Showing the incoherence...





If you do not know the difference between which beliefs are true and which beliefs are false, you cannot know that that claim is true.



Muddle.

Jb,

You're confusing the statement which describes the fact with the fact itself.

'The sun gives off light and warmth' is a true claim if, and only if the sun gives of light and warmth.

The antecedent(subject) is the claim and the predicate is the placemark for the states of affairs that they describe. Thus...

'I believe that the sun gives off light and warmth' is a statement of true belief because it corresponds to a state of affairs.

Yes I can.

Whether I know if a belief is true or not is irrelevant to the statement that a belief CAN be a fact.

Anyway I am finding this conversation tedious and pointless to the point of being ridiculous.

good night.

That's all good Abra. Let's focus upon getting my position right, if it is my position that you wish to understand.



That's not true James. I offered a link which describes all paradoxes in depth at the highest level of academic understanding possible. What more could you ask for? Truth is a matter of philosophy of language and metaphysics. It is usually a given in epistemology.



Actually we're not in agreement here. There is no "THE" universal state of affairs in my constructs. States of affairs are always of the universe and/or it's content. They are innumerable... not one.



Truth, which is capitalized here for grammatical purposes only, is completely unaffected by that distinction. It does not matter one iota. This can be easily shown. Offer up a true statement about QM, and I'll show you how it does not affect how truth works.

Why did you not answer the simple questions that would have led to some real progress?

What is a fact, a belief, truth, and personal taste/preference and most importantly, what is the difference between those and how do they work in conjunction with one another?

If we do not know what makes a claim true, then we cannot know how to separate true belief from false belief.

It's common sense.

A belief is NOT A CLAIM.

But change that to:
"If we do not know what makes a belief true, then we cannot know how to separate true belief from false belief."

And I will answer that with this:

The statement that "A belief CAN be a fact." - is a true claim.

What the belief actually is, is irrelevant.

That is common sense.

Approaching this from another tack, since the incoherence has not been recognized despite the facts in evidence.



'A belief can be a fact' IFF a belief can be a fact.

If I believe that Barack Obama is the president of the US, then I hold a true belief. What makes that belief true is that it corresponds to states of affairs(fact). Barack Obama was elected as the president of the US in November of 2008. That is the state of affairs that occurred by which Obama became president.

If Obama were not the president, then that belief would be false because it would not correspond to the aforementioned state of presidential affairs.

Thus, we clearly see here what makes a claim true is correspodence to fact/reality and what makes a claim false is when the facts contradict the belief. So, because it is when the facts contradict belief that make belief false, we know that belief cannot be fact, for if it were there would be no way to know which is which...

That is why the question could not be answered.

It it when it is written down. It is a claim about the way things are.

The statement that: A dog CAN be large." -- is a true claim.

This does not mean that all dogs are large and it does not require that you know anything about a specific dog or its size for the claim to still hold true.

This is where you are mistaken. It is NOT a claim about the way things are. It is a claim about the way someone BELIEVES things are.

BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

Jb,

What is the difference between a true belief and a false belief?

The above is an example that a belief CAN BE A FACT. Which proves that my claim that a belief can be a fact is a true claim.




The above is irrelevant as my claim that a belief can be a fact was proven in your first example.

The claim that a believe can be a fact is not a claim that a belief is is "always" a fact. In the second example (above) a belief is not a fact.

The belief itself is IRRELEVANT!!

The only difference is that you've added needless semantic confusion where none ought be.

Belief is what what one holds true about the way things are. When written down it is a claim about the way things are. If it is a claim about the way someone believes things are, it is still about the way things are.

Muddle.

The two examples you gave about who the president is a perfect example of the difference between a true belief and a false belief.


So what?

The claim that a belief can be a fact is still a true claim.

That example clearly shows why a belief cannot be a fact.

Okay at this point I will just say that I strongly disagree and I think it is you who are confused and confusing.

I believe you are wrong, plain and simple. I don't think there is anything more I can say.

If I say I believe you are wrong, then that means that is the way things are. My claim then, is that you are wrong.

How does it show that? If I believe Obama is the president, how is that belief not a fact?