Epistemology: Truth as Correspondence & Naive Realism - Criteria of Truth Based Upon Reality
Monday October 26, 2009
Perhaps the simplest test for separating truth from falsehood is to focus upon that which is real: if something corresponds accurately to reality, then it is true. If it doesn’t correspond accurately to reality, then of course it must be false. Easy, right?
Read Article: Truth as Correspondence & Naive Realism - Criteria of Truth Based Upon Reality
Ok, but what is the solution? If we can’t use Naive Realism as a definitive means of establishing truth, there must be a combination of criteria.
you point out the example of the stick in water looking bent, but if you take the stick out of the water it appears straight again, and furthermore if you were to run your finger down the stick you would feel that it is straight. So given that outside of the water the stick both looks and feels straight, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that the stick is in fact straight?
Naive realism is certainly imperfect , but it can be a reasonable way to establish initial plausibility and empirical data should not be ignored.
All of this corresponds perfectly with the question of whether or not god exists. I have never seen god, I CANNOT see god no matter how hard I try. If I try to speak to god, he/she/they will not talk back to me, so I CANNOT hear god. There is no way to “feel” god either. Neither literally or figuratively trying to feel god will yield results. I have never physically felt the caress of a benevolent, omnipotent supernatural being (or an evil one for that matter), nor have I “felt” the presence of such a being in the sense that people claim to feel the presence of a ghost or other entity. And I can’t think that there is any way one can claim to “taste” god. I’m sure that all of the above is true for the rest of human population no matter how much some might claim otherwise.
So all of this empirical data, combined with scientific experimentation and knowledge of how the universe works point to the fact that god is bunk. but you already knew that.
(you point out the example of the stick in water looking bent, but if you take the stick out of the water it appears straight again.)
1. The truth is, that the stick looks bent, but is it a fact?
2. The existence of the Christian god/ Allah/YHVH is a fundamental truth, but is it a fact?
I will accept as fact that which can be supported.
(and furthermore if you were to run your finger down the stick you would feel that it is straight)
Hey!!! Wait a minute!!!!
The problem with this statement is that when you run your finger down the stick, the truth could be that the reason why the stick feels straight, is because your finger is bent to the same degree as the stick. ?????