[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
...Pragmatism as a theory of truth does not settle any disputes about what is true but rather muddles the issue so should be rejected on pragmatic grounds.

dmb says:
I don't see any reason for your denials here. How does the test of experience fail to tell us what's true? How does such empirical validation muddle the issue?
> 
> 
>  DMB:
> 
> > Again, James says, "This is the practical difference it makes to us to have
> > true ideas; that therefore is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth
> > can be known as". And your objection to this, that it doesn't "solve the
> > problem of settling once and for all what actually *is* true" hardly makes
> > sense because the pragmatic theory of truth never claims to settle anything
> > once and for all. That might be what an absolutist or objectivist means by
> > truth but that is very clearly NOT was James or any other pragmatist would
> > claim. As James says, "the truth of an idea is not a stagnant property
> > inherent in it".
> >
> 

Steve said:
I am asking James pragmatism's usual question: what is the cash-value in experiential terms of believing versus disbelieving this proposed theory of truth? Pragmatism is supposed to put theory in the service of practice. What other function would anyone ever want from a theory of truth besides helping us settle disputes about what beliefs are true and what beliefs are false? 

dmb says:

I can't make any sense of your questions. I'll take the last one first.
Yes, of course, a theory of truth is supposed to tell us what truth means and some kind of criteria for determining what we can rightly call "true". But it seems you're way too concerned with the rules about what a truth theory must and must not be. Why not just try to see what James is saying? Doesn't he get to decide what his truth theory entails?
To the second question, yes. The theory says that actual practice is the test. 
In the first question you seem to be asking how we cash out this theory's "belief" in experience in experiential terms. First of all, I don't think we can believe or disbelieve experience. If there is a way to deny the reality of experience, I'd surely like to know what it is. That's probably why Radical Empiricism says that experience and reality amount to the same thing. It's the only thing we know for sure and philosophically, it's a mistake to make assertions beyond what can be known in experience and everything that is known in experience must be accounted for. Pragmatism's notion of truth is quite consistent with this set of limits. It's a theory that says truth can only ever be the property of an idea that is made true in experience. You said, "this 'theory' is a difference that makes no difference", but if you read the text where he lays it out you'd see that it makes a huge difference right away. This "theory" is used to destroy idealism, traditional empiricism and SOM even while it's still unfolding. It's really an amazing piece of work. The man was an artist. You should listen to his thoughts real hard, just once. I mean, stuff like the following makes me think you're not really bothering to pay much attention....

Steve said:
Unless you can find a way out of the "true for me, false for you" non-sense this view of truth couldn't be any more relativistic. "True for me, false for you" is pretty much the paradigm for relativism.


dmb says:
If pragmatic truth is constrained by actual experience, how can that count as relativism? Reality is the fact that determines what we can truthfully say, but in this case reality is not an objective material reality that admits only one truth. Reality is process and flux and a continuum of experience itself. And there are different perspectives, different ways to take up this reality that aren't mutually exclusive so that there can be many truths. But that doesn't mean you can't be wrong. That doesn't mean you can believe or think whatever you like because reality will bite you in the ass to let you know you're wrong. The test of experience is really hard to cheat. If you believe your boat is sound and fit but you find yourself sinking there is no way to talk your way out of it. The matter has been settled. The pudding has been eaten. At that point, you just have to admit you were wrong and start bailing.  







  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/