What is Truth made of?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 10:51 pm
@Reconstructo,
Enough truth is a wonderful thing; but there is no point getting gooey over it...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 11:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
Granted, granted.....but what shall we get gooey over?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:58 am
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Who is connected to the truth, and how? Is truth ever more than justified belief? Is the objective world largely made of consensus?

Is there an essential difference between rhetoric and logic? Or is logic what we call our personal rhetoric?

Do we want the truth in itself? Or only in the pursuit of other goals, as a means? Do those who claim to seek truth as an end do so for quasi-religious reasons?


I'm pretty sure that everything in this world is subjective, to the eyes of everything. Even to God, if there is one. An objective truth is a subjective truth, to whoever may know this objective truth. Being this way, because they're the only one who believes this objective truth, possibly not making it any sort of truth at all. What's true is what's accepted by society. Things such as mathematical equations.

2+2=4. Is it an objective truth? What if someone was told that 4 is really 5, and the person is swayed. They will then believe that 2+2=5, and to him and the one that told him, that will be the truth. The truth is made of what's accepted.

The truth is made of what's accepted
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:15 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110427 wrote:
"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." Peirce 1901


I can get down with this. Though it's not all that can be said on the matter.

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 11:12 PM ----------

.


The is no reason to think that there may not be truths that endless investigation would not tend to bring to scientific belief. And that there aren't falsities that endless investigation would tend to bring to scientific belief. An obvious example of the first is, that God exists.

In fact, Peirce wrote many things contrary to what he says here. For example his famous example of the gem at the bottom of the sea that no one would know about even after endless investigation.

---------- Post added 12-12-2009 at 02:20 AM ----------

Quinn;110463 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that everything in this world is subjective, to the eyes of everything. Even to God, if there is one. An objective truth is a subjective truth, to whoever may know this objective truth. Being this way, because they're the only one who believes this objective truth, possibly not making it any sort of truth at all. What's true is what's accepted by society. Things such as mathematical equations.

2+2=4. Is it an objective truth? What if someone was told that 4 is really 5, and the person is swayed. They will then believe that 2+2=5, and to him and the one that told him, that will be the truth. The truth is made of what's accepted.

The truth is made of what's accepted


Could you say a something on what you think it means to say that something is subjective? And maybe what it means to say that an objective truth is a subjective truth. That last confuses me a little. And maybe I am not the only one it confuses.

Let's remember, by the way, that for a long time it was not accepted that the world was round, and also that many people accept that God exists, and many other people do not accept that God exists. So, if truth is what's accepted, which is true; that God exists, or that God does not exist?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:58 am
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Could you say a something on what you think it means to say that something is subjective? And maybe what it means to say that an objective truth is a subjective truth. That last confuses me a little. And maybe I am not the only one it confuses.


You're right, that was really unclear! What I meant was this...

One person could believe in 'the truth'. This truth isn't based on some supernatural force that allowed them the mindset to know the truth. It's subjective to their experiences.

Quote:
Let's remember, by the way, that for a long time it was not accepted that the world was round, and also that many people accept that God exists, and many other people do not accept that God exists. So, if truth is what's accepted, which is true; that God exists, or that God does not exist?
And again, you just asked me "Which is true?"


What do I have to say? I haven't been to heaven, if it is there. I have no proof of God, and no personal relationship with him, whether psycological, or real. So, my answer is subjective, based upon how I was raised, and what I know. Whether someone answers "Yes", or "No" to that question, it's subjective. It's based upon what they know to be accepted. So my answer, (Which is not an objective truth), is that there is no God.

Yes, it was accepted that the world was not round. Back then, the world being flat was, "The truth", to most people; It was the truth because it was accepted. They didn't know that the Earth wasn't flat because they were bound by sight. We have Space Cameras now, which lead us to believe that the earth is round. As well as many mathematical equations that "prove it". There are STILL to this day a group of people who believe that the earth is flat. No matter all the evidence, it is not objectively accepted that the world is round. Thus, it's still a subjective matter.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:16 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;110478 wrote:
You're right, that was really unclear! What I meant was this...

One person could believe in 'the truth'. This truth isn't based on some supernatural force that allowed them the mindset to know the truth. It's subjective to their experiences.



What do I have to say? I haven't been to heaven, if it is there. I have no proof of God, and no personal relationship with him, whether psycological, or real. So, my answer is subjective, based upon how I was raised, and what I know. Whether someone answers "Yes", or "No" to that question, it's subjective. It's based upon what they know to be accepted. So my answer, (Which is not an objective truth), is that there is no God.

Yes, it was accepted that the world was not round. Back then, the world being flat was, "The truth", to most people; It was the truth because it was accepted. They didn't know that the Earth wasn't flat because they were bound by sight. We have Space Cameras now, which lead us to believe that the earth is round. As well as many mathematical equations that "prove it". There are STILL to this day a group of people who believe that the earth is flat. No matter all the evidence, it is not objectively accepted that the world is round. Thus, it's still a subjective matter.


If you mean that the experiences through which we discover what is true are subjective, I cannot deny that. My experiences are my experiences, and your experiences are your experiences. That's a truism. But that need not mean that the truth we discover is subjective just because how we experience the truth is subjective. That would be like arguing that because I use my foot to kick a tree that when I am kicking the tree, I am kicking my foot. What I kick with my foot is not my (own) foot. And what I discover through my (subjective) experiences is not my (subjective) experiences.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it is not "objectively accepted that the world is round". But that is not the point I was making. What I was pointing out was that if, as you say, the truth is made up of what is accepted, and if some people accept that the Earth is round, and other people accept that the Earth is flat, then, according to you, which is the truth. Is the Earth round, or is it flat. Or does it, perhaps have no shape at all?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
If you mean that the experiences through which we discover what is true are subjective, I cannot deny that. My experiences are my experiences, and your experiences are your experiences. That's a truism. But that need not mean that the truth we discover is subjective just because how we experience the truth is subjective. That would be like arguing that because I use my foot to kick a tree that when I am kicking the tree, I am kicking my foot. What I kick with my foot is not my (own) foot. And what I discover through my (subjective) experiences is not my (subjective) experiences.


That's really interesting. Thank you, you've given me a new perspective on that.

Quote:
I don't understand what you mean when you say it is not "objectively accepted that the world is round". But that is not the point I was making. What I was pointing out was that if, as you say, the truth is made up of what is accepted, and if some people accept that the Earth is round, and other people accept that the Earth is flat, then, according to you, which is the truth. Is the Earth round, or is it flat. Or does it, perhaps have no shape at all?


You're asking someone who grew up in a society where most people are taught that the world is round. You're not asking someone who was born in the past where the world was "flat", and you're not asking someone who was raised in the future, who could be taught something completely different. You're asking someone with a subjective idea on the subject. You're not asking an all-knowing figure. And you never can, unless God is real. But seeing as their are still people who believe in the worlds flatness, you will never find an objective answer to the question.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:41 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;110570 wrote:
That's really interesting. Thank you, you've given me a new perspective on that.



You're asking someone who grew up in a society where most people are taught that the world is round. You're not asking someone who was born in the past where the world was "flat", and you're not asking someone who was raised in the future, who could be taught something completely different. You're asking someone with a subjective idea on the subject. You're not asking an all-knowing figure. And you never can, unless God is real. But seeing as their are still people who believe in the worlds flatness, you will never find an objective answer to the question.


So far as I know, the world was not flat in the past, either. (Unless the world changed shape between then and now, and I think we would have heard about it if it had). Why is the fact that people have different, and conflicting beliefs on something mean that there is no true answer? The Earth, I believe, has some shape, whether it is flat, round, or octagonal. And, whatever that shape is, is the true answer to, "What is the shape of the Earth?". It doesn't matter what people believe, or do not believe about the shape of the Earth. You do think the Earth has some shape, don't you?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"

Quote:
You do think the Earth has some shape, don't you?


Yes, but I can't speak for everyone in the Universe. In other words, I couldn't give you an objective answer. There is a true answer. But noone in the world can no for sure, because we still have limitations, and we still have clashing beleifs.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:53 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;110585 wrote:
Objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"



Yes, but I can't speak for everyone in the Universe. In other words, I couldn't give you an objective answer. There is a true answer. But noone in the world can no for sure, because we still have limitations, and we still have clashing beleifs.


You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110588 wrote:
You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?


You're right. Thank you for swaying my opinion on this.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110588 wrote:
You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?



I'm sure you not enjoy being mocked as you know you would be if you went around saying the earth is flat. But the earth's shape is something about which there is a strong consensus. If an alien took you on his ship and showed you that by the lights of his superior science the world was -dimensional and then dropped you off on planet earth, you would be in a funny position. What would you believe, human or alien knowledge?

I don't think anyone here denies the existence of a world beyond our perception. But what this world outside our perception is must be inferred.
I would say the objective is inferred from overlapping subjectivity.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110599 wrote:
I'm sure you not enjoy being mocked as you know you would be if you went around saying the earth is flat. But the earth's shape is something about which there is a strong consensus. If an alien took you on his ship and showed you that by the lights of his superior science the world was -dimensional and then dropped you off on planet earth, you would be in a funny position. What would you believe, human or alien knowledge?

I don't think anyone here denies the existence of a world beyond our perception. But what this world outside our perception is must be inferred.
I would say the objective is inferred from overlapping subjectivity.


Why do you italicize "must be inferred"? Is knowledge by inference supposed to be inferior to non-inferential knowledge? The most part of what we know is inferential, and if some philosophers are to believed, what we do not think is inferential knowledge is inferential. For example, our knowledge that we have two hands. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. But if it is true, so what?

What I said is that whatever the shape of the world, it must have some shape. Don't you agree? And that shape is (in one sense of the term) its objective shape. And that shape is independent of our knowing what it is.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:17 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110602 wrote:
Why do you italicize "must be inferred"? Is knowledge by inference supposed to be inferior to non-inferential knowledge? The most part of what we know is inferential, and if some philosophers are to believed, what we do not think is inferential knowledge is inferential. For example, our knowledge that we have two hands. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. But if it is true, so what?

What I said is that whatever the shape of the world, it must have some shape. Don't you agree? And that shape is (in one sense of the term) its objective shape. And that shape is independent of our knowing what it is.


If subjectivity is an essential part of objective existence then the world has all the shapes we or other sentient beings perceive it to have. If this reality is never experienced except thru subjective "lenses," it is only favoritism to declare a particular perception the objective one. But this too is of the human, who does not want truth as an end but only a means -- my opinion of course.

An objective view is a favored and useful view. I'm not hating on it. I use it every day to survive. But I don't want my imagination to rust. Objectivity and rationality are both ideals that we often but not always strive for. From artists, we often want novel viewpoints. We want them to give us fresh eyes for the world. Some philosophers offer us new metaphors by which to interpret old metaphors.

I doubt our disagreement is significant. We both seem to admit that reality is known through consciousness, and that it is out there. But our values perhaps motivate us to emphasize one or the other more.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110588 wrote:
You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?

What shape would a gallacy have since they are all differently shaped... What shape has a galaxy is the shape it has... What shape has the earth??? Wouldn't it be earth shaped???Sperical is more accurate than round, and the words we choose should never fail their aim...It is the second intention to talk about talk, though it does become necessary.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:35 pm
@Fido,
Fido;110618 wrote:
What shape would a gallacy have since they are all differently shaped... What shape has a galaxy is the shape it has... What shape has the earth??? Wouldn't it be earth shaped???Sperical is more accurate than round, and the words we choose should never fail their aim...It is the second intention to talk about talk, though it does become necessary.


I agree, our words should never fail their aim. I like to distinguish between theoretical chatter (which I admittedly enjoy) and practical discussion. As far as practical discussion goes, I cannot disagree with you that spherical is a better description than round. I also agree that talking about talk is sometimes necessary, or justified by its results. And I would say that Bacon's talk about talk helped generate modern science in the first place.

recon
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110614 wrote:
the world has all the shapes we or other sentient beings perceive it to have. .


Hmmm. Are you supposing that people can never make a mistake about the shape of the world? I wonder why. They did, you know, in the Middle Ages.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:26 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110629 wrote:
Hmmm. Are you supposing that people can never make a mistake about the shape of the world? I wonder why. They did, you know, in the Middle Ages.



These aliens I play poker with keep laughing at me when I say the world is spherical. They mock us humans for seeing space as 3-dimensional. For them, the shape of the world is "Hf76skkd00fll5." They wrote this down for me as the best approximation possible of their spoken language, which the human ear cannot hear all of. Lucky me, they have a translator that speaks English. He said he learned it thoroughly in an Earth-day, while his ship, invisible to our best technology, orbited to do a little study, and prepare for a visit. Apparently the they have their sort of Darwin on board, studying the varieties of sentient beings and also their perceptions of "reality." They pat me on the head sometimes, pitying me for not seeing 4 of the seven dimensions. But the translator joked that perhaps they too were limited, that there might be 20 dimensions. Not everyone laughed.
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110645 wrote:
These aliens I play poker with keep laughing at me when I say the world is spherical. They mock us humans for seeing space as 3-dimensional. For them, the shape of the world is "Hf76skkd00fll5." They wrote this down for me as the best approximation possible of their spoken language, which the human ear cannot hear all of. Lucky me, they have a translator that speaks English. He said he learned it thoroughly in an Earth-day, while his ship, invisible to our best technology, orbited to do a little study, and prepare for a visit. Apparently the they have their sort of Darwin on board, studying the varieties of sentient beings and also their perceptions of "reality." They pat me on the head sometimes, pitying me for not seeing 4 of the seven dimensions. But the translator joked that perhaps they too were limited, that there might be 20 dimensions. Not everyone laughed.


Lmao. Nice.

This is what I was talking about before, with our limitations. Profero gave us a statistic about how long the universe and the earth have been in existance, and how long the human race has been in existance. It was pretty shocking. We'd only have civilized for a couple of minutes or so. Just imagine a couple of days in this time frame. How far would our limitations be pushed back? A million years in this time frame, maybe? With all the factors of natural selection and technology advancements, we'd have gone pretty far, imo. What we know for and have evidence of now can be completely different sometime in the future, which goes back to the original theme of what the truth is. Again, I stand by my thesis that For as much as we know, the truth is what's accepted.

EDIT: Meant to say millions of years in this time frame.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 04:14 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;110665 wrote:
Lmao. Nice.

This is what I was talking about before, with our limitations. Profero gave us a statistic about how long the universe and the earth have been in existance, and how long the human race has been in existance. It was pretty shocking. We'd only have civilized for a couple of minutes or so. Just imagine a couple of days in this time frame. How far would our limitations be pushed back? A year in this time frame, maybe? With all the factors of natural selection and technology advancements, we'd have gone pretty far, imo. What we know for and have evidence of now can be completely different sometime in the future, which goes back to the original theme of what the truth is. Again, I stand by my thesis that For as much as we know, the truth is what's accepted.



I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. It was Rorty who made it clear to me that truth is founded on consensus. This is not a denial of objective reality but the realization that the way we distinguish the objective and the subjective is by means of consensus. A dream is a "dream" and not "reality" only because we experienced it alone. The map is the territory, for we don't touch the territory directly. We live in our interpretations of reality, and we get most of them from others by means of language....
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 04:54:17