[คัดลอกมาจาก blog เก่าค่ะ]
Question: Something exist and something is true is a different story?
because of the need of language to present (talk about) that particular existence,
the statement that present that something exists becomes first "a claim" -
Which needs to be defensible? Is it' true, it become a fact?
but at the same time, to Test if the statement (epistemiologically derived) is true or false: Chalmers (what is this thing called science) referred to the Correspondence theory of truth that "a sentence is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts." (ontological or epistmic facts? - both)
For example: the predicate "is on the mat" is satisfied by x if and only if x is on the mat. Then a statement "a cat is on the mat" is true if and only if a cat is on the mat. (and is false is it isn't.)
What is fact? There are two kinds of fact?
1. ontological objective fact: a cat has 4 legs, tactonic plates can move.
2. epistemic objective fact: George W. Bush is president of the United States; and the fact that, for example, the piece of paper I have in my hand is a twenty dollar bill [= social construct]
Both kind of objectivity can be ascertained as true or false independent of the attitudes of observers. They become facts when they are ascertained as true?
But then, pains, tickles, itches, emotions and thoughts have a mode of existence which is ontologically subjective in the sense that they only exist insofar as they are experienced by human or animal subjects. - can they become facts?
answer: yes, ontological subjective can be epistemiologic objective = fact
something exists = ontologically there (whether it exists objectively or subjectively) therefore, when people present it's existence, the statement or claim (epistemic objective) may be true or flase - have to have method to test. Then if it's true, it become a matter of fact (whether be an ontological fact or an epistemiological fact).
From the last post, Searle said,
The truth value depends on what we've agreed on the meanings of the terms in the sentences, and the measuring devices, etc.So to check if a statement corresponds to the fact is to use a method, device, and meaning that people agreed upon?
Then truth is majority agreement? but may not corespond to the ontological fact?
We have to ask then, is it personal truth or public truth? for personal truth, yes it may not. But public truth should correspond to ontological objectivity?
(Note that truth is epistemiologically derived - because phenomena are transformed in the act of measurement, then the observer is never really independent of the phenomena under investigates. - Heisenberg's principle)
Question: what about a matter of opinion (epistemiological subjectivity): can we test and find the answer of majority? Can this kind of opinions become facts? No because there's no method, or device, or no agreement on the meaning of the term??? for example: which picture is more beautiful? none of the answer can become fact?
so a fact is not really a true statement that majority agree upon? or it is?
in general people would agree that a statement is true, only if it exists, it really happened,
whether it's objective or subjective. If it exists (ontological) objectively, then it's most likely that almost everyone agree that such statement is true. Things become more complicated when people try to judge if a statement that comes from ontological subjectivity is true or false.
We may get both agreement and disagreement. Maybe it will never become an acceptable fact.
but the way to make sense of all of this is to use pragmatic judgement, what is useful is true (Patton). Research is not to prove, but to improve (Kvale).
If you can prove or disprove that certain statement is true but it doesn't help the world, then I am not interested.