ข้อมูลในบทความนี้จะพูดถึงestablish แปล หากคุณต้องการเรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับestablish แปลมาเรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับหัวข้อestablish แปลกับSensationthailandในโพสต์The Nature of Truth – Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHYนี้.

ข้อมูลที่เกี่ยวข้องเกี่ยวกับestablish แปลในThe Nature of Truth – Epistemology

ชมวิดีโอด้านล่างเลย

ที่เว็บไซต์Sensation Thailandคุณสามารถเพิ่มเอกสารอื่น ๆ นอกเหนือจากestablish แปลเพื่อข้อมูลเชิงลึกที่มีคุณค่ามากขึ้นสำหรับคุณ ที่เพจSensationthailand เราแจ้งให้คุณทราบด้วยเนื้อหาใหม่และถูกต้องทุกวัน, ด้วยความตั้งใจที่จะให้ค่าที่ถูกต้องที่สุดแก่ผู้ใช้ ช่วยให้คุณบันทึกข้อมูลบนอินเทอร์เน็ตได้อย่างแม่นยำที่สุด.

คำอธิบายเกี่ยวกับหมวดหมู่establish แปล

ในวิดีโอปรัชญาไร้สายนี้ Joshua Rasmussen (มหาวิทยาลัย Azusa Pacific) สำรวจ 5 ทฤษฎีเกี่ยวกับธรรมชาติของความจริง ขอบคุณที่รับชม! หากต้องการเรียนรู้เพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับปรัชญาและการคิดเชิงวิพากษ์ โปรดสมัครสมาชิก! เพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับ Joshua Rasmussen: —- Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy: Instagram: @wiphiofficial Twitter: Facebook: —- ช่วยเราบรรยายและแปลวิดีโอนี้! .

รูปภาพบางส่วนที่เกี่ยวข้องกับเอกสารเกี่ยวกับestablish แปล

The Nature of Truth - Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY
The Nature of Truth – Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY คุณสามารถค้นหาบทความเพิ่มเติมด้านล่าง

ดูข่าวเพิ่มเติมที่นี่

คำแนะนำเล็กน้อยที่เกี่ยวข้องกับestablish แปล

#Nature #Truth #Epistemology #WIRELESS #PHILOSOPHY.

Khan Academy,Philosophy,Wireless Philosophy,Wiphi,video,lecture,course,epistemology,axiology,truth,Joshua Rasmussen,Azusa Pacific University.

The Nature of Truth – Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY.

establish แปล.

เราหวังว่าข้อมูลบางส่วนที่เราให้ไว้จะเป็นประโยชน์กับคุณ ขอขอบคุณที่อ่านestablish แปลข่าวของเรา

45 thoughts on “The Nature of Truth – Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY | เนื้อหาestablish แปลล่าสุด

  1. borb says:

    this is genuinely so dumb. i have to watch this for our religious education. anyways can any of yall philosophy nerds give me a single sentence for all of the 5 theoris of truths discussed in the video. need it tom or asap. thx. will compensate with foot pics

  2. James Tagge says:

    I find it comical, these supposed intellectuals who are supposed to be in the know and able to answer the important questions agonize over such sophomoric propositions and theories. Consider…….

    The epistemological process is that of building fundamental truths into an architecture which extends upward and outward like a tree. It is not that complex a notion and not all that difficult to understand. We “can” know certain truths from which we can construct and understand new and existing truths, respectively. This is accomplished through our perceptual apparatus which is NOT subjective as most of the purported, historical and modern philosophical geniuses allude to or propose, but rather “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. For example, when we see a square, we know unequivocally that it is not a circle. Conversely and independently, we know the circle is not the square (also quantitative). It is not possible that we might mistake the one for the other, “ever”. That is knowledge. The two are truths. There is nothing subjective about them. Similarly, we cannot mistake the mouse for the tree (again, quantitative), though one might find the tree beautiful or interesting and another, not (qualitative). Of course there are those who might suggest that were the tree artificial, our understanding would be in error. But this is not the case. That which we perceived as a tree was still in fact a tree (a truth that requires only some qualification, i.e., that it is artificial). That someone had made it so realistic as to fool those in witness does not indict my point. Our perceptual process has a capacity which if exceeded would cause it to err under certain conditions. But this would be no different than were we to reject the technology of photography, one that is proven, only because it cannot take photos of atoms or without a certain lens, objects miles away. Or, what if the lenses or shutter (old style) were broken?

    What then of the more complex phenomena such as motion? We know by the very nature of the process of perception that we cannot have motion without the object moving. This would be an absolute truth with regard to materiality. In the mere process of observation of such action of an object we would know that the motion is not a physical aspect of that object yet effects it in the total of its physicality. Here we have a material construct paired with an intangible phenomenon in a manner which defines its truths to our perceptual process in a manner which requires no study. It is wholly self-evident and unequivocal.

    Mankind has produced enough in its history to know that the various systems of our perceptual apparatus such as that of our vision, are capable of delivering to us a very accurate understanding of the reality in which we move. We can see an iron rod 1 inch in diameter and 2 feet long and by our other senses, validate that which our eyes have seen without “any” error. Each such example is joined with all others in our experience demonstrating that under most circumstances (and we know them in their kind) in the application of the perceptual process, we cannot be deceived.

    The old high school argument that we are somehow limited by the fact that we can only see/perceive an existent from one side and not at once, the side opposite has no place in the discussion for its deception. For most objects we perceive, we can and do extrapolate the necessary configuration of the side opposite our view. Symmetry as an example is that which readily supplies us with the information which would otherwise be missing, such as with a trailer being pulled by a truck. From all the other objective knowledge we possess at the time of viewing the two vehicles together, we know that the side hidden from view must be configured as that which we can see or the trailer could not fulfill its function, that the motive behind its initial manufacture and purpose for its existence. Even with asymmetrical objects we can often determine the side we cannot see by means of the features we can, some structured in a manner requiring that those hidden must be of this or that configuration. That we see a car in front of a tree and see the tree extending above it leaves no doubts as to that it is a tree and as to what that part hidden looks like.

    Another important aspect to perception as it relates to truth is knowing what something is not as much as what it is. Were one to go out of his house at night and see an irregular shaped shadow at the corner of his yard, he might not, through the perceptual process know what it is but he would know that it is not, for example, a car having crashed into his fence, or a man staking out his house, or a bear, or a truck, etc. So, notwithstanding the declarations of the traditional, supposed experts, we can and do know without question, many truths which are those upon which we build to expand our knowledge. And we don’t need science to know all of them and this process as it actually operates does not preclude truths of religion.

    Finally, there are truths of materiality but also those of abstraction which are equally unequivocal and by which we construct that architecture of truths. For example, one cannot appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth. This would be like saying, “I think I am not thinking” and expecting that it could ever be true. It is the process of formulating a denial by the denial of the very means of that formulation. We don’t need to science to know such truths which aid us not only in dealing with the truths of materiality but social truths as well, which are a product of the other two.

    I am ever more disappointed in the state of science when I watch these videos. These folks are not nearly as smart as they fancy themselves.

  3. Ben Vendergood says:

    Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical

    fallacy of its truth?

    The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize
    that truth, by definition, isn't true . . .

    The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that
    an analysis is in progress.

    Truth infers an analysis of the probability that
    it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2),
    an inference that a truth is never 100% true.

    Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the
    exact degree that that truth was not true.

    Are we reaching synthesis as what is true
    from testing our truths OR are we killing
    what is true, one truth at a time?

  4. Patrick Steil says:

    I believe the most coherent and pragmatic and realistic philosophy of Truth can be found by studying the philosophy of the Catholic Church.

    We are created so we are valuable.
    Our Creator defines The Truth.
    When we follow His Truth we follow the plan for our lives and this leads to a life of meaning.

  5. W. R. Harvey says:

    You existing in a dualist sense as Descartes described is not a clear truth.”I think therefore, I am” is just a story/fiction you are tell yourself about thinking.

  6. Michael Dayton says:

    The challenge proposed at the video's end (To find "the simplest theory of truth that accounts for all the cases has the best chance of being true") is essentially Occam's razor, no?

  7. Dennis Tucker says:

    My definition of TRUTH is…a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It account for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.

  8. Criss Rodríguez says:

    I don't speak English but I'm watching this video because i don't found this kind of video in Spanish, thank you, also when I watch this, I can improve my English

  9. Wal Reis says:

    'The cat is on the mat' is indeed a proposition that needs not being clearer or ostensible as to it conveying a truth, so that adding to it the expression 'it is true' is just redundant. And it is true because it corresponds to or, better still, it refers to the idea acquired through the senses, of there being a cat on the mat. So, the written or spoken proposition – which is also an idea – is true as it expresses the idea it refers to. Truth can only be a relation, and one between ideas or propositions (which are basically the same thing), while 'being real' is a label – and an idea as well – loosely attached or added to other ideas to indicate, for instance, that their source wasn't a dream, a hallucination or still a remembrance. By the way, we only have ideas or propositions at our grasp, like, for instance, of perceiving no matter what, of doing things like driving, eating, building, playing, etc. And though to most of them we attach the 'this-is-real' label, there's no way for us to know for sure that we are actually having those experiences. It seems that there's no other thing we can be sure we are doing than to think, and that there's no better or saner thing to do in such a circumstance than trying to be coherent.

  10. Mark Fennell says:

    I love the pursuit of truth. In all areas.

    There are several different categories of truth. Scientific. Spiritual. Relational. Etc.

    One of the biggest problems is separating observations from interpretations of the observations.

    We may both agree on what is in front of us but not the underlying causes or process.

    Another difficulty is inherent bias. We want something to be true therefore we discount any useful evidence that contradicts our desire for that truth. The best we can do is to acknowledge our bias in each area and try to set it aside during our research.

  11. President Not Sure says:

    Why would a college professor produce a video on the nature of truth without defining the key word, truth? This is an embarrassing blunder. Without a clear definition any discussion of these theories begs the question.

  12. MOHAMED SAAID says:

    Thank you so much for new ideas and for the effort to make this vids, but it would be more academic and objective if you added the sources and other links for further readings…

  13. Flabby PigLegs says:

    Lmfao there is no clear truth. I exist cannot be proven. I think therefore I am? Is circular logic. All you can know is that something is thinking not necessarily you are

  14. Joseph Noonan says:

    Deflationism sounds a lot like naive truth theory to me, and we know from the liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, and all the variants thereof that naive truth theory is not true.

  15. some dude says:

    Deflationism isnt the "removal of truth". It simply the recognition that the truth = what is. Therefore if you are making a claim about what is, it is redundant and unnessecary to repeat yourself.

  16. NeverFinished 3Digits says:

    I mean, the fact this video is labelled as "the nature of truth – epistemology" demonstrates the common error that people make when it comes to incorrect theories of truth. Theories of truth are NOT part of epistemology (on the contrary, theories of knowledge are about truth… specifically knowable truths. Knowledge is a subset of truth… truth is not a subset of knowledge). Epistemology is about KNOWLEDGE. And what we can know to be true is a separate question to what truth is. Knowledge is a subset of truth not the other way around. Truth is deeper and broader than epistemology. Knowledge implies belief… but truth doesn't imply knowledge. We don't have to know what is true to have an accurate theory of truth. Incorrect theories of truth are simply illogical, contradictory or not comprehensive enough. The very fact that the correspondence theory of truth cannot be justified epistemologically is exactly why it's the correct theory of truth truth. It refers to the whole of reality INCLUDING what we CAN'T know. So of course we can't justify it epistemologically…. if we could it wouldn't refer to the whole of truth it would only refer to knowable truths. But some truths AREN'T knowable.

  17. ostihpem says:

    Truth is valueable because if something is true then you can rely on it and do actions that will pay off. Very simple strategy. Therefore the correspondence theory is the best theory of truth, because if you have truth there, you are on the safe side while in all the other theories you can have truth but still get disappointed, i.e. you can't rely on it.

  18. NeverFinished 3Digits says:

    All theories of truth suck compared to the correspondence theory… and I think everyone intuitively believes in the correspondence theory before they even do any philosophy.

ใส่ความเห็น

อีเมลของคุณจะไม่แสดงให้คนอื่นเห็น