logic on truth;
 * not all statements that are contradicted by an argument are untrue; nor are all statements that are supported by an argument true. Banno 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Banno. I would have left off your final sentence, but aside from that I agree. Rick Norwood 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, that was a bit rude. My appologies. Born of frustration. Banno 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It should not need saying, but:

-Ste|vertigo 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * there are definitions for truth
 * defintions are words described by other words
 * sucky writing sucks down the whole wikipedia
 * the current version sucks major ass
 * talk pages are for working out which terms to use

Something along these lines?
It has been proposed that correspondence theory might also merit special mention in intro - perhpas because it is the most common naive view of truth, it should be --JimWae 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no single definition of truth that is not also controversial; rather there are various complementary and contrary definitions. Most theories agree that saying that a statement is true can sometimes be simply a way of agreeing with the statement, but some theories maintain that truth can mean more than that. There are also differences between theories regarding how to test claims of truth, and also about sorts of utterances can properly be called true or false. --JimWae 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Correspondence Theory
To what "fact" or "reality" does 2+2=4 correspond? What facts make "I promise to pay you $50" a true promise? Correspondence theories do not have simple answers for such questions.--JimWae 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 2 + 2 = 4 is true if properly applied. I take two jellybeans.  I take two more jellybeans.  I count -- yes I have four -- the statement is true.  Grade school kids amuse themselves improperly applying 2 + 2 = 4, and discover something about hidden assumptions.  Two rabbits plus two rabbits, etc.  The statement "I promise..." is an interesting case, because it corresponds with its own reality -- in making the statement, you make the promise.  You can promise falsely, but you cannot falsely say "I promise..." (even if you have your fingers crossed behind your back).  On the other hand, the statement that the promise is true is a prediction of a future event.  Its truth of falsehood can only be known at some future date.  But the same is true of "It will snow in Miami in July some time in the future."  The fact that we may never know if a statement corresponds to reality or not does not change the fact that correspondence to reality is what most people mean by truth most of the time.


 * I do not, however, claim that the correspondence theory is the only theory of truth. I do claim it is the most generally understood idea about truth, and that all other theories must take the correspondence theory into account, either to accept it or deny it.  It is the natural place to start. Rick Norwood 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People do falsely say "I promise..." - in plays, and also when they have no intention of carrying it out - in one case there is still a promise...--JimWae 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -- and promises are NOT predictions--JimWae 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To what reality does "Circles have 360°" correspond? noting that there are no perfect circles. There is no "2" & no "4". 2+2=4 is true because that is how we use the numbers. There are no square circles is true because it is a contradiction otherwise. Many, many statments are true strictly by their conventional meaning


 * Good point, about a person acting in a play saying "I promise..." without promising. On the other hand, you misunderstood my point about promise and prediction.  The promise is not the prediction.  The statement that a person will at some future time keep their promise is a prediction.


 * "Circles have 360 degrees," is a definition. That is, the definition of one degree (invented in Babylon circa 4000 BC) is one three-hundred sixtieth part of a circle.  There is no mathematical truth contained in the definition.  In general, a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive.  A descriptive definition may be true (that is, I can observe that people actually do use the word in the way the definition claims.  A prescriptive definition is a command, and a command is another example of a kind of statement that is neither true nor false.


 * The question of whether mathematics is "true" or only "valid" is, of course, one that has been debated for centuries. I would say that when one askes if mathematics is "true" one is asking if mathematics corresponds to the real world.  The answer seems to be, it does when the axioms correspond to the real world, but not necessarily otherwise.


 * To say that there are no perfect circles is to observe that the correspondence between a sentence and the world is never perfect. There are no perfectly true statements.  Even "It is raining," would allow one to say, "Not in between the raindrops."  Do you want something in the introduction about this, or should it come later in the article? Rick Norwood 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
A simple statement of the problem:

The intro as it stands reads:
 * Truth is a statement that corresponds with reality. If someone says, "It is raining," and it is raining, then the statement is the truth. If it is not raining, then the statement is a falsehood. Some statements are neither truth nor falsehood, either because they are matters of opinion: "Broccoli tastes good," or because they are nonsense: "Sideways is purple."

This is POV because the first sentence favours the correspondence theory of truth. Several alternative theories are discussed in the article; the article should not start with a statement that is biased towards any one of them. Banno 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Suffice it to say "it sucks." (Ill spend a propriety point on that). Lets instead work on some words we want to include first, then well figure out how to arrange them. -Ste|vertigo 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Words//apsects to include
 * Words: validity, [SV] put yours here
 * aspects: empirical, experiential, [SV] put yours here

Other problems with the intro
"Some statements are neither truth nor falsehood" could be better-worded; and the claim that opinions are neither true nor false is dubious. Banno 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, if you can find a better way of saying something, go for it. As for opinions, de gustibus non disputandum, or, as Mr. Heinlein put it, "That's what makes horse races." Rick Norwood 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that implied in Banno's criticism is an invitation for you and I (the parties in dispute) to participate in a discussion under Banno's framework. Participation would carry some rules -namely no wacky edits and no wacky reverts to the page. I can agree to those rules, and would be happy for Banno to act as a mediary. I suggested earlier that we start from scratch. Is that agreeable? -Ste|vertigo 01:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I would be more comfortable with Banno proposing a new introduction. Rick Norwood 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not offering my services as a mediator. For my part, I still think that the best intro is:
 * When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, he or she is claiming that it is the truth.
 * followed by a paragraph describing briefly the contents of the article. I cannot understand stevertigo's version, and Rick's is POV. But a variation of Jim's might just work. Banno 08:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "When someone sincerely agrees with..." is nonsense. Its not what the word "truth" means. Think about it. Jim Wae's version is not a definition, but a disclaimer stuck to the door with a ten foot pole. We can start with terms, and work them around into something which people can agree to. -Ste|vertigo 19:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)\]
 * It is an ostensive definition; it is certainly not nonsense. 'what "truth" means' is the topic of the bulk of this article, and cannot be anticipated in the introduction without POV or incoherence. Please, read the previous discussion on this article. Banno 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

References (resurrected from archive)
I'm not sure who wrote what above, but since part of it seems to be addressed to me, "I" don't distinguish anything in this article. I quote sources. The whole point of my rewrite was to replace original research with referenced information. Rick Norwood 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On a sort of sidenote, I agree with the idea of replacing original research with referenced information (in fact, I'm maybe a little too hardcore about it), but I'm not seeing any explicit references. One example: The article says, "Saul Kripke contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction.", but gives no indication where Saul Kripke makes any such argument.  All statements of this sort, and any controversial or POV statements, quotations, or paraphrases should be explicitely sourced to a book, article, speech, or whatever.  -Seth Mahoney 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont mean to pick on anyone, except to say that writing in the article should (in my humble experience) be at least as intelligent as talk on the talk page - particularly if one is comparing the same users comments and edits. The article is the real... thing. -Ste|vertigo 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Oh, and yes, I wrote about the ASD a long time ago. Excessive quoting of the WP:NOR policy seems to be either a strain of ASD, or a copout. Again, in my limited experience working this dynamic environment.


 * ? -Seth Mahoney 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to my comment above, I have reasons other than academic standards or whatever in mind (you'll notice I'm not actually disputing any of the claims in the article) - among other things, citing paraphrases and quotes makes wikipedia more useful as a reference. If, for example, I wanted to find out where Saul Kripke makes whatever claim I quoted the article as saying he makes, I'd just have to look here, and then I could look it up from there.  -Seth Mahoney 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking more to Rick, who seems to have both insight and intelligence which are not reflected in his editing. Dumbing down the article is not the answer, and pointing to NOR is no excuse. Everyone here seems to be reasonable, interested in the subject, articulate, and communicative. Again, a list of words is the best place to start. When building a bridge, engineers should, in ideal cases, agree on which materials to use. First.-Ste|vertigo 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... Back to the point, I guess: There are no explicit references in this article, and there should be.  Therefore, editors on this article should cite their sources explicitely. -Seth Mahoney 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Banno's introduction
I find Banno's version entirely acceptable. (Can we remove the POV tag, now?) Rick Norwood 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Provided all parties are agreed... Banno 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I like Bannos moderation, but dont really approve of the lede as it is. Just as a basic introduction to writing on Wikipedia, lets look at the first 3 sentences:


 * ''When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, he or she is claiming that it is the truth. If someone sincerely says, "It is raining," they are claiming that the assertion is true. What it is that makes the assertion true, and how that truth is determined, are topics of ongoing discussion.


 * It starts with a wh-fronted word - passive language, and entirely inappropriate for the lede. Start with "in foo, truth is..." or "the term truth refers to..." or "truth is..." though I think we can all agree that the third option is problematic, as it expresses a bit more definitiveness than is proper for this term.
 * The sin of starting a sentence with a "wh" word is small in comparison with starting a Wiki article with a POV statement. The alternatives you offer will not work. Banno 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Another passive context - impossible to justify. Weight is placed on the words "it" and "is" and in that sense there is an excessive shift in the purpose of this article toward the domain of the is article! ("It" of course works well enough to point back to x claim.)
 * "what it is that..." - A compound conglomerated passive aggressive expression!! Building up to a... a... "we cant say for sure" copout disguised a... a... "talks are ongoing" disclaimer. Yeesh! -Ste|vertigo 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "If someone sincerely says, "It is raining," they are claiming that the assertion is true." This may be false also.  Also it is biased because for some definitions of truth, existence does not take a truth value.   A better line would be "No Dogs are Philosophers". --Buridan 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone says "It is raining", and they are not claiming the sentence is true, then arn't they being insincere? Ignoring ellipsis, of course. Banno 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That too is arguable, and prejudices the cognitive abilities of dogs, not to mention the definition of "philosophy." Is human cognition sufficient to merit being called philosophy in the way, for example, the gods use it? (Assuming of course they require philosphy - they might have no need for it). BTW that article has a similar problem where people feel uncomfortable or incapable of expressing what it is... This should be basic stuff. -Ste|vertigo 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * it really depends, the classic example you'll find in most introductory philosophy texts is a x is not part of set y because of definition of the set y and the object x.  it will be a necessary truth because of those definitions.   after you state the simple case, then you muddy the water.   the problem with the current example is that is an existential claim, which may or may not have any truth value depending on your theory of truth and worse your theory of ontology.... iewwww talk about muddy. as for silliness about dogs being philosophers, you'll have to talk to the cynics ;) --Buridan 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As is typical of the social-sciences, your mix mash of terms is confusing the heck of out me. Philosophy far predates set theory, and is inherently argumentative, and not necessarily logical. If you want to talk set inclusion and unions, we cant even say that logical argument ⊆ argument, as logical argument ∈ logic. Or is that the other way around? Suffice it to say, 4/5 philosophers prefer to argue over every definition of truth rather than agree to one. -Ste|vertigo 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * leave the ad hominen at home. all you need is a statement that is not a statement of existence to get past this standard argument from kant.  the example that i put forth can be constructed however you want, dogs/philosophers, pebble/mountain, etc. it's soul purpose is to capture intuition without kicking the argument into questions of existence instead of questions of truth.   well other than the fact that "It is raining," they are claiming that the assertion is true."  may be false. --Buridan 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And here we go again. I still think it reasonable to state the way the word "truth" is acutally used, the so-called "correspondence theory", and then move on to the fine points of philosophy. Stevertigo wants to begin with philosophy, which he equates with argument, but that view does not seem to have any support from anyone else. I was willing to go along with Banno, but Buridan objects. Maybe Buridan would like to propose an introductory paragraph. Rick Norwood 14:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Truth'' denotes a property expressed by the predicate 'is true'.  There are disputed theories of what defines that property as discussed below.  Sentences, propositions, and statements may be 'true' and those things have some representational or expressable relationship with the world.  It is in the definition of that relationship where the predicate 'is true' is defined.  --Buridan 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Deflationary theories would not agree that truth is a property. This version would not stand, either. Banno 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with introduction
JA: The lead paragraph has numerous problems. I started out just trying to fix the stylistic use-mention problem, and found that it was impossible to feather it in with the rest of the sentence on account of all the substantive ambiguities.

After fixing the more easily fixable problems, we have

Truth (cont. false, lie) refers to the nature of statements as having a degree of fidelity with reality. In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".

JA: What is the intended subject of th first sentence? (1) The word truth, (2) the property of truth, (3) a truth in the sense of a true statement, (4) the truth, in the sense of all that is the case? There seems to be an attempt to cover all at once, which does not work. Let's pick just one to start.

JA: If it's the word truth that refers to a property, then:

Truth (antonym falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or a statement as having a degree of fidelity with reality.

JA: I suspect that we have just defined truth in terms of fidelity, but maybe nobody will notice. Wait and see. Jon Awbrey 15:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Defining" truth in terms of the "fidelity to reality" of propositions overlooks how it is applied to claims that works of art & novels are "truthful". It is also misleading to contrast the 1st & 2nd paragraphs by saying the 2nd is about its use in philosophy - suggesting the 1st is not --JimWae 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I took the purpose of the first paragraph to be simply getting the usage of the correlated terms right. I don't see the implication of an "in contrast" at the start of the second paragraph, but a tacit "more specifically'. I don't see the exclusion of aesthetic truth, as there we do speak of works being "true to life".  But yes, we have to start with propositions that are intended to be interpreted more or less literally, and gradually extend to "symbols" that are meant to be interpreted in more figurative ways.  I don't think that we can cover all that in the first sentence.  Jon Awbrey 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now the introduction still pushes the correspondence theory (fidelity to reality) but has the advantage over my introduction in that it is very hard to read. Since everybody else is just whacking away at the introduction, I'm going to take my turn, with the idea that what can be expressed in unreadable language can also be expressed in readable language. Rick Norwood 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In hopes of reaching a consensus, I'm going slow, and taking it one paragraph at a time. I really think that the other three paragraphs belong below the ToC, but if others want them above the ToC, then they need a rewrite.  The problem is not so much what they say, as that they use long words where short words are available, as if the intent were to impress rather than to communicate. Rick Norwood 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I did not take "fidelity" to be exactly the same thing as a correspondence theory of truth. It had the advantage, and I do mean advantage, of being more vague, and thus more flexible to start. I think that it's very bad to push the CorrTOT POV, and recommend going back to the previous intro, which was no more difficult to read than the average dictionary. Jon Awbrey 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

POV-section
I've returned the POV section heading; it is inappropriate to place only the correspondence theory in the introduction. The previous version - "fidelity with reality" - appears to be no more than a con volute wording of the correspondence theory; furthermore, there is surely something more to truth than just good faith. Banno 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If the ostensive definition is unacceptable (I continue to think it the best solution) then the only other path I can see is to paraphrase Wittgenstein's "truth is what is the case". Banno 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Just curious, how do you classify that motto of LW, if not a correspondence theory? Jon Awbrey 20:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you think that it is not compatible with, say, coherentism? Is what is the case a set of facts or a set of sentences?Banno


 * Banno, please tell us what theories of truth, other than the correspondence theory, you think belong in the introduction. Rick Norwood 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply - all of them; or none of them. Banno

Buridan's proposed introduction
Truth denotes a property expressed by the predicate 'is true'. There are disputed theories of what defines that property as discussed below. Sentences, propositions, and statements may be 'true' and those things have some representational or expressable relationship with the world. It is in the definition of that relationship where the predicate 'is true' is defined. --Buridan 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving Buridan's proposed introduction here for discussion. It seems to me that the first sentence is devoid of content, though it corresponds with the dictionary definition. Also, this seems to me much too technical, and more the abstract for a philosophy article than the introduction to an encyclopedia article.
 * The difficulty with Buridan's version is that deflationary theories do not agree that truth is a property.

Of the various proposals so far put forth, I like my own (obviously) and Banno's. But nobody else seems to have a second choice after their own. I think it might be interesting to ask the participants -- if you couldn't have your introduction, whose introduction would you choose? I'd choose Banno's. Rick Norwood 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would accept Jim's version:
 * There is no single definition of truth that is not also controversial; rather there are various complementary and contrary definitions. Most theories agree that saying that a statement is true can sometimes be simply a way of agreeing with the statement, but some theories maintain that truth can mean more than that. There are also differences between theories regarding how to test claims of truth, and also about sorts of utterances can properly be called true or false.[/blockquote]
 * but I suspect it simply would not last, as each new reader "fixes" it. Banno 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not devoid of content. It is a very clear shift of focus.  Nonetheless that is all that truth really means by definition.  The question then becomes how you define the property of being true, and that varies.  --Buridan 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted back to John's version, which at least reads well. Rick, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking in terms of English grammar, rather than in abstracted concepts. Referencing symbols while offering no explanative link between symbolic cognition and philosophy of mind is a table with only one or two legs. -Ste|vertigo 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! I think in terms of English grammar.  The introduction, at least, of an article in the English Wikipedia, should be written using English grammar.  You continue to revert, even though you have not garnered any support for your point of view.  Please, work with us to reach a consensus. Rick Norwood 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition
JA: In the absence of theoretical consensus -- and what are the chances of that? -- the reader is owed at the very least an authoritative account of the most common usages of the term, such as mere lexicographers do. My old M-W -- I like using the older unabridged, from before the time when the force of linguistic gravity warped us into this bleak hole -- says this: truth (from OE treowth fidelity, akin to OE treowe faithful ...) 1 a. archaic : fidelity, constancy 1 b. sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a. (1) the state of being the case : fact 2 a. (2) the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality 2 a. (3) often cap : a transendental fundamental or spiritual reality 2 b. a judgement, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true 2 c. the body of true statements and propositions 3 a. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality 3 b. chiefly Brit : true 2 3 c. fidelity to an original or to a standard. ... JA: Then, of course, you have to look up "true", too. Jon Awbrey 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would be happy with the idea of an introduction crafted from a paraphrase of the definition above. I will not, however, accept the idea that English grammar is a bad thing. Rick Norwood 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to square one
Here are two versions of the introduction.

Version A: Truth (opposite falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or its symbolic expression as having a strong fidelity with reality. A statement that is judged to have the property of truth is said to be true, and may be referred to in substantive terms as "a truth". In general terms, as "the truth" is an abstract object to which all "true statements" are (widely) understood be taken to refer. In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".

Version B: Truth is commonly understood as a correspondence between language and reality, or more generally between a symbol and what that symbol is used to represent. A nod of the head is true if the correct answer is "Yes." This is called the correspondence theory of truth. This and other theories of truth are subjects considered in such fields as philosophy, linguistics, and logic.

Please comment on which you prefer or offer other alternatives. Rick Norwood 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A --Buridan 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: A is a vague truth. B is a definite falsity. That's an example of ostensive definition. Jon Awbrey 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Something got messed up grammatically and logically since the last time I worked on this, so here's my last major edit, just as a memo to my self, so I don't forget how clever I was b4 my brain hit the WikiFryPan: Truth (antonym falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or its symbolic expression having a degree of fidelity with reality. A statement that is judged to have the property of truth is said to be true, and may be referred to in substantive terms as "a truth". The abstract object to which all true statements may be taken to refer is frequently referred to in general terms as "the truth". In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".

Neither --JimWae 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC) What "reality" does a nod of the head correspond to?


 * It looks like someone else is going to have to write the introduction, then. Banno and I are willing to accept Banno's definition.  Buridan and Jon Awbrey are willing to accept Jon Awbrey's definition.  Why not put those two up so we can consider them side by side? Rick Norwood 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer JimWae: if someone asks me, "Is it raining?" and I nod my head, then if it is, in fact, raining, the nod of the head corresponds to reality, and in nodding my head I was telling the truth. This is, of course, another example of the correspondence theory of truth, but I have asked what other theories of truth should go into the introduction and gotten no answer.


 * Question for Jon Awbrey. Please point out to me an example of falsity in B. Rick Norwood 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Rick, to say "Truth is commonly understood as a correspondence between language and reality" is already false and misleading, since it implies a commonality of understanding that simply does not exist. We have ample evidence of that just locally speaking. That commonality of understanding cannot exist so long as there is no common understanding as to what the putatively defining words "correspondence", "language", and "reality" mean. And there is no such common understanding about those. We have already seen a quite representative objection to the notion of limitating truth-bearers, as they say, to purely linguistic forms. That may be solved in the refining riders following hard upon the intro. Most likely, though, "truth" and "reality" cannot be defined except in tandem with each other. And having just spent the last decade and more Wikily the last couple of months documenting the fact that Charles Peirce uses "correspondence" in several ways that do not convict him of either (1) a dyadic theory of sign-object correspondence, or (2) what is usually called a correspondence theory of truth, I know that there is simply no common understanding in philosophical or public circles about that word, either. QED. Jon Awbrey 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To say that there is a common understanding of what Truth means does not imply that there is a universal understanding. Clearly, as you say, we have counterexamples here among us.  But most people who are not philosophers understand truth to mean correspondence with reality.  That is what I mean by a common understanding.  Similarly, most non-philosophers have a common understanding about what correspondence, language and reality mean.  If these common understandings did not exist, then communication would be impossible.


 * It was to avoid limiting "truth-bearers" (not a word in common use) to linguistic forms (not a phrase in common use) that I included general symbols in the introduction. I would prefer to have the introduction just deal with truth as an attribute of statements, and leave other objects to which truth can be attached for later.  But I am trying to reach a agreement here, so I added symbols -- which somebody of course instantly objected to.


 * I engage in debate similar to this one when I work on the mathematics articles. There are people who want to begin the article on "limit" with "For every epsilon there exists a delta..."  But Wiki policy is clear: the introduction should be non-technical.  Rick Norwood 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: If everybody's so happy with what they already know, why would anybody visit an encyclopedia? The common sense meaning of "correspondence" is a letter that you write somebody. In "truly" common speech, most folks use words like "agrees with" or "seems true to". Even when people use the same words, merely mouthing the same words does not mean that they have the same understanding of them, which is why they consult reliable refs like dictionaries, and right now your average F&W is more informative than WP on the uses of "truth". What's worse, it's apparently been that way through 10 or 11 layers of archeological archives in the WikiCity of Treowe. That indicates some kind of persistent problem to me, oh I dunno, perhaps some kind of unrelenting need to dictate the one and only truth to the reader. Jon Awbrey 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since everyone knows that the only truth is "42", why don't we blank the article and put a large "42" in its place?


 * Seriously, I am trying to work with all of the others who care about this article and want to make it better. I am willing to put as many other theories of truth in the introduction as people think necessary.  But the article is going to be written using words, unless you know of a more accurate medium of communication.  If you think "correspondence" is too hard a word for the average Wikipedia reader, I'm happy to use "agrees with".  Rick Norwood 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

qualities for an introduction
It seems to me that more or less we have to find some consensus on what would be a good introduction. This section is just for you to list what you think are NECESSARY requirements for that introduction. --Buridan 16:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

here are mine: --Buridan 16:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) the introduction should not confuse existence and truth.
 * 2) the introduction should not priviledge one theory of truth.
 * 3) the introduction should not introduce concepts (such as fidelity, correspondence) that are not present in all theories.
 * 4) the definition should not priviledge language over other forms of representation
 * 5) the introduction should be clear for the lay reader or novice to philosophy.
 * 6) the introduction may rely on wiktionary for clarification of terms.
 * A fine list. But it does not tell us what the introduction should say. So, what is the specific purpose of the introduction in the article? Banno 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * introduction --Buridan 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...A re-direct page - quite funny, in this context! Banno 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should look at Lead section Banno

JA: Again, there is no need to present a "grand unified theory theory of truth" (GUTOT). Nobody else has one, so why should we? -- that would be Original Research anyway. A perfectly decent and minimal alternative is simply to provide a descriptive account of the most common varieties of sense and nuance, lexicon style, and then develop the various and sundry themes in the rest of the article. From what I've seen of Wiktionary, it is neither very authoritative nor very comprehensive, and it violates some rules about self-ref and outside sourcing to rely too heavily on it. But standard references are available, and that is what they are for. Jon Awbrey 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I'm not going to debate the need to find a way to come to a consensus here. There is a need for consensus, and there is seeming dissensus on what makes a good introduction.  This section is meant for people to state clearly and in simple terms what they need in the introduction in order to consent.  I am not promoting a grand unified theory of anything.  I am promoting a way of ending the incessent negation of other people's work.  My suggestion is to just state what you need so we can understand each other and then people can go back to debating whether pragmatism has a theory of truth or not, or whatever their own personal biff is.   --Buridan 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: A comment on some of Buridan's specific points. If you seek the intersection of all theories you may end up with the empty set. So an inclusive lexical introduction will have to take something close to the union. The connotations of "fidelity" and, if you go further back, "durability", are elements of the etymology, the documented history of the word, and so it is legitimate to mention them, though, depending on your favorite theory of meaning, they may or may not have much to do with any of the current usages. Jon Awbrey 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jon that Wictionary is not a good source. If we must go to a dictionary, the OED is considered authoritative.  I agree with Buridan that the introduction should be clear to the lay reader.  In addition, the introduction is not a definition.  It should give some idea of the usefulness of the concept, the fields in which it is used, and the topics delt with in the body of the article.


 * "The introduction should not confuse existence and truth." I agree, but I don't think that has happened (yet).  Keats made that mistake, but he was writing a poem.  Existance is a property of matter and energy.  Truth is a property of signs and symbols.


 * "The introduction should not priviledge one theory of truth." For the fourth time I ask, in addition to the correspondence theory, which other theories should be included in the introduction?


 * "The introduction should not introduce concepts (such as fidelity, correspondence) that are not present in all theories." This seems to me unnecessarily harsh.  How can you introduce the theories without mentioning the ways in which they differ?


 * "The definition should not priviledge language over other forms of representation." While I have no strong objection to this, I would guess that 99% of the time the predicate "truth" is applied to a string of symbols that qualifies as a "language".  I'm not certain that the other 1% needs to be in the introduction.

Rick Norwood 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Shotgun !
JA: Okay, I called it first, so I get pride of place as passenger, but where I came from it's the owner of the pickup that gets to drive. As to the specific question of which theory to favor in the introduction, my answer is none of them. At my last count, we have these theories of truth:

Theories of truth


 * Coherentism
 * Consensus theory of truth
 * Correspondence theory of truth
 * Deflationary theory of truth


 * Epistemic theories of truth
 * Indefinability theory of truth
 * Pragmatic theory of truth
 * Semantic theory of truth

JA: And ten-to-one I missed a bunch. It gives me arachnophobia just looking at it. Jon Awbrey 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think that all of these should go in the introduction? If not, how should the introduction be structured so as not to prejudice the reader in favor of, say, the Shotgun theory of truth over against the "Whoever is stronger gets to ride in the passenger seat" theory of truth? Rick Norwood 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Do we really want to reference the article lie-to-children? Rick Norwood 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I repeat: "my answer is none of them". Short of consensus on theory, which does not seem imminent, one falls back on dic/def with explanations to follow for each sense, say, in alphabetical order. The fact that "fidelity" appears in the etymology is a sourced fact. The fact that the words "conform to reality" or whatever are instanced reproducibly by the lexicographer's informants is a fact. None of that weighs in favor of any specific theory of truth, unless the typical informants start spouting citations from Whomever when you ask them about their own word usage. There is in fact very little plausibility to the notion that they have a specific theory in mind when they use these words as they learned to use them. There is the notion of folk theory, but never mind that now. Jon Awbrey 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! I misunderstood your "none of them".  I thought it referred to "none of the currently suggested introductions".  So, an introduction that is based entirely on etymology.  I can live with that.  My OED is at home, has anyone else got one handy? Rick Norwood 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's from the Old English, representative of an Old Norse or Old High German word for "plighted faith", much the same etymology as "true" but with the suffix -th used to form the abstract noun. I don't see how this helps. Banno 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and logic 101
SV: "Rick you seem to be making the mistake of thinking in terms of English grammar." RN: "Yes! I think in terms of English grammar. The introduction, at least, of an article in the English Wikipedia, should be written using English grammar."

Rick, this is the English Wikipedia - something Ive been tinkering around with for about four years. The reason why I pounced on your edits was because we continually have newbies coming into the project who deliberately or unintentionlly assert their preconcived notions of what Wikipedia is and what its artcles should look like. Some of these newbies are even professionals who although may have some sense of the issues, will nevertheless ignore years of developed culture and consensus on the basics. In your case your missing some basic aspects of encyclopedic writing style, and this fact is as obvious to some of us as is a singer who doesnt care about timbre or a drummer who doesnt care about rhythm.

More generally, newbies tend to have localised notions of what things are and how they should be written. By saying "yes I think in terms of English grammar" you not only reveal a preference for a grammatical over a cognitive concept of language, but you also reveal an aspect of English language localism, which asserts a "ground up" approach is somehow necessary &mdash;perhaps because you think more abstract concepts are too highbrow or dont translate well. Give people credit for having some intellect. As with political issues, where the English Wikipedia needs to avoid natural American-Anglo-Euro biases, we also need to avoid these biases in areas of language. Thus we attempt to mitigate this bias by thinking and writing in as conceptual and abstract manner as possible. The "when you" style is personal and localist - and just doesnt cut it here. You may think these are subtle distinctions, but as they say in Go, the difference between a correct move and and incorrect move can appear slight to a novice, but to a strong player the difference is like the drop of cinder block or the soft floating of a feather. This is something which some more experience in this international platform will perhaps help to mitigate. -Ste|vertigo 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * steve please leave off the elitism like I've been here for x years and your comments about philosphers and such. That isn't the wikipedia way. --Buridan 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean no elitism. The Wikipedia is a dynamic context which is not understood by all. Its clear to some of us which others are newer to the concept of finding consensus and working in a dynamic and universalising framework. Its not elitism, cabalism, cliqueism, or whatever. Theres a process (which I happen to be experienced with) for the task of crafting consensus on how an article is written. John, Jim, Banno, and you seem at least agreeable and Rick appears to be mired in the aspects of writing style. -Ste|vertigo 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, Buridan. This line of discussion serves no purpose. Banno 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also do not want to prolong this exchange of personalities. If Stevertigo had bothered to check my user page, he would know I am not a "newbie".  If he had thought about what he was writing, he should have realized that that good grammar and good sense are not mutually exclusive.  Since I have published original research in the area of logic, he should not presume to teach me logic.  And he should be aware that a basic rule of good writing is to treat the concrete before the abstract.


 * In fact, in this last, we finally reach the point of this discussion, which is the question of whether "we attempt to mitigate this bias by thinking and writing in as conceptual and abstract manner as possible". I think the introduction at least should be concrete rather than abstract.  If I wanted to write an abstract introduction, I would have written "Truth is a measure of the extent to which a symbol accurately represents reality," or something to that effect.  (I agree, by the way, that the use of "you" should be avoided.  I took that out in my first rewrite.)


 * Now, can we leave the personalities out of this, and discuss the issues at hand. Rick Norwood 14:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not "personal", its just pointing to a fact that your writing style (on this article anyway) has personalised and localised aspects -- and therefore cumbersome aspects.


 * We agree that "we finally reach the point of this discussion, which is the question of whether "we attempt to mitigate this bias by thinking and writing in as conceptual and abstract manner as possible"." Your disagreement with this is curious, and you assert a "concrete" form - ie. concretisation - the exact opposite of abstraction. "Truth is a measure of the extent to which a symbol accurately represents reality" is interesting, and agreeable abstract. The only problem with this is that it concretely states truth is "a measure," relies heavily on a gradient ("extent to which.."), makes "symbol" (and "symbolism") absolute prerequisites. Representationalism is agreeable at least. If you want to say "truth refers to a cognate and communicable value given to [statements], as based on their fidelity to reality", then I might agree, though this might have to be prefaced with "in psychology and cognitive linguistics." What to leave in, what to leave out...-Ste|vertigo 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff to do
The search for truth reveals a list of related articles which may need notation, integration, merging, etc: The Truth, Absolute truth (redir), Fictional truth, Truth value, Truth table, Truth function, Four Noble Truths, Two truths doctrine, Objective truth (redir), Doctrine of substantial truth, Fictional truth, List of truth and reconciliation commissions (ie fact finding). -Ste|vertigo 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the items on this list, the following are mathematical, and this article does not need to link to them: Truth Value, Truth Table, Truth Function.

The following are political and this article does not need to link to them: List of truth and reconciliation comissions, fact finding.

The following are religious, and we may or may not want to link to them: Four Nobel Truths (Buddhist), Two truths doctrine (Christian).

That leaves The Truth, Absolute truth, Fictional truth, Objective truth, and Doctrine of substantial truth for us to look into. Rick Norwood 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Are you sure that Two truths doctrine is from christian? Maybe you're refering to another one with another meaning? Monkey Brain 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have any of the rest of you notice how *funny* the word "truth" looks after you type it about five times? Rick Norwood 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We do link to them, given that the truth definition applies to them. We must of course draw the link in terms of philosophy > math, and philosophy > ethics, and philosophy > political. The last of course being least relevant. -Ste|vertigo 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Argh ...
By god, that intro is ugly. Banno 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh.. Much nicer, Jim. Banno

JA: Where exactly do you find the ug?

JA: How about this: This is not so much a definition or even a very informative statement about truth, per se, but an almost purely self-referential string of characters designed to distract the reader for a respectable number of lines of text without taking the risk of saying anything that anybody might conceivably take exception to, well, that's about the length I was going for, so on to the rest of the article, like you'd have any reason to read it now. JA: Oh wait, somebody read my mind. Never mind. Jon Awbrey 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, this intro has my vote. : ) Rick Norwood 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposition, Statement, Sentence, Utterance
sentences and representations also have truth value in logic, not merely propositions. --Buridan 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: In ordinary use, and even in casual philosophical use, the words proposition and statement are equivocal, referring either to the semiotic object, the abstract object or logical content, or else to the semiotic sign, the corresponding plastic-syntactic medium of expression. Of course, there is the technical distinction between these things, but even discerning wits differ as to where to draw the line in the list above. Most aficionadas and aficionados draw the line with "proposition" in the object column, but taste varies as to whether "statement" is objectoid or signoid in flavo(u)r. It's generally safe to say that "sentence" and "utterance" are in the signlike clan, but I have seen a few writers who will use "utterance" for the abstract information content. In computer science, it is de rigGUIer to adject the ambiguous substantive in question, post-pending the substantive "expression" in order to make things perfectly clear, which you get used to doing with computers, or else. Jon Awbrey 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, is that our introduction, then? : ) Rick Norwood 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Hey, works for me. Maybe we could arrange a homunculo-bitbot of java code that would cycle through a humongous list of tired-&-true defamitions, enough to ensure that the reader would get a different deafinition each time he/she/it consulted the WikiOracle. Jon Awbrey 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A proposed introduction
Truth has been a subject of interest and discussion throughout recorded history, with serious applications to philosophy and linguistics, to logic and law. Pontius Pilate is reported to have said, "What is truth?" John Keats wrote "Truth is beauty." However, most people would agree that if someone says, "It is raining," and it is raining, they spoke the truth. Rick Norwood 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

logic and aesthetics
I have commented out:


 * In logic, sentences, propositions and representational forms are considered to have a truth value. In aesthetics, it is usual to consider a much broader range of symbolic expressions, but whether such symbols are properly said to be true - in even the most generalized sense of the word - is likely to depend on the theory of aesthetics adopted in a given discussion.

because I'm not at all sure what it is about. It does not presage anything in the main article, so at the least, I do not think it should be included above the TOC; perhaps the authors would like to place a new section along the line of "truth in aesthetics" in the article? Then this paragraph could; be sensibly reinstated. Banno 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Banno's JimWae's new introduction
I hope that we can all accept Banno's new introduction, in the spirit of getting on with it. Rick Norwood 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although its just a peeve of mine, does anyone particularly mind if I change 'opinions' in the intro to 'views' or something similar? My hackles go up at the mere suggestion that doing philosophy is just opining.  -Seth Mahoney 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no objection - but the text is substantialy Jim's, not mine. Banno

Good! We seem to be making progress. (I took the liberty of making the change Seth suggested since I was there anyway.) Now, not wishing to stir up any controversy, I do have three  suggestions. If they do not meet with general agreement I'll drop them.

"complementary and contrary definitions" → "complementary or contrary"

"and the sorts of utterances can properly" → "and the things that can properly"

"truth as a property" : the link is to an article on ownership in the sense of real estate. To avoid this reading, how about → "truth as an attribute"?

Rick Norwood 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whats up with the formatting Rick? Try using bullets? -Ste|vertigo 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Starting an article with a disclaimer is no way to start an article at all. Thats just my opinion, as based on four years of editing articles here, and seeing how thousands of other articles have been well written in an uncontroversial way. While this version doesnt altogether tucks tail and runs away, its not good either. -Ste|vertigo 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection to the three changes suggested above... Rick Norwood 13:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo
Here is a proposed intro:


 * "Truth (opposite falsity) refers to the property of a proposition or its symbolic expression as having a strong fidelity with reality. A statement that is judged to have the property of truth is said to be true, and may be referred to in substantive terms as "a truth". In general terms, as "the truth" is an abstract object to which all "true statements" are (widely) understood be taken to refer. In rhetorical contexts where obfuscation is a factor, honesty and sincerity may also be considered as aspects of the "truth".


 * "In philosophy, the definition of truth has greater variance, and particular definitions or theories typically require or assert a scope within the human condition upon which to base a wider philosophical framework. For example robust theories of truth treat truth as a property &mdash;ie. a human quality.  Others, such as the deflationary theories, suggest that "truth" is simply a tool of language with no further meaning.  Developments in formal logic have thrown light on the way in which truth is used both in formal systems and in natural languages.


 * Subjectivity is at the core of the truth paradox. The way in which one knows that one has a toothache is quite different from the way in which one knows that the Earth is the third planet from the sun. The first is an autistic attribute determined by introspection, while the other is objective and determined by shared human observations, reasoning, and calculation.
 * In aesthetics, for example, it is usual to consider a much broader range of symbolic expressions than the ones that are contemplated in logic. Whether such symbols are properly said to be propositional in even the most generalized sense of the word is likely to depend on the theory of aesthetics adopted in a given discussion.

I've rolled it back in its entirety. The reasons have been discussed in detail on the talk page, but for the record: lastly, small words are preferable to big ones. Banno 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First paragraph; that truth is a property is an opinion, as the text acknowledges in the second paragraph; so the opening sentence is POV.
 * First paragraph; the notion that "truth" refers to anything is quite contentious, and is not dealt with in the article.
 * Second paragraph; all theories of truth are either robust or deflationary. The paragraph gives the impression that there are alternatives that are neither.
 * Third para; talk of a "truth paradox" is confused.
 * Fourth para; the subject of the first sentence is unclear, and the topic is not dealt with inthe article.


 * Well at least you are responsive on a point by point basis. That gives us a start. Before we proceed, please do me the courtesy of offering a response to my criticism of the current version as being an inappropriate disclaimer disguised as an enclyclopedia entry. -Ste|vertigo 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for taking the criticisms of the suggested version with grace; I'm amazed that the discussion hasn't degenerated into an edit war yet, and I think that credit is due to you and the other editors for their restraint. In essence, I agree that it would be preferable to start the article with something other than a "disclaimer"; but it is far worse to start it with a POV statement, or one that is misleading. So the disclaimer stays, at least for now. Please remember that the discussion about the introduction to this article has been going literally for years - since the articel was created; it comes down to making a difficult choice. I continue to prefer the speech act version, which at least gave the article stability for a few months; but I am willing to work from the present version. If there is some content here that you thin absolutely must be included, please do so. Banno 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction is a compromise. It was accepted because it was, I believe, the first introduction that as many as three people were willing to accept. My introduction didn't start with a disclaimer, but you didn't like it, either. I think it is time to move on. We've talked the subject to death. Maybe somebody new will come along an offer an introduction everybody will like. Rick Norwood 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another try at a "tail's up" introduction

 * ''Note: Sentence by sentenence workup moved to : Truth/draft. -Ste|vertigo 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

After this sentence, the introduction could go on to mention the difficulty of definition and the various theories of truth. Rick Norwood 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Now youre talking my language. "Truth" is indeed a word - let's start with what it is first. -Ste|vertigo 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Ive added a second sentence and lableled both of our sentences with our nametag. We can work like this in order to see who wrote what, and what needs work. -SV

If others also agree, I would like to see the introduction developed along this line. I think "loyal" needs to be in there: a person is "true blue", "true to his cause", or "a true believer", etc.

I think if you restrict "true" to being a word that describes statements, and preference the correspondence theory of truth, you will run into objections from others, though not from me. Rick Norwood 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We must take care not to turn the encyclopedia into a dictionary. The article is about truth when used to affirm "what is the case". Any dictionary will list a half-dozen associated meanings, but do we really need to include them here? If so, then I suggest we do so by including a section on the etymology of truth rather than by listing a series of definitions that do not relate to the main topic of the article. Banno 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Im glad we can agree on a methodological framework for working on the article, if not exactly to agree on what truth means. I do think Banno has a legitimate point here in that using an English idiom like "true blue" as a basis for asserting a definition of truth is improper. "True" also is (universally?) cognate with straight as in "true line," or "her aim is true." "Straight" is also (universally?) cognate with morality, principle, etc. In other words, there is a relationship there that needs to be clarified in abstract terms - not just suggested as based only on a particular idiom. Truth, "the truth", true, truism - are differentiated in their usage, (or is it their usage that differentiates them?). Warm regards to everybody. -Ste|vertigo 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Banno does have a very good point here, since the rest of the article does ignore other uses of the word "truth". I rather like SV's point about the many terms obliquely connected with "truth", but that sort of musing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I guess. I'm kind of resistant to the reduction of "truth" to a concept about "statements", but that is neither here nor there given the contents of the article. Ig0774 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this is not a dictionary, and if a majority don't want "loyal" there, out it goes. But to me the idea of truth meaning "loyal" or "faithful" has a lot to do with all of the different meanings ascribed to it. The "correspondence theory" is that truth is fidelity to reality, and a person is true to a cause if they are faithful to the cause. Maybe "faithful" is a better word than "loyal". The idea "trustworthy" also seems to me to fit into this cluster of ideas around "truth". And, as I said above, I agree with Ig0774 that we need to allow "truth" to apply to more than just "statements", though I think that is the most common and most important application.

At least, we all seem to agree that "truth" is a word. Rick Norwood 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not that "if the majority doesnt want it, it goes" or "that sort of musing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - such references are often appropriate, but in the proper place. It may belong somewhere down a couple paragraphs, where we can make finer distinctions. :) We are working top down - sentence by sentence - something that may be best done at a draft version: here we go: Im copying the sentence by sentence edit scheme above to Truth/draft. -Ste|vertigo 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? This has the result that any changes to the draft will not show up on the watchlists of many of the editors. Banno 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadnt considered that problem. I will work on a technical solution, and get back to you shortly. -Ste|vertigo 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ive got it! People can choose of their own volition to add Truth/draft to their watchlists. That solves that problem -Ste|vertigo 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)