5 Dumb Things People Say About Truth

simpsons_nelson_haha2

In this post we will look at 5 self-referentially incoherent things people say about truth and how one might respond.

Self-referentiall incoherence is a logical fallacy in which some claim is made which, upon being applied to itself, refutes itself.

1. “There is no such thing as objective truth!

Really? Is that statement objectively true? If so, is it objectively true that there is no objective truth?

2. “Only that which can be proven scientifically can be called ‘true!'”

Can you prove scientifically that one should only accept that which can be proven scientifically? Hmm, don’t remember seeing that one at the 4th grade science fair.

3. “Everything is true!”

Ah, I see, then you must also believe that nothing is true right? For If the claim, “nothing is true” is not true then it is not true that everything is true.

4. “It’s true for you but not for me!”

Is that statement just true for you, or is it true for everyone? If it’s just true for you then I don’t need to accept it but if it’s true for everyone then it’s not true that all truth is relative.

5. “We should be skeptical about truth!”

If it is true that we should be skeptical about truth then we should be skeptical about the claim that we should be skeptical about truth. But the more skeptical one is about one’s skepticism the more certain one becomes.

To learn more about logical fallacies click here!

18 thoughts on “5 Dumb Things People Say About Truth

  1. “But the more skeptical one is about one’s skepticism the more certain one becomes.”

    Great line. It’s really unfortunate that logic is not a required subject in most high schools. Seems illogical..

  2. Matt, you are mind bogglingly smart. My favourite statement was number 2. You can’t prove scientifically that one should only accept what is scientifically proven. Brilliant. I would love to hire you to argue with people for me because I am terrible at it. I just clam up and then get annoyed with myself for not being able to think of anything clever to say. Gotta memorise those above quotes for future, shall we say, confrontations (none of which I start, I hasten to add, because I’m so rubbish at arguing).

  3. 1. “There is no such thing as objective truth!”
    “Really? Is that statement objectively true? If so, is it objectively true that there is no objective truth?”
    “No, the statement is not objectively true. Clearly it’s conjecture.”

    2. “Only that which can be proven scientifically can be called ‘true!’”
    “Can you prove scientifically that one should only accept that which can be proven scientifically? Hmm, don’t remember seeing that one at the 4th grade science fair.”
    “No, of course I can’t. This is a prescriptive statement about the way to use the term ‘true,’ not a scientific hypothesis.”

    3. “Everything is true!”
    “Ah, I see, then you must also believe that nothing is true right? For If the claim, “nothing is true” is not true then it is not true that everything is true.”
    “That’s true (and untrue): Nothing is true (and everything is true).”

    4. “It’s true for you but not for me!”
    “Is that statement just true for you, or is it true for everyone? If it’s just true for you then I don’t need to accept it but if it’s true for everyone then it’s not true that all truth is relative.”
    “It’s true for you and me. It’s silent in regard to everyone else.”

    5. “We should be skeptical about truth!”

    If it is true that we should be skeptical about truth then we should be skeptical about the claim that we should be skeptical about truth. But the more skeptical one is about one’s skepticism the more certain one becomes.

    1. A tree fell, truly, truly I say that I was not there to hear it.
      Does that make me the centre of the universe by prescription?

  4. Oops, I missed number 5:
    5. “We should be skeptical about truth!”
    “If it is true that we should be skeptical about truth then we should be skeptical about the claim that we should be skeptical about truth. But the more skeptical one is about one’s skepticism the more certain one becomes.”
    “No, the latter claim is a non sequitur: I can be skeptical towards my skepticism without becoming certain about it.”

  5. “Random mutation is a scientific explanation.” In fact to posit random mutation is to declare ignorance of the scientific explanation. That of which we know the scientific explanation, we do not call random. The mathematics of probability is a tool of ignorance, which is analogically applied to material reality in lieu of scientific knowledge.

    1. How did God making light proposition line energy densities so as to create even one human soul?
      A materialist posit can never energize a proper relation between species development without the deism time clock straw man inside a cobblers boot. A God who is personal and who is the authority over all human history will not “pop out” of the evolutionary debate.

  6. Dude, you sound like Ray Comfort channeling William Craig. You are snarky and condescending and carve out these theoretical philosophical positions. Then, you have the nerve to look down at different denominations of your own faith.

    Hey I have a question about the truth. So, the Pope is infallible when he rules on your church’s doctrine, right? If that is the truth, why did the Vatican hastily retreat from his position about non believers and heaven?

    You know why you need apologists? Because this is so far fetched it is a full time job trying to pull a facsimile of the truth together.

    1. Good to hear from you, Ron.

      Well, you’ve taken a swipe at me, but not at my arguments. Perhaps I am condescending and snarky, so what, that’s hardly an argument against the points I raised. show me which of the five points that I raised is false and I’d be happy to rethink and even change my position.

      You are wrong in thinking that the Church changed her position on the ultimate fate of non-Catholics. The Church clarified her position in Lumen Gentium (see paragraph 16), but this in no way conflicts with the (still held) belief that outside the Church there is no salvation. If you’re genuinely interested (and I hope that you are) in learning why the statements made in Lumen Gentium do not conflict with “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” then I’d invite you to read my colleague, Jim Blackburn’s article, “What ‘No Salvation Outside The Church’ Means” (http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means).

      Thank you for your comment, Ron. Looking forward to our ongoing conversation

  7. Matt – what you write looks like complete gibberish to me. Which people are saying this or are you making things up? If one side of an argument is questionable it doesn’t make the other side true.

  8. Woah ! Estoy realmente amar la plantilla / tema de este bitácora
    . Es simple, pero eficaz . Muchas veces es muy difícil duro para conseguir ese ” equilibrio perfecto ” entre facilidad
    de uso y aparición . Debo decir que has has hecho un gran trabajo con esto
    . También , las cargas de blogs muy súper rápido
    rápido para mí en Chrome . Destacado Blog !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *