A statement is true, if, and only if, the majority of persons of sound judgement would assent to its truth

“A statement is true, if, and only if, the majority of persons of sound judgement would assent to its truth.”

In essence the statement sounds agreeably acceptable on face value. However it may be helpful to begin with a linguistic analysis of the content of the statement to more thoroughly ground the assertion of truth from the majority of persons of sound judgement.

The initial problem seems to arise around the positing of a majority of persons. Perhaps an indication of the grand total of those who were surveyed would give more credence to the majority cohort.

What then can we assume, numerically, constitutes a majority of persons, say nine out of ten. Perhaps the predicate “a majority of persons” will suffice for an assertion. Also I am curious as to the socio-economic status of this majority of persons and what confidence this information would lend to the postulate for “sound judgement”.

It may be that the reality principal which refers to thoughts having the capacity to be wrong could apply. There seems to be another person or persons not mentioned in this statement, being the receivers of this statement and their ability to judge soundness. Perhaps the veracity of any such statement needs to be assented to by all the relevant parties to the postulate.

Again the locution “a majority of persons” stands alone needing a grand total referral. It may be that the statement itself tends to invite a philosophical illusion in the sought acceptance, on face value, of a majority of persons.

The further reality principal which refers to beliefs and judgements capable of being flawed places the truth of this statement in further doubt. Having applied both reality principals relating to the thought, belief and judgement doubts it may be that this statement could be vulnerable.

The metaphysical investigation into the nature of existence and the nature of truth looms large in the possible acceptance of sound judgement and truth. It would not be appropriate to ascribe any intention of deception in this statement; simply the content based on the premises seems to struggle when the reality principals are applied to each premise.

The nature of existence comes to mind when considering the majority of persons of sound judgement. What particular research was carried out to locate people of sound judgement? Where does one look; is it easy to find such interlocutors?

Indeed what were the antecedents of such a cohort, were they volunteers or paid? Perhaps a reference to the topic about which such a statement referred to would also throw more light onto the outcome. Maybe these people were acceptable as carriers of sound judgement in view of the topic and their qualifications in any such field of learning.

Bearing in mind the necessity demanded by this statement for persons of sound judgement perhaps the metaphysical requirements through the reality principals are not reducible.

One therefore, at times, feels a nearness to pedantry in one’s musings; however, pedantry may be the catalyst that seeks the truth.

 

Leave a Reply

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