Yes. We *Can* Demand People Warranty Their Statements for Truthfulness.

CURT—“Why can’t we demand that people warranty the truthfulness of their statements?”—

RICHARD—“because truth is determined, if at all, by debate and testing, and what cannot be stated while untested is unlikely to receive the scrutiny needed to determine its truth or falsity.”—

[T]his is not true. TRUTHFULNESS, in all walks of life, not only in the physical sciences, is the result of performance of due diligence: criticism of our testimony. The act of laundering imagination, fantasy, bias, error and deception from our testimony. Justification is false. There are no non-trivial complete premises. We can criticize our extant understanding as thoroughly as possible, but we can never know if we are informationally complete.

Testimony is unnatural to man. Which is why westerner’s are unique in its construction as a norm: it’s prohibitively expensive.
Analytic truth (the case you use in your statement above), is impossible to know for other than tautological and trivial statements.

—”No, I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.

But mere honesty is not truthfulness in any case.

My guess is that you have no clear idea even of what analytic truth means, Curt. “—-

—-David McDonagh

1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

2) Truthfulness exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit, and that one has performed due diligence against imagination, bias and error.

3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that complete.

4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context).

–”…what analytic truth means”–

What meaning people normatively derive from the term, and what meaning (content) is necessary for the term to correspond to the testimony given using it, are two different things. So, on order to put forth a substantive criticism – you would actually have to put forward a criticism. 😉

But in an effort to assist you in your journey: the word ‘is’ must refer to existence if one is not engaging in conflation; and ‘truth’ can only exist as testimony (promise). Any other use of the term ‘true’ is an analogy that we must test for internal consistency given the context of its use.

“The ball is red” = “Having observed the ball, I promise you that if you observe the ball, you will also perceive that it appears red.”
This is the only existentially possible operational definition. “The ball Is red” is an expression of verbal brevity.
OR more generally “is” = “I promise that subject to the same observations you will percieve what I testify that you will”

–” I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.”–
is an excellent example of how the term truth is misused.

Translates to (and can only translate to):
“I was talking about the degree of criticism I had performed in my due diligence of my premises, and therefore the scope of diligence I must perform upon my deductions from those premises”.

As far as I know I am one of the best people living and working on this subject.




Leave a Reply