Hacker News Reader

Comment by jawns | Hacker News Reader

What the author is proposing is known in philosophy as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, which says, essentially, something is true if it is useful to believe that it is true.

This is in contrast to the more widespread Correspondence Theory of Truth, which says that something is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are. This is a classical theory of truth held by both Aristotle and Aquinas.

Personally, I think the Correspondence Theory is far superior to the Pragmatic Theory. I don't want to believe in a religion because it feels good to believe in it. I want to believe in it because it's actually telling us true things about the way things actually are.

By the way, there are many other theories of truth, some quite out there. This entry on truth in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a good overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

View on HN

I'm a christian (protestant, for what it matters) but I am also very down-to-earth. I know why I believe in God : that's how my parents educated me, and when I was old enough to think by myself, I chose to keep believing. But I believe mostly in science, and I know there is not a single proof from science on the existence (or not) of God. Yet, I also choose to believe in a religion because it reassures me to say "Please help me, please be with me" when I'm in a dangerous or stressing situation, or when I'm depressed, or when I mourn, while fully knowing that it very might be just bullshit. In a way, I make believe that God exists and is as described in the Bible, but I don't see why I should try to enforce my make believe onto others (and I don't plan on enforcing it on my children).

I'm not versed in philosophy, but reading your comment, I think I adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, in the way that science IS true, science is THE truth. But religion is useful to me, it reassures me, so it is true TO ME, it is MY truth, so I might also adhere to the Pragmatic Theory of Truth.

In the end, I know full well how to differentiate between those two aspects of my beliefs system, and I think both have their uses and both could live together in the human mind, as long as you know which one to use in which situation.

> But I believe mostly in science, and I know there is not a single proof from science on the existence (or not) of God.

There can never be evidence from science on God, but there are logical proofs for the existence of God:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...

Aristotle also recognized that there are a wide variety of people and what works for one group might not work for another. The Sivers piece reminds me of a phenomenon I see all the time: people assuming that what works for them will work for everyone. People are really different in a lot of important ways and that makes advice hard to generalize unless it is pretty banal (spend less than you earn, do the things you need to get done, etc.)

I think you're addressing a different topic, though. The first topic is, "What determines whether something is true?" The second is, "Are all things that are perceived as helpful by one group universally helpful?"

If you hold to a pragmatic theory of truth, these two questions might be related.

But if you instead hold to a correspondence theory of truth (as Aristotle did), you can still acknowledge that what is helpful to one person might not be helpful to another. But you would assert that it has nothing fundamental to do with whether something is true or not.

In ancient Indian philosophy, the Charvakas (materialists) considered the world to be real because it is seen whereas the Advaitins (nondualists) considered the world to be an illusion because it is seen.

What the author is proposing is known in philosophy as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth...

I've read a dozen comments and, except one by some adolph about models, all of you seem to have read a different article.

>>> "None of these statements are true." <<<

>>> "while knowing they are make believe" <<<

That doesn't sound like some alternative theory of truth. To me, at least.

I can't convince myself a religion is true no matter if it makes me feel good to believe in it. So effectively I end up with the correspondence theory of truth whether I like it or not.

But are you familiar with Gettier problems[1] and justified true beliefs?

1 https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

I missed the bit where belief in "anybody" was justified by the facts regarding "Jones" getting the job. Given that all sorts of smart people have looked at this before, I'll plead to being dumb and hopefully someone will help me understand.

[For me] All that seems to reinforce the need for the 'correspondence' variety of truth. Smith is free to believe all sorts of non-sense, and this in fact happens in real life all the time. People around us have all sorts of funny theories about the world and reality. We all have them. That sort of 'knowledge' -- actionable and informative theories about the world regardless of completeness or factuality -- serves its purpose in every day life. The degree to which it is false and contextually relevant determines the probability of a collision between actual reality and one's theories about reality modulo 'chance' events. This is basically how human society operates and has operated for ever. We have (hopefully) learning agents navigating a partially error tolerant environment. "Live and learn". So this is a practical sort of knowledge that can be well served by a pragmatic take on truth.

The only question really is more fundamental and this asks if philosophy is itself a sort of mental appendix, a part that really serves no purpose :_, for every day conduct of life. To wit, this 'unassailable' sort of knowledge, who needs it? And if we can't answer that, why ask the question?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com