3

In relation to my earlier question, Apart from Fact being a component of reality, what other factors comprise of reality which are sufficient for anything to be Fact?
And by saying Truth: a possible property of Propositions. Where a proposition can be anything and everything. Basically a question out of curiosity, and a satisfactory explanation to the same question, where language is crucial to know or to search for the very same Truth.
In this context, Truth exists only to the truth bearer, PP is true to A' @ QE and the same PP need not be true to a' @ EQ . Where PP is being true and untrue at the same-time. Can anyone please explain this dualistic tendency of truth.

For example: According to science, Colour is not an inherent property of an object, but we perceive as, it is.

Factness rely upon the reality, and reality upon truth. Where truth is conditional.


Pardon me for disappointing you, I am trying to understand the blurred line between true - false and certain - uncertain. For example; from the question "According to science, Colour is not an inherent property of an object, but we perceive Colour as an inherent property of an object." For instance; Blue Bag, Pink Rose, Black Car. Here if we omit colour then the objects looses its certain unique identity. we are certainly attributing colour as an object's property, even though our knowledge that which is acquired and which is accepted by substantial number of people is quite opposite. Is our perception preventing us to accept the change caused by knowledge, which influences and alter our beliefs greatly. On the other hand if knowledge does influence belief then our language must have changed greatly since this awareness will influence the way we communicate.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Joseph Weissman Dec 24 '15 at 19:00

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

I pick out some details from your question - unfortunately I did not understand all.

The most simple logical model is 2-valued logic, propositional logic. Here all propositions are either true or false. And if a propostion is true, then it is true independent from any person considering the proposition. Also it's truth values does not change in time. The truth value is an objective property of a proposition, independent from time and person.

You say: "PP is true to A' @ QE and the same PP need not be true to a' @ EQ". Here I prefer to refer to a subjective property of a proposition. This property is named certainty. Person A' is certain about the proposition PP, but person a' is not certain. Certainty is a two-place relation between a proposition and a person.

The truth value and certainty are independent concepts. A person can be certain about a proposition, but the proposition is false. A long time everybody was certain: The sun revolves around the earth.

I would change your last sentence: Facts are a property of reality. Truth is a property of propositions which refer to facts.

Added after edit of the post.

According to science, Colour is not an inherent property of an object, but we perceive Colour as an inherent property of an object."

Firstly, according to science the inherent property of the object is the reflectance of its surface.

Secondly, it depends on both the object and the light which strikes the surface, which mix of wavelenghts is reflected into our eyes.

Thirdly, it depends on the human visual system how we experience as colour the mixed wavelenghts of the incoming light.

The term wavelength is an objective physical concept, while the colour impression is a subjective experience.

Along these lines I would resolve the apparent contradiction in your statement.

  • Certainty, when it is justified in the highest degree. Though, one is aware of it being false, still will it hold the proposition to be true? Again the same proposition being true and false at the same time, in one individual. – vssadineni Dec 19 '15 at 5:26
  • @vssadineni Possibly we misunderstand each other. In my opinion, the fact that "the same proposition [possibly seems] being true and false at the same time, in one individual" relates to certainty not to truth. I tried to differentiate between the objective property true - false of a proposition and the subjective property certain - uncertain which takes into account the person's assessment of the truthvalue of the proposition. – Jo Wehler Dec 19 '15 at 16:39
  • I have updated the question, and pardon me for my poor writing skills. – vssadineni Dec 19 '15 at 18:07

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.