Talk:Truth/Archive 7

Template:philosophy

The Lead Section
I'm starting a new section because the discussions above have become too hard to follow. As of this moment the lead section reads:


 * The search for the nature of truth is a major topic of philosophy. From one point of view, an understanding of the term, 'truth' can be reached by looking at what role, if any, the predicate "is true" plays in statements such as "'Snow is white' is true." From that point of view, such statements are seen to be evaluating the statement "Snow is white," but from a different point of view statements of the form, "It is true that snow is white" are redundant, it is sufficient to say simply, "Snow is white." (See the section on Deflationary Theories.) This is only one of the issues about truth that philosophers discuss.

It seems to me that everything after the first sentence should be deleted. It is simply a preview of one (of many) issues discussed later in the article. It does not server to introduce the article. Does anyone object if I just delete everything after the first sentence? --Nate Ladd 09:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see any value in the first sentence, either, for reasons stated above. Much of the article has nothing to do with philosophy, so why imply that the article is about truth in regard to philosophy? Banno 10:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix replies: 1. The search for truth is one of the major topics of philosophy, so, from my point of view, ANYTHING that has to do with the terms 'true' or 'truth' (or related terms like 'verity', for example) is relevant. But as I see our situation here, the issue is a difference between two points of view in philosophy being represented fairly in the lead section of this article. On the one hand the point of view that a statement of the form, "Snow is white is true" is seen as evaluating the statement, "Snow is white." And on the other hand a different point of view which does not agree, it sees statements like "Snow is white is true" as redundant, and that saying simply, "Snow is white" is perfectly sufficient. See Deflationary theories in the article.

2. From my point of view, in resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it is far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly, particularly in a place so prominant as the introduction (the lead section), to an article about truth, don't you agree? -- DotSix

See Npov:

"Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ('write unbiasedly'). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible."

"In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, 'Go thou and write unbiasedly'. If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, 'Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say.' But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit 'save', then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, 'These are mine'? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place."

"The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all." -- DotSix

As it stands now, there are even DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW concerning EVEN THE FIRST SENTENCE, "The search for truth is a major topic of philosophy." Some do not agree that describes the actual state of affairs. How can any of us object to giving all points of view equal billing, as per WikiPolicy NPOV? -- DotSix

RE:"Snow is white is true"
 * it is not ALWAYS true that snow is white - sometimes it is gray, sometimes yellow - it is a contingent fact. Snow CAN be any colour at all - even black
 * it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Is snow white "in-itself" or is it (usually) perceived to be white?
 * Does "white" mean "reflects all frequencies in the visible spectrum"?
 * the earlier "3 is less than 4 is true" was less ambiguous, but perhaps packed the issue too tightly in one use of "truth".
 * Is there a difference in the meaning of truth when we say "Snow is white is true" vs when we say "3 is less than 4 is true". I think, actually, this points out that there are different standards of truth for each of those assertions.
 * I have considered the proposition "snow is white" and find it generally to be true
 * --JimWae 18:43, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Four is more than three by definition of the cardinal numbers [] so I have to ask you what does that have to do with disagreement over the conroversial term, truth here? --DotSix


 * DotSix added this text to the lead section: Some do not agree that statement describes the actual state of affairs, they insist it should read, "The search for the nature of truth is a major topic of philosophy."
 * Please do not insert your own personal remarks into the article. Making references to the current dispute within the article text is unprofessional. Rhobite 19:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view it's not "personal remarks," it's an accurate description of just how controversial the term, 'truth' is in the real world, as mirrored here in talk:truth. Are you taking issue with the WikiPolicy that all points of view should be given equal billing, as quoted above? -- DotSix


 * What are you talking about? I'm taking issue with the fact that you're repeatedly inserting your own comment about the dispute into the article text. Saying "they insist it should read" does not belong in the article. Furthermore the NPOV policy does not say anything to the effect of "all points of view should be given equal billing". If that is the meaning you obtain from reading WP:NPOV, you need to re-read it. Rhobite 19:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix Replies: With all due respect, from my point of view you appear to be mistaken, brother. 8^) Here is where point of view says clearly that all points of view should be given equal billing (be clearly, accurately, and fairly described):

"A point of view (POV) in Wikipedia is an often important part of articles which treat controversial subjects." "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' policy." I will accept your apology for your misunderstanding now. 8^) -- DotSix


 * it does not say EQUAL billing ...

That's your point of view, but I think you are mistaken, it says clearly, "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' policy." I will accept your apology for your misunderstanding now. 8^) -- DotSix


 * it also says:
 * "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view."
 * (Neutral point of view)

DotSix replies: That statement is no longer operative. It did not comport with the principle that argumentum ad numerum, an appeal to the popularity of a point of view, is logical fallacy. See informal logic. -- 67.182.157.6 13:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You actually edited an official policy in order to justify your position! I'm impressed! Banno 21:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your rudeness to Jim was uncalled for. He is correct. Banno 10:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix Replies: 1. Showing reasonable grounds for disagreement with someone's remarks in talk:truth is not rudeness, sir, it is called debate; calling it 'rudeness' amounts to just another piece of argument _ad hominem_ on your part, which is more logical fallacy. See informal logic.

2. The point of view you and Jim are pushing here amounts to the logical fallacy of argument _ad populum_, that only the majority view is worthy of serious consideration. -- 67.182.157.6 13:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ... -- and the compromise version I offered still gives prominent billing to deflationary view - and little to any other --JimWae 23:13, 2005 July 20 (UTC)


 * DotSix, I'd like you to read what you wrote and honestly answer these questions: Would you understand it if you read it in a paper encyclopedia? Isn't it confusing to people who are not familiar with the dispute on this talk page? Imagine if you'd written a news article and broken from the story to write "my editor insists that the previous sentence should be worded..." Rhobite 20:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dot67 - you are losing whatever support you had from me by calling my attempts at compromise vandalism. I have made attempts to figure out what you have been grumbling about -- the eventual aim is to remove the POV label, no? If you cannot distinguish vandalism from compromise, nor POV from NPOV, I suggest you either sit & watch more, or go elsewhere to apply your skills. Oh, and NPOV does not mean all sides get equal billing - yet, in fact, you are insisting that one side get predominant billing --JimWae 22:37, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

That's your point of view, but I think you are mistaken, it says clearly, "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' policy." I will accept your apology for your misunderstanding now. 8^) -- DotSix

JimWae wrote: "It is unnecessarily stacking the deck to phrase it in such a way that 'truth' has a "'nature'."

I agree with you here, JimWae. That is known as reification reify, treating an abstraction, 'truth' (which simply refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs) as though it were something concrete. Maybe we will be able to find some common ground here after all? 8^) -- DotSix

Is it even required by WikiPolicy that we must say something profound in the lead section? Why don't we just clear it of everything (except the index, of course, which is there automatically), since we can't seem to settle on exactly what it should say, let the article speak for itself, since all the various points of view seem to be given fair treatment in the body of the article, right? How about this for a reasonable compromise? Come on, what have you got to lose? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 00:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The "broken record" style of debating doesn't work in the long run. It is very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who simply repeats the same thing over and over. Can you accept that "fair" does not mean the same thing as "equal" in the NPOV policy? Obviously Wikipedia doesn't allow any anonymous user to stroll along and add their personal opinion to an article under the guise of "equal placement". Rhobite 03:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Given the opportunity NOT to have the text Dot67 objects to, he reinserted it himself, twice. It seems he'd rather complain than have his objections answered. He also keeps putting the NPOV tag in on his own material. I cannot distinguish this behaviour from sheer disruption. --JimWae 03:45, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

1. I keep restoring the NPOV flag to the lead section because not everyone agrees that what I wrote in the lead section comports with the NPOV policy as they see it. How could any reasonable person object to having the NPOV flag displayed on an article the neutrality of which is still in dispute? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

2. Your rude remark, "It seems he'd rather complain than have his objections answered" is just another piece of the argument _ad hominem_ case you, Robite and Banno, et al are trying to build against someone who does not share your point of view, right?

3. How about answering my question with something other than argument _ad hominem_? The question is, "Is it even required by WikiPolicy that we must say something profound in the lead section? Why don't we just clear it of everything (except the index, of course, which is there automatically), since we can't seem to settle on exactly what it should say, let the article speak for itself, since all the various points of view seem to be given fair treatment in the body of the article, right? How about this for a reasonable compromise?"


 * I'm amused that DotSix actually tried to edit the NPOV policy in order to support his belief that all opinions should be given equal placement in articles:
 * Yes, it is best if all articles have readable lead sections which summarize the concepts described in the article. See Lead section. There is no reason to declare "we failed" simply because you cannot abide the consensus version of the lead section. Rhobite 15:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I like your addition to the lead JimWae. I think the lead would benefit from a very short piece decribing the "common language" non-philosophical use of true/truth and false, especially since all these terms redirect to the page. Should a separate section be added to the page itself, or would this be more suitable as a sentence in the lead? byped 19:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Banana's latest edition of the lead section
quote: "When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, they are claiming that it is the truth."

"Much of this article is about philosophical ideas as to what sorts of things are true and the nature of truth itself. In addition it discusses some particular and peculiar uses of truth." end quote

From my point of view, Banana's latest edition of the lead section is just as fraught with the same old problem of obscurantist bias it ever was, as I have explained in my objections to it previously. What's so hard to understand about this? Judging by the writings of those involved in the revert battle here, one might think that the policy of writing articles without bias (or else don't try to write anything at all) were rocket science, for Pete's sake!

From wp:npov "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable'."

Admin help is definitely needed here! -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 00:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop calling him "Banana". It seems a little hypocritical to claim that one engages in "principled negotiation" while calling other people childish names. Rhobite 00:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving and editing other people's comments - RFC
I suggest that the repeated unnecessary archiving of very recent and relevant material and editing of the comments of other users is an improper practice. Place this alongside repeated reversion and referring to the comments of others as "obscurantist" and "vandalism" - I've refereed this to RfC. Banno 20:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this, Banno. I would love to help, but after reading the RfC page, I could not figure out how to make a comment. I would like to add the following points:
 * Falsely accusing others of threatening him/her.
 * Adding a NPOV tag to a lead paragraph that he/she had had written himself/herself.
 * Refusing to follow the style guide regarding placement of references to Wikitionary.
 * Violation of the 3-Revert rule.
 * Refusing to respond constructively to attempts by others to meet him/her halfway.
 * Repeatedly adding a link to a page that simply redirects to the original page.


 * There is currently no RFC on DotSix's conduct - merely a request for comments on the article. We should welcome more voices to this discussion. Hopefully it will help us come to a consensus on the proper contents of the lead section. Rhobite 03:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I opted not to go to Requests for comment because .6 is a newbie, and also because he has not registered a username. My hope is that general comments by outside users will persuade him to adopt a more appropriate approach. Banno 05:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Rhobite 05:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Could you indicate what you would like outsiders to comment on, and provide diffs or similar for comparisons? FuelWagon 00:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to help with comments, but I can't seem to find exactly what is is you object to about the lead section DotSix. As mentioned, the archives are a mess, so if you don't mind can you state again what your objections to the current wording are, and what you would propose as a solution? I think it might help to expand on the current version, but I'd like to have your position more clearly defined before I make any suggestions. byped 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment from FuelWagon
Re: user 67.182.157.6

Anon editor appears to be editing pedantically (pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects)(emphasis on the word trivial). checking the history for the last 500 edits and checking a number of diffs, I find no edits by 67.182.157.6 that improve the article, but rather exchange one truth for another for no clear purpose, or rewrite the intro into something that may be a true statement of facts, but seems to have missed the point of the article. Whatever problems the article may contain, (and no article is perfect), this editor is not making it any better. Behaviour on talk page indicates editor needs to learn how to play well with others. When edit is reverted, editor refers to it as vandalism, which isn't conducive to achieving concensus. Also exhibits "tit for tat" behaviour, deleting a paragraph from article when someone deletes his. . Editor appears to have some grasp of the subject matter but is making it more important to have article represent his version rather than finding a version that works for many. If editor can apply some of that intelligence towards working with others, then something positive may come of it. As it is, progress on the article appears stopped because of editor. FuelWagon 02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

-- FuelWagon 02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." -- No personal attacks

-- DotSix 67.182.157.6 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * DotSix, please do not remove other users' comments. FuelWagon's comment was not a personal attack - I believe it is an accurate portrayal of your behavior here. Removing other people's comments is vandalism and could result in your being blocked from editing. Rhobite 19:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The comment from Fuelwagon is a response to an RfC on this article. It is relevant to the development of the article. It should be left on the talk page. Banno 21:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is there something about, "Comment on content, not on the contributor that you find difficult to understand? You need to study No personal attacks brother. That policy is not negotiable. Don't make me have to bring you boys up on charges now. Best regards. Have a nice day, and lay off the personal attacks. Life's to short to be making war here. Unsigned comment by User:207.200.116.133


 * It is not your place to remove comments which are directed against you. As I said, this is not a personal attack - it may not be as relevant to the article's content as you'd like, but removing it is still an act of vandalism. If you remove it again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism of talk pages is not conducive to discussion. By the way, I'm disappointed at your apparent double standard. What would you do if I removed every comment of yours which referred to Banno as "Banana"? Rhobite 23:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you just edit out somebody's comments? What happened to the comments of user 207.200.116.133?

It's a good thing you didn't threaten, "The next person who edits out somebody's comments gets blocked!" You would now be forced to give yourself a taste of your own medicine and and go block yourself. 8^) If you plan on trying to play the role of cop here, you had better learn to practice what you preach, don't you think?

Now, what was that policy again? NO PERSONAL ATTACKS? That sounds like if you see a personal attack, the reasonable thing to do is edit it out, to eliminate the personal attack, right? Else what does 'No personal attacks' mean?


 * What are you talking about? The comment which you posted from 207.200.116.133 is right there, I edited nothing.

There is no sign of anything from 207.200.116.133 on this page, brother. You screwed the pooch. Now go block yourself. 8^) DotSix 67.182.157.6 01:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Some Wikipedians do Remove personal attacks. Removing personal attacks is always controversial, and generally you should not remove personal attacks against yourself. That said, FuelWagon's comment is not a personal attack. It is an honest assessment of your behavior on this page. Please stop removing it. Rhobite 00:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you're mistaken. User:207.200.116.133 posted one comment (I have a feeling this is you editing from a dialup, but whatever), which begins "Is there something about." It is still on this page, about a half a page up from this comment. The comment was not signed, but I have marked it now. I did remove it accidentally when I was undoing 207's vandalism, but I replaced it 2 minutes later. These diffs show what happened: 207's comment: . This is where I reverted 207's vandalism and accidentally removed the comment: . 2 minutes later I replaced the comment: By the way, you never responded to my request. In the interest of principled negotiation I'd like to e-mail you or talk on IRC. Agreed? Rhobite 01:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're not trying to change the subject are you?

Following is a link to a cut you never put back, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATruth&diff=19407655&oldid=19407589

Ping Rhobite. Don't you face up to it like a man, admit it, and apologize when the content you write has been shown to be a mistake? --207.200.116.133 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, DotSix. Please make your future edits productive. As I mentioned to you before, I am considering formal dispute resolution. Rhobite 19:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATruth&diff=19407655&oldid=19407589 shows that you were mistaken, you DID permanently delete the comments of someone, something which you insist you have never done. Why don't you just be a man, face up to your error, admit it, and apologize? Nobody will hold a permanent greivance against you if you admit your error and try to correct it. We are all human, but since you are acting as an Administrator, shouldn't you be setting a better example? 8^) Best regards.


 * As I told you multiple times, that was an accident and I replaced the comment two minutes later: I will not respond to this silliness any more. Rhobite 20:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The comment you replaced,, is not the comment we are discussing, it's this other one that you deleted permanently: . Are we on the same page now, Rhobite? -- 172.195.53.33 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. The relevant policy: 'Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.' -- No personal attacks -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)"

Is that what you would call objectionable material, deserving to be cut? -- 207.200.116.133 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to demonstrate your consistency, will you now remove the references to "banana"? Banno 07:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Aristotle & 19th & 20th Centuries & theories of truth

 * Aristotle was the first philosopher to offer a theory of truth, but it was not until the 19th Century that the nature of truth became a major issue in philosophy. In the 20th century, some philosophers have come to deny that there could be such a thing as a theory of truth. (See Deflationary Theories below.)

Does article discuss Aristotle's theory of truth? - or 19th Century theories? Is Deflationary theory couched in terms of theory of truth? In what way was my offering about "the meaning of the term truth" inadequate?--JimWae 07:54, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
 * Jim, I think your version is fine, except that it implies that the article is exclusively philosophical - which is not the case - and as you noted it gives undue prominence to deflationary theories. Banno 10:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan's version
Sorry, Nathan, but I don't think it will do. Plato used a very similar version of the correspondence theory of truth to Aristotle, and pre-dates him. It also give undue prominence to Deflation. Banno 07:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Banno's version
Trying to think of an alternative approach, my version has two sections. The first, like Nathan's, avoids giving, or even discussing, the meaning of truth. It does this by using the performance of an illocution to explain the meaning - one cannot sincerely make an assertion of something one thinks is false. The second section discusses the content of the article itself. Any good? Banno 09:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I join JimWae in taking exception to the phrase, 'the nature of truth'. It amounts to the fallacy of reification of the abstraction, 'truth', trying to make of it something concrete that can have nature (observable characteristics) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nature.


 * Also, as to your first sentence, "When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, they are claiming that it is the truth" you are still ignoring the perfectly respectable point of view that it is redunant to say, "'(insert any statement in accord with the actual state of affairs)' is true" it is perfectly sufficient to simply say, "(insert any statement in accord with the actual state of affairs)." See the section on redundancy, and see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/redundant
 * You appear to think that Ramsey was capable of sincere assertions he thought were not true - does any one else agree with this? Banno 21:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Favoring one point of view over other perfectly respectable points of view does not comport with Wikipedia policy, writing without bias.
 * Wrong, for reasons explained above. Banno 21:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative version

 * What prevents us from agreeing to leave the lead section completely blank as a remedy for the problem of not being able to agree on what to say in the lead section? Is a requirement to say something profound in the lead section spelled out somewhere in WikiPolicy, or would it be acceptable to maybe say nothing at all in the lead section, leave it blank, and just let the reader dive into the various sections of the article itself, which seems to present all points of view fairly? Wouldn't that be a reasonable compromise? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 13:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Leaving the lead section blank violates the Wikipedia manual of style and decreases readability. Sorry, this is not a legitimate solution. Rhobite 15:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe that, sir. That sounds rather dogmatic, and dogmatism is not something Wikipedia policy is known for. What, precisely, in Manual of Style do you see leaving a lead section blank violating? Can you quote the relevant part and include a link to that particular section so that I can check your observations, or are you just making this up?

And anyway, even if there were such a policy, what would prevent us from changing it to allow blank lead sections, if needed, as a reasonable work-around to avoid endless revert battles over a question of bias in the lead section? How (on what grounds) could any reasonable person take exception to that? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a reasonable workaround. The only person who has declared that a lead section is unattainable in this article is you. See Lead section (and don't try to change that one to suit your needs too). Rhobite 16:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's an argument from popularity Argumentum ad numerum, which is logical fallacy. Shame on you!

And I haven't DECLARED anything; it is your straw man doing that. I don't have the power to make unilateral declarations here and I think you know that. All I am doing is trying to generate a principled negotiation. Why do you take exception to that, sir?

Let me ask my question once again: What, specifically, in the article you cited, Lead section or anywhere in the Manual of Style prohibits leaving the lead section blank, as a temporary expedient, until principled negotiation results in a lead section comporting with the WikiPolicy of writing without bias?

--DotSix 67.182.157.6 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry DotSix, we work based on rough consensus here. Plenty of people have tried to understand your complaints, but there comes a time when we break it down to the numbers. Many people have reverted you, and nobody has agreed with your changes. If everyone disagrees with you, you may want to consider the idea that you could be wrong.


 * I'd like to understand what your beef is with this article, but until I do I'll explain to you how your contributions go against guidelines (such as the manual of style and the self-references policy), and revert your edits. I also think you are obsessed with pointing out logical fallacies, often mistakenly. It's a tough habit to break.


 * The widely-held view by long-time Wikipedia authors is that lead sections should exist and be easy to understand. This is supported by Lead section, which states that "the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I am sorry if you refuse to accept this, but it is the correct style on Wikipedia to write a lead section. Ask anyone on the Village Pump if you like. Ask the regulars at Featured article candidates if they'd ever feature an article without a lead section. The answer is no. Rhobite 21:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you ever want to try following policy, which is to give principled negotiation a try, sir. Argument from popularity Argumentum ad numerum like the above nonsense is logical fallacy. Shame on you! Good day. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't designed to be logically consistent - we are trying to work on an actual real-life encyclopedia, not achieve some perfect philosophical truth. This ain't debate class - stop pointing out perceived logical fallacies. That is no substitute for actual thought. Rhobite 00:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just dropped in from the Village pump page. To drop in my two bits: I concur with Rhobite, and Ancheta Wis, and all the other nice, reasonable other WP editors who have been kindly trying to teach this anon IP user about Wikipedia policy.


 * Yes, I know we have a don't bite the newbies policy, but this crazy revert battle has been going on way too long. Whomever this 67.182.157.6 guy is, his thought processes are so illogical and incoherent that he wouldn't last 10 minutes if he had to defend himself against capital charges in a court of law.  Too bad WP doesn't have a easy way to hold users in contempt like judges do!


 * Well, if this goes on long enough, I suppose this matter will end up in arbitration, and then DotSix will go on the list with Willy On Wheels and Mr. Treason and all the other infamous vandals. --Coolcaesar 04:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge
See edits at [] where .6 attempts to remove the Justified True Belief theory form the article knowledge! Such extraordinary behaviour may need to go to arbitration. Banno 21:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a hunch you might be stalking me, Bananas. Thanks for being so prompt confirming it. 8^) DotSix -- 67.182.157.6 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fallacies
An anonymous editor has been making inaccurate claims on this page in in his edit descriptions of the main Truth page that the people he is arguing with are using fallacious reasoning. This is not the case:


 * The Fallacy of Ad Hominem Attack is committed when one argues "Mr. X has such-and-such bad qualities, therefore his ideas about so-and-so are wrong." But it is NOT a fallacy merely to point out Mr. X's bad qualities. It is only a fallacy when the allegation that he has bad qualities is used as a premise. I have reviewed every case where the anonymous editor claims that others used the ad hominem fallacy and he is wrong every time. The others were pointing out his rudeness, name-calling, etc., but in no case did they use those allegations as a premise.
 * The Fallacy of Reification is committed when one assumes as a hidden premise that some abstract object has the properties or abilities of some particular kind of physical object. Example: "The government has always got its hand in our pockets. Pickpockets are law-breakers, therefore taxation is illegal." As in this example, the argument usually starts out with what seems to be a harmless metaphor. The fallacy is commited when the person making the argument starts to take the metaphor literally. It is NOT the fallacy of reification to assert that some abstract object is really a (set of) physical entity(ies). In fact, materialists make precisely that claim about ALL abstract entities. By the way, the anonymous editor seems to believe that only physical things have a nature. This is not true (and it has nothing to do with the fallacy of reification): All things, both abstract and physical, have a nature. So refering to the nature of truth, as I have, does not imply that truth is physical. In fact, I'm not a materialist and I think truth is an abstraction.
 * The Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity is committed when one argues "X is the most popular position on the issue, therefore it is correct." However, it is not a fallacy to say "Our policy will be to treat all points of view fairly, but to give them attention in proportion to how popular they are." Notice that the latter claim doesn't say anything about whether the popular points of view are correct. In fact, the latter claim isn't even an argument at all. It is just a statement of policy. Similarly, it is NOT a fallacy to argue "X is the view of a small minority, therefore less should be said about X if we are to maintain fidelity with Wikipedia policy." Notice, again, that the latter makes no claims about whether X is right or wrong, so it does not commit the fallacy.
 * --Nate Ladd 07:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Thank you, Nathan. Banno 09:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Commenting on the contributor, personal attack, is argument ad hominem. See Wictionary.

And don't try to argue, "She/He started it." That is ad hominem tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right. Set a good example and just remind the alleged miscreant of the policy: No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

This is not rocket science.

--207.200.116.133 08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on DotSix's conduct
I have filed a request for comment on DotSix's conduct. It is available at Requests for comment/DotSix. Those who have had to deal with his removal of comments and personal attacks are encouraged to certify the RFC. DotSix, please respond there. Rhobite 01:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite's personal attack on DotSix

 * There is evidence of your misdemeanor published here: . When are you going to apologize for deleting someone else's comment, then trying to deny that you did it, even though you have been shown the actual page where you did it from the history here in talk:truth? See FuelWagon's personal attack above. Now you are trying to change the subject, and launch a personal attack against the one who pointed out your misdemeanor?? Shame on you. That is conduct unbecomming an Adminsitrator. If you apologize now, then I won't have to file a complaint against you sir. Your choice. -- 172.195.53.33 02:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have looked at your evidence. Here is what happened. YOU (using a different IP) deleted someone else's comments (for which you have not apologized). At the same time you added a sentence to the beginning of a comment that had been made earlier by someone calling himself DotSix. (Gee, its almost as if you thought of yourself as the same person as DotSix. ;-) ) Rhobite reverted your change, thus removing the sentence you added. And now you want Rhobite to apologize?!?!?!?! ...for deleting a comment!!!!! ...that you made while deleting someone else's comment!!!! ...for which you haven't apologized!!!!!!!! --Nate Ladd 05:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said to you above, I am not responding to this "you removed my comment" silliness any more than I already have. Rhobite 02:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "I cannot answer the question honestly, because if I did I would be admitting my misdemeanor." -- 172.191.98.226 12:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The question Rhobite is evading:
 * The comment you replaced,, is not the comment we are discussing, it's this other one that you deleted permanently: . Are we on the same page now, Rhobite? -- 172.195.53.33 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Doesn't NPOV mean, that criticism is also fairly presented? Wasn't this section not just describing what is going on on this article at the moment? Markus Schmaus 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having a paragraph such as yours in the article. I think Kirkham said something like that somewhere in his book. See the references section. Something to the effect that disputes about the meaning if "truth" should really be thought of as disputes about what value intellectual activity is aiming at. But the section title you gave ("Criticism") was puzzling. Also, I worry that your idea will be hard to make clear to lay readers without using a lot of words. See if you can come up with a new section title and maybe you can work something out with whoever it was that deleted it. --Nate Ladd 19:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Perhaps a paragraph such as Markus' could form the basis of a new intro - explaining why defining truth is problematic. Banno 20:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is no "PROBLEM" defining the term, 'truth'. In English, the term, 'truth' simply refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. See any reputable dictionary. --67.182.157.6 09:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes there is a problem: Dictionary-style definitions such as yours are too imprecise to fill the needs of philosophy. Also, such definitions tend to presuppose the prevailing metaphysical beliefs of the culture at the time the word enters the language. Your definition of "truth", for example, seems to presuppose what philosophers call a Realist metaphysics. Also, your definition is inaccurate. Statements about hypothetical, rather than actual, states of affairs can be true too. -- A Philosopher

By 'true' you mean in accord with the actual state of affairs?
 * No, I don't. I'm not using the very definition of truth that I'm criticizing. Thanks for asking. -- A Philosopher


 * Then you aren't talking about 'truth', since "A statement in accord with the actual state of affairs" is the only reasonable thing that can be said about the term, 'truth'. 67.182.157.6


 * No it isn't. There are lots of reasonable things one can say about truth. Philosophers have been saying them for over 2000 years. Only a dolt like you would think his (incorrect) one-sentence definition is better than what the geniuses of Western civilization have come up with.

Please explain, how could we mere mortals ever know it if a hypothetical statement (a 'might be' conjecture) were in accord with the actual state of affairs (true)?
 * We couldn't. Because hypothetical statements are not in accord with any actual state of affairs. But some of them of are true anyway, such as "If Ronald Reagan were still alive, he would be over 90 years old." That's why your definition of "truth" is wrong. -- A Philosopher


 * Don't be silly, the if/then argument, ""If Ronald Reagan were still alive, he would be over 90 years old" is definitely in accord with the actual state of affairs.


 * No, it is a conditional statement, not an argument. (More proof that you can't distinguish arguments from other kinds of discourse.) It describes a non-actual state of affairs. --63.231.15.66 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, you say, "Your definition of 'truth' ... seems to presuppose what philosophers call a Realist metaphysics." But there is nothing metaphysical (non-empirical) about the common usage of the term, 'truth' to mean a statement empirically known to be in accord with what we mortals know about the actual state of affairs, is there? -- 67.182.157.6 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. This definition of truth (which is NOT common) presupposes the existence of a world or actual states of affairs. ...


 * Not "presupposes," it is _prima facie_ the case that there is an actual state of affairs in any particular case. (Clue: that is what the term, 'truth' refers to.) 67.182.157.6


 * You don't know what prima facie means, which comes as no surprise, since you misuse every other philosophical term. Your sentence isn't even grammatical and is incoherent. --63.231.15.66 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ... So it has metaphysical presuppositions. By the way "metaphysical" does not mean "non-empirical". ..


 * Yes it does. Empirical and metaphysical are polar opposites. 67.182.157.6


 * No. They are not. Empiricism names an epistemological doctrine. Metaphysical names a subject of philosophy (not epistemology). They are not opposites. --63.231.15.66 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientists and other empiricists do have a metaphysical view. -- A Philosopher
 * Balderdash. Empirical and metaphysical are polar opposites, and the


 * Wrong, again. See above.


 * scientific method of investigation is all about looking at the empirical evidence,
 * Right. And that method presupposes the metaphysical doctrine that there is a world external to our minds.


 * the actual state of affairs in any particular case, not metaphysical conjecture. How else would Jonas Salk ever have proven that there was sound reason to reject the null, "There is no vaccine that will prevent polio," by demonstrating that it is the actual state of affairs that it is possible to mass-produce just such a vaccine? You have taken a science class, haven't you, sonny? 67.182.157.6


 * Many science classes. And many more philosophy classes on my way to getting a Ph.D. in philosophy. That's why I understand philosophical terms and you don't. --63.231.15.66 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Around and around we go. .6, the only salient point is that there are theories of truth that do not agree that "true means in accord with the actual state of affairs". These are listed in the article. Their existence means that to state this definition in the introduction is POV. That should have been the end of the discussion, several hundred edits ago. Your failure to notice this point is at the heart of the RfC against you. Banno 21:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Except for the question of the redundant statement you were trying to edit into the lead section, "'Three is less than four' is a true statement." That's redundant. It is perfectly sufficient to say, 'Three is less than four'. Adding the phrase, 'is a true statement' adds nothing to the meaning of the statement, that it is the actual state of affairs that three is less than four, by definition of the integers. 67.182.157.6

Article Protection from Anonymous Edits
This article and others that are being criticized by Dot-Six make me think that Wikipedia should have a procedure to enable specified articles to be protected from anonymous edits. This protection should only be given to articles that have been edited multiply by anonymous editors within a 24-hour period, in which case the multiple anonymous editors may all be sockpuppets.


 * Presume they may all be sockpuppets when there is no proof that they are? Begin with a presumption of guilt? That ain't right. --67.182.157.6 09:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because most people go around complaining about "obscurantists" and "argumentum ad numerum". Sockpuppets are so hard to spot. Rhobite 16:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that some Wikipedians think that such a policy would be a bad idea. I think that the inability to turn on such a feature in special cases is a lack. Robert McClenon 21:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with Ramsey

 * Most gracious of you, .6 - leave this here, folks, as further evidence of .6's civility. Banno

The "controversial" first para is:

This article is primarily concerned with truth as it is used in the evaluation of propositions, sentences, and similar items. For example, the sentence "3 is less than 4 is true" is an evaluation of the sentence "3 is less than 4".


 * Not everyone agrees that paragraph is in accord with NPOV, on grounds that saying, for example, "'Snow is white' is true" is redundant, and it is sufficient to say simply "Snow is white." So, to preserve a neutral point of view, that paragraph should be deleted, or additional material added to show the other points of view, the one in section 2.2 of the article for example.
 * (this doggerel by .6 - unsigned - Banno)

Nathan suggests that Ramsey and perhaps other deflationary theorists (in particular, I guess, those that call themselves redundancy theorists) do not think that "P is true" is an evaluation of P. This is interesting. I had thought of Ramsey as differentiating two uses of "true": The first that "P is true" is logically equivalent to "P", and therefore redundant in all cases, except for the second, where it is used as a predicate over the content of someone's beliefs, as in "Everything Banno says is true".

Now I should make it clear that I do not have a copy of "Facts and Propositions". I cannot find one on-line. So I;m making use of secondary sources. In particular, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2004.tb00321.x

It is pretty clear from that article that Ramsey denied the existence of facts, replacing them with "judgements", and making judgements the bearers of truth. This fits with the main body of his work, on probability and belief. So, for him, the equivalence of "P" and "P is true" arises because they express the very same judgement. Now, it seems to me that he is here in precise agreement with the first paragraph - to put my words into his mouth, "the judgement that three is less than four is equivalent to the judgement that ''it is true that: 3 is less than four, and so the latter is redundant".

I hope that it is clear from this that Ramsey thought "P is true" to be a judgement, and so an evaluation of P; one that he held to be the same as the judgement that "P"; and that he would therefore not have a problem with the introductory paragraph. He would simply have added: "and the is true is unnecessary".

Nathan, is my analysis satisfactory? What do you think? Banno 23:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * We are having a discussion of how to preserve a neutral point of view in the introductory material over in the "NPOV in Introduction" section. Care to join that discussion? -- 67.182.157.6 01:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "We"? .6, you have still not provided a reply to my post re: Ramsey. Oh, I mentioned that before, didn't I? Banno 06:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to understand 67.182.157.6's problem with the established para, which seems good, but the current (as of 01:32 17 July 2005) intro seems to me to be unhelpful. IMO, the best solutions would be to either simply to take the term 'truth' as given, and then to debate it, or to adopt a more "dictionary" definition to start with, and then address the philosophical problems associated with the term. Paul B 01:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Some people think the word "truth" has a referent, some think it a collection of true statements, while some think that all true statements have some single property in common (or 2 if you call truth a property) --JimWae 02:16, 2005 July 17 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Banno's analysis of Ramsey. It seems to me that Ramsey would say that P is a judgement about some state of affairs, not about itself. So if "P is true" is equivalent to P, then "P is true" is also about that same state of affairs. It, too, is NOT about P. So it isn't an evaluation of P. The essence of all deflationary theories is that "is true" only looks like a predicate; but it really isn't. It isn't really predicating a property of P or attributing a value to P. So it is not evaluating P.


 * One source of the trouble this article will always have with any introduction is that it is really trying to cover two different kinds of theories: (1) theories of truth and (2) theories about what people are doing when they make what APPEAR TO BE truth-ascribing utterance like "snow is white" is true. Deflationist theories are all really theories of the second kind. Theories of turth, the first kind, simply take for granted that what people are doing when they make those utterances is that they are evaluating the statement in question. (The utterances are doing exactly what they appear to be doing.) This is precisely what Deflationist theories reject. The latter all claim that the surface grammar of such utterances is misleading. --Nate Ladd 04:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I disagree; but given that I have considerable respect for your understanding of philosophical issues, I'll concede to the following modification:

This article is primarily concerned with truth as it is used in discussing propositions, sentences, and similar items. For example, the sentence "3 is less than 4 is true" is about the sentence "3 is less than 4".

This at least points to the nature of the discussion in the article, without, saying anything about truth. I don't think this modification as good as the original, but I do think, and I guess that others here agree with me, that something is needed to point to the basic content of the article. Banno 06:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't need Ramsey or anybody else to tell us that your statement, "'3 is less than 4' is true" is redundant. Three IS less than four. Period. That is the definition of the term, 'three': "One less than four." Truth has nothing to do with it. The term, 'truth' refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. "'Snow is white' is true" suffers from redundancy; suffice it to say simply, "Snow is white" since that statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs. --67.182.157.6


 * I'm sorry that you still don't understand the argument here, .6. There is a very important distinction between the redundancy theory and the correspondence theory - indeed, they are theories about quite different things. The former is about the way is true is used in logic, the latter about how we tell if some statement is true. Your post shows that you still do not follow this distinction. Banno 02:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Section on Christianity and "Truth of Life"
I'm not sure if I should just barge in here and edit this, but the section which explains "Christian" truth only explains one particular type of Christian truth, which is particularly controversial, and is Manichaeism. Is it all right if I expand on this? I don't particularly care to sift through the controversy in this large discussion archive and see what has been decided to be left out. Still, I find it a queer bit of misinformation that the "Truth of Life" is propounded as "Christian truth" when the vast majority of Christendom, Protestant and Catholic, considers the view heretical. Amicuspublilius 20:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've jim has just removed the section. The section is far to detailed to be appropriate for the article on Truth. The author should add it to [] if they think it worthwhile.


 * I also think that a section on "Christian truth" would be inappropriate; having such a section but no section on truth in other religions would be POV; Perhaps a section on "religious truth" would work. Banno 21:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll get to work on (your) Banno's suggestion. I don't think having a section on "Christian conceptions of truth" but not other religions is "POV" rather than incomplete.  Be careful you understand what POV and don't use it as a synonym for "bad," which muddles the issue.  In any case, my edits will provide a framework to allow other religious conceptions of truth, and I'll probably get to work on Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim conceptions (all historically, since current trends in all are rather chaotic and decentralized, and I'm not equipped to delineate between all modern/subjective views on one religion or another), in that order. Amicuspublilius 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
Perhaps we may now do some productive work on the introduction. Although the present version is a valiant attempt at compromise, I think that others will agree that it could be improved.


 * Compromise? "Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, BOTH OF WHICH NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- negotiation (EMPHASIS ADDED.)


 * So the only lead statement that would measure up to current policy would be to include BOTH POINTS OF VIEW (or several if need be), or limit the lead statement to some neutral statement acceptable to all points of view, like for example, "The term, 'truth' is used in several different ways by people of different points of view." --172.194.206.204 16:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, dotsix, you have not ever stated any problem you have with the current introduction. It is neutral and does not prejudge either the correspondence theory or the redundancy theory (both which in your own lovable muddled-headed way you have endorsed, even though they contradict eachother). --63.231.15.66 23:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But as has been pointed out, an introduction should say something about the topic and then introduce the content of the article. The one by you that I recently removed did neither. Banno 20:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Going back a few hundred edits, the introduction read: This article is primarily concerned with truth as it is used in the evaluation of propositions, sentences, and similar items. For example, the sentence "3 is less than 4 is true" is an evaluation of the sentence "3 is less than 4".

The study of truth itself is part of philosophical logic, and within philosophy it is of special interest to epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of language.

It now reads: Much of this article is about philosophical ideas regarding what sorts of things are called true, and the meaning of the word truth. In addition it discusses some particular and peculiar uses of truth.

I think that Nate makes a good point about possible interpretations of the Redundancy theory of truth (RTT). Nate's point, to summarise, is that: So it follows that according to RTT and that therefore Quite a good argument, although I maintain that it is not a correct interpretation of Ramsey himself (this point is moot).
 * P is not about P (so, "snow is white" is about snow, not about the sentence "snow is white"),
 * according to RTT, P is equivalent to "P is true",
 * "P is true" is also not about P;
 * "P is true" is not and evaluation of P on the RTT account.

At one stage I suggested using When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion, they are claiming that it is true.

This is intended as an Ostensive definition, focusing on meaning as use. It seems to me not to be at odds with the RTT account. On the RTT account, to sincerely agree with an assertion is the same as to say it is true, but saying it is true does no more than the assertion itself would have. Nor does this version claim that "P is true" is about P, and so fall fowl of Nate's criticism.

Marcus suggested adding the paragraph: Very often Truth is stated as a goal and only after that people start arguing what Truth actually stands for. So in many cases when people are arguing about the definition of Truth they are in fact arguing about which goal should be aspired. Truth is often seen as the goal of religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, and science. Yet those fields are using different methods and are seeking different goals, using a single word for all of them is very likely to cause confusion and conflict.

This seems to me to summarise the reasons that truth is so difficult to explicitly define.

I suggest that some combination of an ostensive definition and such an explanation of the difficulty of defining truth might provide us with a much improved definition. Banno 23:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I could live with something like that. --63.231.15.66 23:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What difficulty defining the term, 'truth'? It's simple. A truth is simply a statement that is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case, right? --67.182.157.6 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Wrong. -- A Philosopher
 * No.


 * Way wrong. A truth may or may not be a "statement" -- truths can still be true if they are left unstated. Further, although there is something to be said for identifying truth with the "actual state of affairs," there's nothing to be said for identifying it with a statement "known to be in accord with" same. Indeed, given many understandings of the term Knowledge, that produces a logical circle. Even a wild guess can happen to be true, i.e. 'that coin will come up heads' might turn out to describe the actual state of affairs -- it happens half the time. In that case, 'that coin will come up heads' was a truth, although not known as such when stated (or just thought). Do you see yet how these things can justify the term "difficulty," Mr. six? --Christofurio 23:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Banno, what do you and "Philosopher.666" want to do about it now, put it to a vote here, exercise tyranny of the majority? 8^) --172.194.206.204 16:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Voting on a philosophical issue would be quite problematic. Nor have any of the other arguments used against your position relied on popularity. The case is simply that your position, the correspondence theory of truth, is one amongst many, and so should not receive undue representation in the introduction; but that the introduction should say something meaningful. As for the next step, I have recommended on the RfC that you seek an advocate to speak on your behalf, since you seem to be incapable of mounting a coherent argument to support your position. I also suggest that you take the issue to mediation. Failing that, I guess that it will just have to go to arbitration so that we can get on with writing an encyclopedia. Banno 20:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * What should happen now (and what would happen if anyone better-behaved than you were advocating your position, DotSix) is that you would do one of two things: (1) acknowledge that the counterexamples/rebuttals to your proposed theory of truth provided by me, Nate Ladd, Banno, and Christofurio refute your theory. (2) Offer, for each of those counterexamples/rebuttals, a reasoned argument to the conclusion that it does not refute your proposed theory. Doing the latter would require that you NOT indulge in namecalling, NOT simply repeat the theory that is being refutted, NOT accuse anyone of attacking you, and NOT misapply fallacy-terminology. --63.231.15.66 23:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Variation
Banno, I propose altering the last two sentences in the new first paragraph to something like these three sentences:
 * Truth is sought in religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, and science; these fields use different methods and seek truth in order to serve different goals. Not surprisingly, using a single word in all fields is very likely to cause confusion and conflict. Yet truth, like goodness and beauty, is a perennial subject for humankind.

Ancheta Wis 15:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ancheta, I would be happy for you to make these alterations - your wording is preferable. Thanks. Banno 21:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Systemic bias towards so-called 'revealed tuth'
I take exception to any content including religion in a group of "methods of seeking truth" (where 'truth' is a statement known to describe the actual state of affairs because there is proof). Religion is not known to be a method of seeking truth, religion is known to be a method of convincing people that they ought to abandon logical, scientific investigation and instead just go right ahead and accept the tenets of the particular religion anyway, even though those tenets are not known to be statements accurately describing the actual state of affairs. See the section on "Double Truth" in the article.

Our writing here is supposed to be without bias, and that includes any introductory material in the lead section of an article, but the proposed content, above, that in an offhand way lends credence to the idea of religion as a legitimate method of seeking truth exhibits a bias toward so-called 'revealed truth' that is not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy. --67.182.157.6 19:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the Article
Possibly this was the result of earlier edit warring, but the structure of the article, specifically the positioning of Deflationary Theories, is a little strange. If I understand the article correctly, the Deflationary Theories section is about the rejection of the idea that "2 + 2 = 4 is true" has any more meaning than "2 + 2 = 4". However, this is rejecting an idea which hasn't even been introduced in the article yet: discussions of the sentence "P is true" start in the next section, Formal Definitions. I'd say that the order of the Theories About Truth section ought to be: Formal Definitions, Robust Theories, Deflationary Theories. Even if this re-structuring isn't suitable, there ought to be at least some mention of sentences of the type "P is true" before we start saying "Some philosophers reject the idea that...". Also, as an aside, should there be any discussion about the truth-preserving nature of a logically valid argument? E.g., logical steps such as modus ponus preserve truth from axioms to conclusions. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In the same line, there are entire bodies of knowledge which parallel the article, but with a different vocabulary; I have in mind Richard von Mises, Probability, Statistics and Truth ISBN 0486242145 (Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik und Wahrheit 1928 Springer) which can be had for less than the cost of a Cafe beverage. Ancheta Wis 00:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the formal definitions section be after the robust and deflationary sections? --Nate Ladd 21:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have commenced arbitration proceedings against DotSix - see Requests for arbitration Banno 09:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC) ("DotSix" was a casual name, once suggested by said user, but never formally adopted by User:67.182.157.6)

Redirect to true
The term, 'truth' is derivitive of the term, 'true', where 'truth' simply means a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs, so it is only natural to redirect 'truth' to 'true'. 67.182.157.6

The minority side argues, "To be fair, my side must get as many reverts as your side, otherwise there is tyranny of the majority." This raises a legitimate issue of Wikipedia policy to test here, no matter which side you are on at at the moment (you might be in the minority tomorrow), don't you agree? --172.198.53.3 18:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop being an idiot. There's a different between that which is True and that which is a Truth.  Stop redirecting a perfectly good longstanding article to another page, and if you must insist it gets moved, then set up a VfD with a suggestion to merge the two articles.  Until that point, there's more than enough people that will revert your vandalism without violating the 3RR.  --Veratien 18:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the three revert rule before discussing it any further. Thanks.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * DotSix, if each "side" had the same number of reverts, then the final say would always go to whichever random troll inserted nonsense into an article, which is, of course, absurd. Personally I'm happy to be part of the tyrannical majority if it means protecting wikipedia from obnoxious trolls. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  10:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I take exception to your implication that my side is solely populated by "random trolls." That is just another ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well from your side, added to the long list of them. The policy is no personal attacks, limit your comments to CONTENT not ad hominem/poisoning the well personal attacks on the CONTRIBUTORS. You should understand this policy, being an administrator and all, shouldn't you, sir? --207.200.116.133 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * DotSix, I didn't say your "side" was populated only by random trolls, I made a generalized comment on why it wouldn't make sense for the 3RR rule to consider sides (notice "an article" above). Also, I'm not an administrator. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Giving each side an equal number of reverts, say three each, would definitely put an end to revert battles forever, sir, for the following reason. Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that the minority side edits something into the article that the majority side does not like, so they call in the troops to rally 'round, and revert it to the last version that looks better from their point of view. Then the minority side would get a revert, and so on, with each side getting an equal number, which is the fair way to do things, isn't it? Now you do the math. The majority would always lose, given a level playing field, so there would have to be a lot more principled negotiation occuring, and there would be no more tyranny of the majority, because the majority could never win a revert battle, and thus control the content of the article by force of numbers as they do now.

I don't mean to sound like I am launching a personal attack, sir, but It appears that your side might have the wrong idea about what the policy is here in Wikipedia for the first step in resolving content disputes. It is not "Whichever side can muster the most people get to control the content of an article" (tyranny of the majority) it is principled negotiation in which "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Neutral point of view (emphasis added): "Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or 'splitting the difference' is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Neutral point of view."


 * I've heard that, etymologically, truth and true are both derived from "troth", as in, "he plighted his troth," a pledge of fidelity. So, by the sort of impeccable logic offered above, let's redirect everything to marriage. --Christofurio 23:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Except that personal fidelity to one's king or one's mate is only one sense of the term, 'true'. The sense we are talking about here is the sense of a statement being in accord with the actual state of affairs, and a truth being understood as a statement in accord with the actual state of affairs. But you already knew that, didn't you?

One can plight one's troth to a belief about the actual state of affairs as plausibly as one can to a mate. Indeed, marriage these days is a "workable hypothesis" for most, that "this time I have found an enduring companion," and that, like a scientific hypothesis, can be embraced as true so long as it confirms with evidence and abandoned later, so that an alternative hypothesis can be embraced. But you already knew that, didn't you? --Christofurio 13:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on redirect

 * It seems highly atypical of encyclopedias to prefer adjectives over nouns for the titles of their articles. Additionally, the notion that the philosophical subject relating to the concept of "truth" is actually derived from the term "true" seems highly specious. Philosophers do not refer to the "theory of true," they refer to the "theory of truth" (as in Tarski's truth theorem). And to suggest that such conventional use of the term constitutes tyranny of the majority strains the English language, IMO, in the attempt to protect one's arguments from discussion or debate. Wikipedia stresses the importance of consensus. Individual editors championing their particular interpretation of terms, advocating an heterodox terminology, run roughshod over the principle of cooperation. This is not about the oppression of minority views, it is about the spirit of cooperation and fair play. Parker Whittle 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

unsigned reply
Then let's actually DO the fair thing here, as the article on principled negotiation suggests we do, insure that "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Neutral point of view (emphasis added): "Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or 'splitting the difference' is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Neutral point of view."

So it's not about which point of view is most popular, or which side can muster the best turnout for a RfC, or a revert battle, it is about "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Neutral point of view (emphasis added), Okay?

On another point, you say, Philosophers do not refer to the "theory of true," they refer to the "theory of truth" Now as I am sure you are aware not everyone agrees that truth is a property of statements; not everyone agrees that truth is something (some thing) about which one can have a theory. (See the article.) So what the obscurantists like to label "The redundancy theory of truth" is not really a theory of truth at all, it is just the observation about language that adding the phrase, 'is true' adds nothing at all to any statement like 'Snow is white', it is simply redundant. So, even having an article on "theories of truth" shows a bias toward the point of view that truth is a property of statements, something (some thing) about which one can have a theory. Hence the redirect to the term, 'true', the more basic term meaning (relative to statements) in accord with the actual state of affairs.

response from Parker Whittle
There is another point that applies here, about minority views demanding equal validity: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

While this specifically refers to pseudoscience, it applies to any minority view. The simple fact is that the vast majority of philosophy courses and philosophers do not find it problematic to refer to the various theories of truth, or to truth as a concept about which philosophers have theories. Therefore, there is little case that can be made for changing the title of the article, or for flouting the well established and non-controversial conventions followed, without difficulty, by the philosophical community. Your particular reading of the deflationist/reductionist can and should be fairly stated and included in the article (if there are suitable references). But it should not be allowed to suppress the standard use of terms among the community of philosophers. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has the following entry on The Deflationary Theory of Truth.

--Parker Whittle 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the page and waiting for arbitrator opinions on what to do here. See WP:RFAr for the arbitration request going on and also the RFC that was already been filed. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 20:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sasquatch, thank you for protecting the page; we even have a small change to the Introduction in the queue, awaiting our return to the state of happy editing. Ancheta Wis 22:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Who wouldn't be happy being able to get away with going contrary to Wikipedia policy, concensus building through principled negotiation, and control the content of one of his favorite articles through force of numbers tyranny of the majority?

Lead section
Wow, my "criticism" actually found its way into the lead section.

As the article is curently locked I post a new suggestion for the lead section here.


 * A person calls a assertion true, if it agrees with their point of view. Which assertions those are, thus depends on the individual and is subjective. A definition of truth tries to objectively define what is true.


 * Frequently truth is first stated as a goal and only after that an exact definition is sought. So when people are arguing about the definition of truth they may be arguing about the goal to which they should aspire. Truth is often associated with religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, or science, yet those fields use different methods and seek different goals. Not surprisingly, using a single word in all these contexts is very likely to cause confusion and conflict.


 * Much of this article is about philosophical ideas regarding what sorts of things should be called true, and how truth can be defined. In addition it discusses some particular and peculiar uses of truth.

Markus Schmaus 23:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Markus, a person's own values frequently define what they call true. In that case, a person's "goal" might simply be getting other people to agree with the "truth". Thus it may be important to disambiguate
 * the goal of getting others to agree to uphold some value
 * the goal of marking a subject of discussion (called in linguistics, the topicalizer)
 * the goal of getting others to agree that the proposed topic should be a subject of discussion.
 * the goal of getting others to see something in a certain way
 * the goal of getting others to define their terms
 * the goal of getting others to limit their discussion only to the topic
 * etc. As I am only a user of the concepts, I cannot speak, but there must be a survey of these issues somewhere. Ancheta Wis 09:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it allways the case, that a person's value determine what they call true? And the goals you enumerate are goals of some people. But I don't see what you want to tell me with your post.


 * As I stated before I disagree with "Truth is sought in religion, philosophy, mathematics, law, and science". This statements sounds as if all those fields seek the same thing, but that's definitely not the case. At least mathematics and science are seeking distinct goals. A agree, that whatever any of those fields seeks is often called truth. Markus Schmaus 20:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Links
Hey there, when peace again reigns over our land of truth, would someone mind adding this to the external links section. I'm systematically going through the SEP and I will probably forget to come back and do this. Thanks in advance! --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 05:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Begin addition End addition
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * Coherence theory of truth
 * Correspondence theory of truth
 * Deflationary theory of truth
 * Identity theory of truth
 * Revision theory of truth
 * Tarski's definition of truth

Question for Mr. Whittle and the rest of the majority side

 * I took the liberty of removing an almost identical statement of this question, above, and promoted it to its own section, here. There is no offense intended by this, and I'll happily agree to a revert if the author feels it important to have both sections remain. My only intent is to prevent having two almost identical discussions on the same topic. And pardon me if I did so mistakenly. --Parker Whittle 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

?So your proposed means of resolving the content dispute here is to let the majority control the content of the article, by force of numbers, and have the administrators on your side just block the IP address of anyone who objects on grounds that does not comport with Wikipedia policy, that as the article on principled negotiation suggests we do, insure that "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Neutral point of view (emphasis added): "Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or 'splitting the difference' is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Neutral point of view."

So the first step in resolving any content dispute (see list at right) is not about which point of view is most popular, is it, it is not about which side can muster the best turnout in a survey, is it, and it is not about which side can control the content of an article by force of numbers in a revert battle, is it, it is about "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Neutral point of view (emphasis added) -- the first item on the list of steps in resolving content disputes negotiation, right?


 * If you read my complete statement carefully, you will notice that I agree completely that the minority view must be included. I also added additional policy statements the clarify exactly how such minority views should be handled. Do you take issue with the official policy on majority/minority positions? --Parker Whittle 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

True?
DotSix claims, that if I say to him, that it is true, that true is not equivalent with corresponding with reality, this tells him, that "true is not equivalent with corresponding with reality" is corresponding with reality? Markus Schmaus 18:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Mr. Schmaus would mind parsing that for me, and then explaining in plain English how does adding the phrase, 'is true' to any statement, call it P, add anything to P other than signaling the writer's agreement with the statement itself, which is redundant, since it is perfectly sifficient to simply write statement P without adding the redundant phrase, 'is true'?
 * I don't think the point of the article is to debate which philosophical theory of truth is better than the other; but rather to identify the various theories of truth. As such, isn't it pointless to engage in any form of debate around what truth is, or is not? --Parker Whittle 18:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Aren't you and Mr. Schmaus both missing the point that not everyone agrees that 'truth' is the name of some property of propositions — some thing about which one could have a theory? Isn't the belief that truth is a property one can develop a theory about just an illusion caused by the fact that we have the phrase "is true" in our language. Now, most predicates name properties, like "is green," or "is solid," or "is nasty," for example, so it might seem natural to assume that "is true" names a property as well. But, that is not necessarily the case, is it, for as deflationists point out, statements that seem to predicate truth actually do nothing more than signal agreement with the statement itself, so it is perfectly sufficient to simply utter the statement itself alone, without adding the redundant phrase, 'is true'?


 * The deflationary theory of truth IS discussed in the article, so they are not missing the point. They were merely assuming that you had actually read the article. (Note: It may be misleading to call the deflationary theory a "theory of truth," but that is how the terminology has developed in current philosophy. It cannot be blamed on Whittle or Schmaus.)--Nate Ladd 20:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This attempt to pretend to be the aggrieved party is rather disingenuous. The issue is that .6's representation ought not be the only one present in the introduction. Banno 20:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are stating the deflationist position, as if it is the absolute truth (if I may permitted to use a meaningless term). Either you have come up with a new and novel argument, which, regardless of its truth (there it is again!), constitutes original research, or you have stated an argument published somewhere by some philosophers, which therefore must be cited as such, as one theory of truth (!!!) among many WP:NPOV. --Parker Whittle 05:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not "stating a poistion," as you assert, I am asking a question. See the Question marks? The question you are evading (see above) is, "Aren't you and those on the majority side all missing the point that not everyone agrees that 'truth' is the name of some property of propositions — some thing about which one could have a theory?" Thus the logic of a redirect to true. See the point of the question?


 * The position is embedded in the question, as the alleged fact from which the question is posed. So let me get this straight -- you want to redirect the article to true. The justification for this redirect is the fact that the majority of philosophers refer to theories of truth, and that a minority of philosophers feel that there is no such thing as a theory of truth. But in order to respect the minority view, and since we cannot have two titles for the same article, you want the majority to favor the minority view. Do I have that right? --Parker Whittle 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Is asking you to show how it is known that truth is a property of statements, something one can have a theory about, a theory of truth, as your side insists? Isn't the reasnable answer no, it is not a theory of truth, it is merely asking you a question about YOUR idea that truth is a property someone can have a theory about? 2. If you are still convinced truth is a property of statements like green or solid are properties of things, then will you, or someone on your side, please explain how it is that is known so that others can check your observations?


 * The issue is what to do about an article on the subject of truth, and the various views and theories that surround that topic. If you just want to have a discussion about truth, then there are many forums for that. If you're suggesting a change to the article, then please address the points I raised, above. --Parker Whittle 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Trolling
In the end, I think we have to call a spade a spade. It is clear that we have been trolled in this article non-stop. DotSix has shown absolutely no desire to create a better article, merely to dispute whatever version is up. This was the case way back in the begining, when he was putting {NPOV} templates above his own versions. This is still the case now, when he is arguing for his minority views to be included, when anyone can see that they already are included. Personally, I don't think it is helpful to keep repeating the same things to DotSix again and again and again and ... again... I believe that, unless the arbiters in his ongoing arbitration uphold that he has been acting in good faith the entire time, feeding the troll won't do anything for these articles. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't found it beneficial to respond to DotSix so I've stopped doing it. I no longer believe he is acting in the best interests of this or any article, he is just trying to prove some abstract (and irrelevant) point about majority-based decision making. The ArbCom is overloaded and understaffed right now so the arbitration may take a long time. If they accept it, I'll request a temporary injunction, so we may not have to deal with him for that much longer. Rhobite 21:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that the RfAr has effectively been resolved by DotSix's own missteps, is it premature to consider this version of the talk page closed? I have archived it as of Aug 13 to Archive 6 already. We might then start anew with a clean slate?  I propose that we leave only the Markus thread, (plus the Troll notices linking to the DotSix RFC and RfAr) from this current version. Ancheta Wis 08:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it "has effectively been resolved"? Have the arbitration committee members all voted? I think it may be premature to archive anything, since there may be links to this page in the RfC and the RfAr. The arbitrators will need to review the evidence. --Nate Ladd 09:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * As Banno and Asbestos disagree, I accede to their judgment that the Arbitration Committee proceed. But the Admins can still block for the current common vandalism. Ancheta Wis 12:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from .6
The following, from .6, re-inserted from last edit:
 * (Then, rather amusingly, deleted again by DotSix, with the legend: "ad hominem comments deleted". Truth will out ;-) Banno 06:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC))

The article as it stands now, in it's frozen state, outlines what it calls, "theories of truth" as though it is taken for granted that it has been established that truth is a property (like 'green', or 'solid') one can have a theory about. What I am asking one and all interested in genuinely discussing the content of this article how it is known that has been established? Where's the proof? Does anybody reading this want to discuss this issue, or will you all continue to evade it, and post every diversion known to man, including those lame ad hominem personal attacks?


 * Where, exactly, is the wording that commits the article to the propositional view? And how would you modify it? On the contrary, the distinction is built into the very structure of the article, where it differentiates the robust and deflationary theories. Read both sections - it is quite explicit. Banno 06:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Protection
My appoligies. It is very unusual to protect a talk page, but this one has been under constant attack all day long, so I don't know what else to do. To the anon with the many multiple IPs...what are you trying to accomplish here? Whatever it is, you obviously are not going to get it this way. Please stop. Func( t, c, e, ) 22:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the "DotSix" vandal, see Requests_for_arbitration -- Curps 22:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
So, with all of the "DotSix" nonsense, the current archiving situation is a little confusing to me. There is content here that is currently duplicated at Talk:Truth/Archive 6. Someone with a lot of patience and who is familiar with the threads here might want to look at what should be archived and what shouldn't, as this page is a little long at this point. Func( t, c, @,) 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no guarantee that the troll will not reappear. But one tactic that might be taken could be to append all trolling to Archive 6, and simply filter the content of the Talk page of all Trolling as simple noise. If no one objects, I can copy the entire current talk page to Archive 7, as Archive 6 was created by the troll himself as a usenet-style device to make a rhetorical point. If no one objects, we could then dump any trolling to 7, with legitimate content on the talk page itself.

Archiving the diff here as insurance