Truth is a White Lie

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;140975 wrote:

When a doctor misdiagnoses someone does she say "well that was just my opinion" or does she say "well it looks like I was wrong."

I think it's pretty obvious that opinions in that sense are very different from the sense of opinions in "the Dallas Cowboys are awesome!"

Well, she might say that she gave her opinion, and it turned out to be wrong. But, as I said, I agree that some opinions are only matters of opinion. And some are not only matters of opinion. And, let me remind you that there are such things as informed opinions, and uninformed opinions, too. Physicians have informed opinions; laymen, uninformed opinions.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;140971 wrote:

Ooooh!! I'm glade we magically could change the world and all the incompetent doctors, who NEVER misdiagnose things. Or do either of us live in different realities? Or are some of us just naive?

When did I say doctors never misdiagnose things? I didn't.

What I did mean to imply is that opinions can be true. For instance, if a doctor's opinion is that I have colon cancer, and then I have a test which confirms that I do in fact have colon cancer, then the doctor's opinion was correct. However, if the doctor diagnosed me with colon cancer due to his/her opinion, but I did not in fact have colon cancer, we would say that his/her opinion was wrong, and it would be a misdiagnosis.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;140986 wrote:

When did I say doctors never misdiagnose things? I didn't.

What I did mean to imply is that opinions can be true. For instance, if a doctor's opinion is that I have colon cancer, and then I have a test which confirms that I do in fact have colon cancer, then the doctor's opinion was correct. However, if the doctor diagnosed me with colon cancer due to his/her opinion, but I did not in fact have colon cancer, we would say that his/her opinion was wrong, and it would be a misdiagnosis.

Imo you base that "truth" on a poor premesis, when the premesis is subject to incompetence, to being tired, to faulty equipment ..etc.

Ofcause we can state something is "truth", but too often it falls victim to lies, deception and wrong assumptions.
It should be used carefully, and not like some philosophers, entering a debate and throwing truths and lies left and right, I can only view such behaviour as naive, by that not saying you are naive.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;140980 wrote:

But, as I said, I agree that some opinions are only matters of opinion. And some are not only matters of opinion.

That hurts my brain. :surrender:

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141001 wrote:

That hurts my brain. :surrender:

Just replace the second "opinion" with "subjectivity".

kennethamy (edited) wrote:

But, as I said, I agree that some opinions are only matters of subjectivity. And some are not only matters of subjectivity.

Means the same thing. An opinion about what flavor icecream tastes the best, is a matter of subjectivity. But an educated opinion regarding my having colon cancer (or not), is not a matter of subjectivity. What we're saying is that the latter is fact-based and the former is not.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;141003 wrote:

Just replace the second "opinion" with "subjectivity".

Right. Some things are matters of opinion. Some things are matters of fact. Subjective. Objective.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141008 wrote:

Right. Some things are matters of opinion. Some things are matters of fact. Subjective. Objective.

No, I don't think that is what Z. meant. What he meant is that some opinions are objective, and either true or false, and either informed or uninformed. But some opinions are subjective, and neither true or false, nor either informed or uninformed. So there are two kinds of opinion. Some opinions are about matters of fact, and some opinions are not about matters of fact. How is that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141014 wrote:

No, I don't think that is what Z. meant. What he meant is that some opinions are objective, and either true or false, and either informed or uninformed. But some opinions are subjective, and neither true or false, nor either informed or uninformed. So there are two kinds of opinion. Some opinions are about matters of fact, and some opinions are not about matters of fact. How is that?

Right, the problem is you're making an argument from ambiguity. There are two meanings of the word "opinion" and you're playing them off of each other.

opinion[1] = subjective, your example "matter of opinion"

opinion[2] = belief, example "professional opinion"

So, I'm saying:

All opinions[1] are subjective.

Then you're replying:

But some opinions[2] are objective.

Which, is true and doesn't contradict what I said. Read http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/metaphilosophy/6893-truth-white-lie-31.html#post140924 again. We don't disagree. You're just talking about something irrelevant.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141016 wrote:

Right, the problem is you're making an argument from ambiguity. There are two meanings of the word "opinion" and you're playing them off of each other.

opinion[1] = subjective, your example "matter of opinion"

opinion[2] = belief, example "professional opinion"

So, I'm saying:

All opinions[1] are subjective.

Then you're replying:

But some opinions[2] are objective.

Which, is true and doesn't contradict what I said. Read http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/metaphilosophy/6893-truth-white-lie-31.html#post140924 again. We don't disagree. You're just talking about something irrelevant.

You are saying that all subjective opinions are subjective opinions, and all objective opinions are objective opinions. And I agree.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141038 wrote:

You are saying that all subjective opinions are subjective opinions, and all objective opinions are objective opinions.

No, I'm saying that there is a definition of opinion[1] that only allows for subjectivity such as earlier when you humurously said "some opinions are matters of opinion". Yet, you keep yammering on about opinion[2]. Why?

When you can admit the definition of opinion[1] exists and that it was the definition I was using then you'll be agreeing with me. Until then you're just making an argument from ambiguity. I said something about opinion[1] and you tried to argue against it using opinion[2].

I can't make it any clearer. You're making an argument from ambiguity. It amounts to nothing more than a pun, not a philosophical argument.

Zetherin;140968 wrote:

I'm not sure that all opinions are subjective.

According to the definition I'm using. If you're talking about some other definition, how does that relate to what I'm saying? It seems like you're just looking for something to argue against without paying attention to what I'm actually saying.

There's more than one definition of opinion so you need to first specify which definition you're using. I'm using the definition of opinion as in "fact vs. opinion". If you're trying to claim some opinions can be facts then you're obviously using a different definition that's irrelevant.

Here's an example of what's happening:

Most birds (animal) can fly.

And you respond:

Birds (slang for female) can't fly!

Do you see how annoying that is?

It's the same thing when I said:

True statements are not subjective. That's why they are true statements rather than opinions.

And kennethamy replied:

Of course, don't forget that opinions can be true, too.

It's the same kind of argument from ambiguity.

Does this settle it? Are you still going to argue that I'm wrong and proceed to use different meanings of words?

@Reconstructo,

There is a reason that we often hear things like, “What is your professional opinion?” It is because there are actually very few facts in this world. Much of what we believe to be a fact is actually, just a hypothesis.

Even medicine is very often only the fashion of the time. Does anyone here remember that they used to bleed people to cure them? Now we see that a barbaric. There are many such examples, too many to list here.

We can count the number of LAWS in science on one hand, and many of them have been disproved only recently.

S9

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141247 wrote:

No, I'm saying that there is a definition of opinion[1] that only allows for subjectivity such as earlier when you humurously said "some opinions are matters of opinion". Yet, you keep yammering on about opinion[2]. Why?

When you can admit the definition of opinion[1] exists and that it was the definition I was using then you'll be agreeing with me. Until then you're just making an argument from ambiguity. I said something about opinion[1] and you tried to argue against it using opinion[2].

I can't make it any clearer. You're making an argument from ambiguity. It amounts to nothing more than a pun, not a philosophical argument.

According to the definition I'm using. If you're talking about some other definition, how does that relate to what I'm saying? It seems like you're just looking for something to argue against without paying attention to what I'm actually saying.

There's more than one definition of opinion so you need to first specify which definition you're using. I'm using the definition of opinion as in "fact vs. opinion". If you're trying to claim some opinions can be facts then you're obviously using a different definition that's irrelevant.

Here's an example of what's happening:

Most birds (animal) can fly.

And you respond:

Birds (slang for female) can't fly!

Do you see how annoying that is?

It's the same thing when I said:

True statements are not subjective. That's why they are true statements rather than opinions.

And kennethamy replied:

Of course, don't forget that opinions can be true, too.

It's the same kind of argument from ambiguity.

Does this settle it? Are you still going to argue that I'm wrong and proceed to use different meanings of words?

I was only reminding you that the term, "opinion" is not used synonymously with the term, "matter of opinion" which you seemed (and still seem) to believe. Of course, sometimes people (like you) do use the two terms synonymously, and that is a mistake. Since they are not synonymous. Here is an analogy which should make it clear to you. Sometimes people use the term "disinterested" as if it were synonymous with the term, "uninterested". But since those two terms are not synonymous, people who use them synonymously are making a mistake.

@kennethamy,

When you said something was a matter of opinion you meant that it was subjective. That's because one definition of the word opinion implies subjectivity. When you tried to claim that some opinions weren't subjective you were using a different definition of opinion thereby committing a fallacy of ambiguity. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141293 wrote:

When you said something was a matter of opinion you meant that it was subjective. That's because one definition of the word opinion implies subjectivity. When you tried to claim that some opinions weren't subjective you were using a different definition of opinion thereby committing a fallacy of ambiguity. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

You think that if I say that some human beings are males, and some are females, I am using a different definition of "human being", so if I say that some human beings are not males, I am committing the fallacy of ambiguity? Why aren't there two kinds of opinion, subjective and objective, just as there are two kinds of human being, male and female?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141302 wrote:

You think that if I say that some human beings are males, and some are females, I am using a different definition of "human being", so if I say that some human beings are not males, I am committing the fallacy of ambiguity? Why aren't there two kinds of opinion, subjective and objective, just as there are two kinds of human being, male and female?

That's just not how the language is used. There are different kinds of humans, male and female. There are not different kinds of opinions. There are two meanings of the word opinion.

opinion[1] = "fact vs. opinion", "that's just my opinion", "matter of opinion", etc.

opinion[2] = "professional opinion", "scientific opinion", "legal opinion", etc

A medical opinion is not just a matter of opinion. When you get misdiagnosed with cancer the doctor isn't going to say "Well that's just my opinion". She's going to say "I was wrong". You can only be wrong in the case of opinion[2]. You can't be wrong about opinion[1]. You can only change your mind. It's not that you were wrong about yellow being a pretty color. You've changed your mind. Why would you insist these two meanings of the word opinion are the same any more than two meanings of the word bird, the girl vs. the animal?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141320 wrote:

That's just not how the language is used. There are different kinds of humans, male and female. There are not different kinds of opinions. There are two meanings of the word opinion.

opinion[1] = "fact vs. opinion", "that's just my opinion", "matter of opinion", etc.

opinion[2] = "professional opinion", "scientific opinion", "legal opinion", etc

A medical opinion is not just a matter of opinion. When you get misdiagnosed with cancer the doctor isn't going to say "Well that's just my opinion". She's going to say "I was wrong". You can only be wrong in the case of opinion[2]. You can't be wrong about opinion[1]. You can only change your mind. It's not that you were wrong about yellow being a pretty color. You've changed your mind. Why would you insist these two meanings of the word opinion are the same any more than two meanings of the word bird, the girl vs. the animal?

I said that there were two kinds of opinion. Subjective or matters of opinion, and objective opinions. Both, however, are opinions (or beliefs). They both accept what they are opinions about. To have an opinion about a statement is simply to accept that something as being true. So, if I am asked my opinion about the taste of artichoke flavored ice-cream, I may say that in my opinion it tastes awful. That is, it tastes awful to me. That is an opinion. But it is a subjective opinion. I don't expect others to accept it. On the other hand, if I am asked for my opinion about whether the health care bill is constitutional, I may very well say that in my opinion it is not constitutional because it violates a particular clause in the commerce section of the constitution. And if someone says, "Do you mean that it is unconstitutional to you?", I may reply, "No, I don't mean only that. I mean that it is unconstitutional, and that is my objective opinion". It is objective insofar as I am willing to back it up with reasons, like, "it violates the commerce clause of the constitution". It is not a subjective, but an objective opinion. By the way, it need not be true to be an objective opinion. I may be wrong about it. But it is still an objective opinion. I do expect others to accept it, and will be disappointed if they do not, since I think it is true.

@kennethamy,

At this point you're just repeating yourself so I have nothing else to add.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;139987 wrote:

I've missed your contributions over the past several days. I hope you don't stay away long. I find your comments valuable, as I'm sure many others do. And it's not as lively here without you.

Sorry if you're just on holiday and I'm harassing you.

- Nick

Thanks! It's much appreciated. I've been a bit distracted by math and also strategic board games like Shogi. Actually I've always liked to invent/modify strategy games. I've been obsessed w/ a project that is mostly finished...

Also been obsessed w/ "absolute form." I think highly of minimalism in sculpture and painting.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108970 wrote:

Truths are lies that work. Lies are truths that don't work.

So, if 'A' is truth and 'B' is lies then:
A=B+1
B=A-1
Where the difference between them is whether or not they "work."

Reconstructo;108970 wrote:

What does it mean to work? In the end it gives us pleasure. Perhaps it secures us food, builds us a better bomb and makes us feel safer. Perhaps it dazzles our mind. Perhaps it enhances our self-esteem. Perhaps it structures our experience in a pleasant way.

So, "1" is happiness.
Truths are lies that produce happiness and lies are truths that don't produce happiness.

Reconstructo;108970 wrote:

To call truth a lie is to insist on its dynamic nature. The truth changes.

Well, if you define the only difference between truth and lies to be "what makes someone happy" then, yeah, it makes sense that truth changes.

However, it seems like this little construct is using the words "truth" and "lies" in ways they are not normally used. Normally, both truth and lies can produce happiness. It sounds like you've just applied the words to the concepts "stuff that makes one happy" and "stuff that doesn't" despite the fact that they are not normally used to describe those concepts.

I think of lies as things people say that they believe are contradicted by reality, and of truths as things people that they believe do not contradict reality. Whether or not something is believed to be a truth or a lie is a very personal thing. I would contrast this against the use of the phrase "the truth" as it applies to something objective, as opposed to the subjective meaning of saying something you think is true. There isn't really an objective equivalent for lies. Truth can be a thing outside of you, or it can be your description of that external thing. Lies aren't something outside of you; they only come from you.

Sometimes telling a lie is a good way to achieve all of those examples of happiness you gave. Sometimes people derive pleasure simply from the act of lying, irrespective of anything achieved by it. It seems kind of counter productive to intentionally confuse the various meanings of the words. There are plenty of good words to use to describe a complicated situation, and you can even make up new ones. There's no need to force three words to do the work of a dozen.

@Blueback,

Blueback;162481 wrote:

So, if 'A' is truth and 'B' is lies then:
A=B+1
B=A-1
Where the difference between them is whether or not they "work."

So, "1" is happiness.
Truths are lies that produce happiness and lies are truths that don't produce happiness.

Well, if you define the only difference between truth and lies to be "what makes someone happy" then, yeah, it makes sense that truth changes.

However, it seems like this little construct is using the words "truth" and "lies" in ways they are not normally used. Normally, both truth and lies can produce happiness. It sounds like you've just applied the words to the concepts "stuff that makes one happy" and "stuff that doesn't" despite the fact that they are not normally used to describe those concepts.

I think of lies as things people say that they believe are contradicted by reality, and of truths as things people that they believe do not contradict reality. Whether or not something is believed to be a truth or a lie is a very personal thing. I would contrast this against the use of the phrase "the truth" as it applies to something objective, as opposed to the subjective meaning of saying something you think is true. There isn't really an objective equivalent for lies. Truth can be a thing outside of you, or it can be your description of that external thing. Lies aren't something outside of you; they only come from you.

Sometimes telling a lie is a good way to achieve all of those examples of happiness you gave. Sometimes people derive pleasure simply from the act of lying, irrespective of anything achieved by it. It seems kind of counter productive to intentionally confuse the various meanings of the words. There are plenty of good words to use to describe a complicated situation, and you can even make up new ones. There's no need to force three words to do the work of a dozen.

All this is a good response. And really, that was the goal of my post, to inspire an investigation of "truth" the word, and its associated concepts.

Let me ask you this: why does 1 + 1 = 2? We have here certain glyphs that are associated with certain intuitive concepts. We have a formal system. Consensus is a huge factor in regards to truth. What if Joe Smo really does acheive cold fusion in his basement, but he can't repeat the experiment? Because there was some factor involved he wasn't aware of. He got lucky. He knows 9 of the 10 ingredients, let's say, but the 10th was something he couldn't perceive with human sense. A radiation from outer space, doesn't matter. The point is the relationship between truth and consensus.

If Jimmy Bob really sees an alien spacecraft, but cannot "prove" it, he's just a "crazy" right? And yet it may be that he was lucky or unlucky enough to have a statistically uncommon experience. And what is proof if not persuasion? In my opinion, careful thought on this issue is illuminating.

Assuming, for the sake of thought-play, that "truth" is a white lie, we also have a dissolution of the dichotomy true/false. So the word "lie" has changed with the word truth.

I was basically presenting a form of pragmatism, and not something I myself cooked up. It's an old post, and my focus has changed significantly since then, but I'm not ashamed of it. It's a catchy eye-poking incitement to think. ANd your response was thoughtful.

With respect
rec

Philosophy Forum

Truth is a White Lie

Quick Links

My Account

able2know