The reasons i think that logic is not enough to find the truth are Gödel's result is essentially saying that semantics cannot be reduced to syntax. I sometimes conclude that something is 100% true, and can be observed easily
As it is based on logic, and then people don't bel. On the other hand, (mathematical) proof is a syntactic notion Theories of truth deal with questions such as
Not to be confused with what is the truth, which is a completely different matter. I came across this philosophical thought David bohm discuss the topic of truth and actuality (reality) They touch on reality however in my opinion and understanding don't clarify or define truth
The first two paragraphs are talking about not necessarily needing to know truth, but the latter two imply that for achieving goals or empowering us to do so, understanding of how the world works (=discovering the truth about the world) is essential. If [γ ⊢ φ] then [γ ⊨ φ]. From an aristotelian perspective—as reconstructed in mor segev’s aristotle on religion (2017)—evaluating the truth or plausibility of a religion involves several layers beyond simply assessing whether its claims are logically coherent or empirically testable. I am searching the source and exact words for a quote from hannah arendt that i only vaguely remember
Largely in the spirit of a correspondence theory of truth, the liar paradox is like any abstraction that seems to be irrelevant to states of affair in the physical world After all, a paradox by definition is something that cannot be in its fundamental sense, like a square circle. Truth, in the sense you are using it here, is a semantic notion It is not equivalent to proof as you suggest
