|
|
|
|
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 9:37:55 AM | I was in a debate with some friends of mine the other day over the nature of truth. I was wondering what the general consensus was on this matter.
My friends posit that the truth is defined by popular opinion. (Eg. If "truth" is redefined by the majority of people, then we could call anything true)
I suggest that the truth is true, even if no one believes it. (Eg. the world never was flat, even though a lot of people believed it to be)
I guess it really comes down to a semantics issue, but I'm still interested to see what people come up with | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:23:47 AM | Interesting thoughts.. It's funny how truth sometimes (well..pretty much ALWAYS) gets distorted by one's perception of so called facts. The "court of public opinion" in many cases damns people as it sees fit regardless of the truth. Popular opinion doesn't mean squat to me. Of course that's just my opinion.. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:38:18 AM | ha ha ha..I like it!
As for truth, that depends on your meta-physical position I suppose. Interestingly, if "truth" is something eternal, how could finite minds ever have access to it? To say something is eternal is to say that it is infinite. From an epitstemological perspective, it seems that we can never know what it infinite, so if there is some eternal, or "T" truths, we could never know them | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:40:18 AM | | epistemological*** whoa spell check much!!! | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:45:11 AM | Truth does not require anyone to believe it in order for truth to be true. But not believing something is true can have dire consequinces. Not all things that are true are true in that way. But when such truths are presented. The right belief matters.
Even so-called relative truth is dependent on some kind of absolute truth or truths.
Now if you are correct in your understanding, "I suggest that the truth is true, even if no one believes it. " You do not need any consensus. By asking for "the general consensus was on this matter" you are effectively conceding you are wrong and your friends are right, "that the truth is defined by popular opinion." | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:49:44 AM | Truth? You can't handle the truth. Ok...maybe you can... This same question has been kicking around since before Socrates. Truth is "what really happened", as compared to one persons point of view. Also, popular opinion does NOT truth make! Example....congress tried to pass a bill stating that the mathmatical "pi" would now equal 3. Rounded off....is that truth? Yes...they tried it....but it was NOT truth. They also tried to have ketchup named as a regualr vegetable on school menus. Is ketchup a vegetable? No. But they tried! Are "ALL TRUTHS" self evident? Probably not...at least in a court of law. (Not all men are created equal...are they? ) And the court of public opinion. How many guys get accused of child abuse and didn't do it? How many neighbours always harbour a suspicion afterwards? How many guys have to put up with the dirty looks, vandalism, job loses, etc? Certainly NOT because of "truth", is it? | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 11:06:00 AM | The Truth is not defined by popular opinion- it certainly can be forced, but not defined.
For instance, if I hold up 2 fingers, and we all take a vote and say I'm holding up 1- is that true? Does the vote make it true? | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 12:43:42 PM |
My friends posit that the truth is defined by popular opinion. (Eg. If "truth" is redefined by the majority of people, then we could call anything true) I suggest that the truth is true, even if no one believes it. (Eg. the world never was flat, even though a lot of people believed it to be) You're right, and they're wrong, and that's the truth. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 1:23:29 PM | | Truth is either a matter of fact or of belief. In the case of fact, truth is determined by what is known, or, what people believe they know. In the case of belief, truth is determined by a failure to appreciate mystery. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 4:19:45 PM | "For I am the Truth, the Way, and all who wish to enter must pass through me." Ok...so I should have this above my door....it's true....but, hey...we all can't be that big in the head or none of us would get through normal doors. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 5:17:41 PM | What is truth? The truth will set you free.
But look to the answer is to look to yourself. One of the greatest aspects of all religious and philosophical study.
Who are you? Are you true to yourself? Are you free? Look in your mirror now. What nametag are you known by? Who gave you this name? Is it yours? Is it true of who you are?
Are you free? What freedoms did you use to write upon this digital board? You were permitted firstly by your ISP then the host of POF to allow you towrite your words. You words too permitted by the manufacturer of some keyboard, some modem, some pc, and some tiny little mouse that didnt endure bio testing ;)
Is truth then governed by your perception of freedom and of truth?
You are free to kill and that can be true. Many of us will not understand it.
Indeed is it context and situation that govern what a truth is and if that truth in turn in its revelation sets a freedom?
None of us really understand a truth - None of us really understand freedom.
Truth has become the acceptance of our comforrtability with the issues it covers.
To the mathematician truth is simple and calculated and cannot be denied.
Yet mathematics within its own laws cannot free itself from those laws.
So yes
Semantics it is. As you and I - have not one single idea of who we actually are or what or how we actually be. And neither of us have any freedoms over the choices we make. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 5:31:33 PM |
My friends posit that the truth is defined by popular opinion. (Eg. If "truth" is redefined by the majority of people, then we could call anything true)
I suggest that the truth is true, even if no one believes it. (Eg. the world never was flat, even though a lot of people believed it to be) What a lot of people call truth, is actually popular opinion. For instance, the Historical Association said that the #2 biggest myth in history is that many Europeans believed the Earth was flat, and historians Stephen Jay Gould and Ronald Numbers said that this was never believed by Christian scholars of Europe. You call it truth. But it's not. It's just popular opinion.
I am sure that someone, somewhere, like G-d, has THE truth. Us, we know that there is such as thing. But very few of us, have much of it. Much of what we take for granted, is lies, and mis-comprehension. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 5:46:47 PM | You are arguing semantics.
When my students write a persuasive paper, I discuss "truth" and "fact" with them. I delineate between the two by explaining that facts can be proven by empirical evidence, but truth as what people DEEM to be "true." Facts are true, yes, but consider the many things people hold to be "true" (especially in the religious arena) that, in fact, are highly subjective opinions.
Also, take the example that you used: the world is not flat, but hundreds of years ago, it was a "fact" that it WAS flat. It was also a "fact" that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Of course, these are no longer facts nor were they ever, but the majority (or at least the people in charge) accepted them as such.
I agree with your friends--truth is subjective and is defined by the majority of a culture. Facts, while true, can be proven.
Oh, and don't forget theories, which are often unproven facts, i.e. the theory of evolution. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 6:10:48 PM |
Also, take the example that you used: the world is not flat, but hundreds of years ago, it was a "fact" that it WAS flat.
The Myth of the Flat Earth or Flat Earth mythology refers to the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, many scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology." David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology
As you're a teacher, I'd thought you'd appreciate being taught something that would avoid your students learning inacurate information. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 6:48:56 PM | Re: message 12;
For instance, the Historical Association said that the #2 biggest myth in history is that many Europeans believed the Earth was flat, and historians Stephen Jay Gould and Ronald Numbers said that this was never believed by Christian scholars of Europe
Stephen Jay Gould is not a historian.
Now professor at Harvard University and curator of its Museum of Comparative Zoology, Gould attended Antioch College, then returned to Manhattan, for graduate work in paleontology at Columbia University. For his doctoral thesis he investigated variation and evolution in an obscure Burmudian land snail, anchoring his later theorizing in intense scrutiny of a single group of organisms, as Darwin had done with Barnacles.
| |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 7:04:18 PM | RE Msg: 15 by TaiChiJohn:
Stephen Jay Gould is not a historian. That's an interesting claim. However:
Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the latter years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University near his home in SoHo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
Gould began his higher education at Antioch College, graduating with an undergraduate degree in geology in 1963. During this time, he also studied abroad at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. After completing his graduate work at Columbia University in 1967 under the guidance of Norman Newell, he was immediately hired by Harvard University where he worked until the end of his life (1967–2002). In 1973, Harvard promoted him to Professor of Geology and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the institution's Museum of Comparative Zoology, and in 1982, Harvard awarded him with the title of Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology. In 1983, he was awarded fellowship into the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he later served as president (1999–2001). The AAAS news release cited his "numerous contributions to both scientific progress and the public understanding of science." He also served as president of the Paleontological Society (1985–1986) and the Society for the Study of Evolution (1990–1991). In 1989, Gould was elected into the body of the National Academy of Sciences. Through 1996–2002 Gould was Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University. In 2001, the American Humanist Association named him the Humanist of the Year for his lifetime of work. In 2008, he was posthumously awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal, along with 12 other recipients. Until 2008, this medal had been awarded every 50 years by the Linnean Society of London. Begining in 2009, it will be an annual award. Ibid.
Now, if you could quote your source, so I could look it up, and cross-reference it, that would enable me to confirm you aren't quoting entirely out of context, so then I might have a chance of confirming or disproving your claim.
Anyway, I don't think what you said says that he isn't a historian of science, just that he got a degree in Antioch College and did substantial and important work in paleontology.
Mind you, I won't deny that I only found out that Stephen Jay Gould was a respected and knowledgeable authority, when I saw proponents of evolution and science citing him here on POF, as a reliable source. Should I have disbelieved them and taken your word for it, because G-d spoke to you?
Anyway, it still leaves us with the Historical Association AND Ronald Numbers.
But, before you make your mind up, read the article, right to the end. Then ask me WHY I believe that having read the WHOLE article, it is impossible for Christian scholars to have not known the Earth was flat. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 8:07:58 PM |
As you're a teacher, I'd thought you'd appreciate being taught something that would avoid your students learning inacurate information.
It is amusing and annoying that you assume my ignorance on such matters.
But if we are using wikipedia as a source (which I DO NOT allow my students to use), read the source you just cited:
Various cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Babylon, Egypt, pre-Classical Greece and pre-17th century China. The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BC, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth.[1][3] In China, belief in a flat earth was dominant until the arrival of the Jesuits in the seventeenth century.
Thank you. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 8:56:07 PM | RE Msg: 17 by Gwendolyn2009:
It is amusing and annoying that you assume my ignorance on such matters. I don't assume anything. I still don't see why it is annoying, unless you don't like finding out that you don't know everything. I only found this out on POF. I didn't get in a huff about it. I just look at it as before, I didn't know it, and now, my knowledge was increased and improved, and to me, that is only a good thing. I only hope you have the same love of knowledge that I do.
But if we are using wikipedia as a source (which I DO NOT allow my students to use), read the source you just cited: That's entirely a correct approach to take in high school teaching methods, as in the UK, they follow a national curriculum, which lists the books you are taught from, and so, it is entirely incorrect to use any source other than those books, because you are being taught the information contained in those books, but not that which is in the wider world. I imagine that your country has a national curriculum as well, which would mean that using any source from the internet would be entirely contradictory to the national curriculum.
Various cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Babylon, Egypt, pre-Classical Greece and pre-17th century China. The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BC, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth.[1][3] In China, belief in a flat earth was dominant until the arrival of the Jesuits in the seventeenth century. It helps to quote your sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Also, take the example that you used: the world is not flat, but hundreds of years ago, it was a "fact" that it WAS flat. I acknowledge that some countries did believe in a Flat Earth, and I thank you for pointing that out to me. However, that makes it a "fact" held by those societies. The Greeks also believed in 1700 assorted gods. Does that mean EVERYONE believed in those gods? Does that mean Zoroastrians were just a figment of someone's imagination? Of course not. Different peoples believed in different things. It is a FACT that SOME societies believed the Earth was flat. But it was NOT a FACT hundreds of years ago. It was a FACT of some societies.
If not, then since in 1776, people in England believed that America belonged to the Crown, then we could say that that in 1776, it was a FACT that America belonged to the Crown. I doubt you would teach your students that, just that it was a FACT to English people. I would therefore suggest that you teach your students in the same way as you would want them to learn about America.
Thank you. You're welcome.
FYI, if being informed really annoys you, just state so, and I'll avoid informing you about anything in future. I'd rather you live without the benefits of knowledge than have me upset you. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 9:04:51 PM | | hi.. Truth is Every Word that Proceeds out of The Mouth of God... Jesus is Truth in The Flesh... The Holy Spirit Discerns All Truth to sincere seekers... everything has to hold up to Gods Truth or it is counterfeit... warmly Mona | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 9:29:43 PM | If nothing could be known with certainty, the sacred belief that, “everyone has a right to his or her opinion,” would be a perfectly serviceable political dictum. Nevertheless, the sun always and invariably rises in the east, water never runs uphill, and all attempts to push on a rope are futile. The question becomes, are we willing to act on the basis of objective truth, or shall we seek refuge in convenient dogma? In the words of Brooks Jackson (founder of factcheck.org) "Post Modernism is bullshit. You can quote me on that...either the Holocaust happened or it didn't."
It may be assumed that we always aspire to the right course of action. Yet, “capable of a set of contradictory impulses, which because it is a self-conscious creature, it understands,” (Conner Gearty) successful civilization of the human animal, hinges on its accurate rather than idealistic assessment. Put plainly, we must acknowledge our artistic ability, and natural inclination to paint our best interests the colour of right. For in reality, “Ideas need not be deeply right to be deeply influential, better they suit the prevailing mood and need.”(JK Galbraith)
At the nucleus of popular political fantasy is our refusal to acknowledge that, what is relentlessly represented as the will of the majority - is no such. Iron fisted economic rule by an imperial five percent, seems an unlikely result of a global democracy. Although not without abundant merit, the interests of humanity aren’t served by putting democracy on the same pedestal from which it overthrew its predecessor. Exchanging one deity for another does little to forward the cause of freedom. Buried under a mountain of adulation, I’ve long been struck by the observation that, “To think of democracy as the greatest system of government isn’t to make it so.” (Leon Baradat) An independent entity, that we can identify but not alter, the unassailable belief popular local opinion is an effective indicator for right, infects North American thought like an intellectual disease. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:09:35 PM | | i think that the truth is past what happens, happens. the things that stop us from seeing what is true are our own psyches. people add things to the truth, we can be deceptive, add morality, view events from diffrent perspectives, or be down right delusional. so when you add a human element to the way an event affects us it can be subjective when you take that away it is certin. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:34:09 PM | Truth is how the universe exists. On a microscopic level i dont think we can assert many truths yet, and things get weird the smaller we get. Truth is DEFINATELY not majority oppinion....if that was the case, we'd have a god that has a white beard and sits on a cloud.
This is kind of like the old question....if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?
The answer is simple. What we call sound is caused by the irritation of a bunch of hair-like structures in our inner ears which leads to a cascade of neural events that travel to our temporal lobes and tell the rest of our brain that we heard a sound. The key is in WHAT TRIGGERS those hair-like structures. Its a SOUND WAVE. When a tree falls, and nothing is there to hear it...it still produces a sound wave, but no brains and inner ears are around to change it into a SOUND. | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/4/2009 10:41:48 PM |
and all attempts to push on a rope are futile. This is not truth, ever try getting the rope wet and then freezing it? | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/5/2009 1:19:55 AM | Wow, you guys came up with a lot of ideas in so short a time. I wish I could touch on all of your posts but that might take me all night to do. I'll see if I can pick a few of them appart at least ;D
@MelissaMay: Regarding meta-physical positions, would it be accurate to say that you might differentiate "truths" and "Truths"? In a sense, anything we observe or extrapolate from what we observe, we can only know truths. Even accounting for such constants as the speed of light, those could easily be impermanent from an eternal being's standpoint. Things we encounter in our 4 dimensional world such as the Earth being spherical, it might be quite another shape if you include the parts (possibly) hidden in other dimensions, yeah? This leaves us with little to no knowledge of Truths, as they are in perfect aspects.
@A Theist: I never said I was asking for the general consensus to find the truth, I'm simply looking around to see how people think about these things. Mostly, I'm just d*mned interested in finding out how my friends can be so daft. Lol
@Yna6: I wanna go a bit off topic and wax on the idea of all men being created equal. Assuming there is a being of infinite wisdom, stature and power, doesn't that rather imply that anything less than that being can be approximated as equal? Bear with me here... If you've got two people born on the same day, one possesses a genius intellect, and the other one not so much, aren't they both fools in the eyes of God anyway? The smarter guy might do more thinking than the other guy, but these so called Truths elude both of them, don't they?
@Jiperly: It would make it true if everyone decided to define "1" as a number indicating a pair of fingers, wouldn't it? XD
@Farceur: "Truth is either a matter of fact or of belief. In the case of fact, truth is determined by what is known, or, what people believe they know." Hmm, so truth is either a matter of facts based on beliefs or beliefs? Ultimately, everything we "know" is what we believe to know, right?
@Karma295: As a side note, you say we have no knowledge of what we are and have no control over the choices we make. Are you making an argument for predestination over free will?
@ScorpioMover: While I never made mention of the Europeans, you were correct in assuming that I was basing that statement on them. Interesting to know that it wasn't the case. Lol
@Gwendolyn2009: I would like to disagree with your assessment and point out that these so called facts were never true, despite popular beliefs. Furthermore, a fact that IS true, might not necessarily be provable with our given perspectives or abilities. For example, there might be a 5th dimension out there somewhere. For now, assume it is true. Is this still provable? Granted, this is contrived and possibly fallacious, but hopefully you understand the point I was trying to make.
@Monalee1: It's interesting that you bring this up as it is essentially one of my core beliefs. It was part of why I started this topic, as I was rather irked that this philosophy my friends were suggesting flew in the face of my beliefs. Thanks for the post :)
@Chomskian: It's true that democracy has its flaws, especially as it is set up now. I'd prefer something that steps away from giving "special" people power, and leans more towards the power of the people. Libertarianism comes to mind. Any thoughts?
Hokay, I got a lot of those in. Sorry I didn't get all of you but I'm toast for now. Lol | |
|
| Thoughts on truth Posted: 6/5/2009 6:50:36 AM |
I don't assume anything.
Of course you assume things--if you didn't, you wouldn't have seen fit to post information f which you ASSUMED I knew nothing.
I still don't see why it is annoying, unless you don't like finding out that you don't know everything. I only found this out on POF.
It is annoying because this forum wasn't about whether the world is flat: it is about the nature of truth. Your post to me was off topic.
It is annoying because I read the SAME forums on POF and read the SAME post you did about the supposed fallacy of the flat earth theory held by some cultures. It is annoying because of the insinuation that I am giving my students incorrect information. And, by the way, I teach college English and mythology: I have never discussed the theory of the flat earth held or not held by people in the Middle Ages.
I said:
But if we are using wikipedia as a source (which I DO NOT allow my students to use), read the source you just cited:
You said:
That's entirely a correct approach to take in high school teaching methods, [. . .] but not that which is in the wider world. I imagine that your country has a national curriculum as well, which would mean that using any source from the internet would be entirely contradictory to the national curriculum.
First, I don't teach high school; as I said, I teach college.
Second, you "imagine" incorrectly. Not using WIKIPEDIA as a source for a college paper isn't because it comes from the internet or goes against a national curriculum (we don't have one), but because ANYONE with an account can write an article and post it there. And not only that, ANYONE who has an account can go in and delete information, add information, or otherwise change the text. There is no standardization for the information, and there is no "police" to check accuracy. In fact, I had a couple of student who told me that they would change information in articles "just for the hell of it."
I acknowledge that some countries did believe in a Flat Earth, and I thank you for pointing that out to me. However, that makes it a "fact" held by those societies. [. . .] It is a FACT that SOME societies believed the Earth was flat. But it was NOT a FACT hundreds of years ago. It was a FACT of some societies.
It is apparent that you entirely missed my point in my first post, so I will explain it to you in greater depth. The discussion was whether an idea held by a majority of people constituted "truth" or not. I discussed my OPINION on "truth" vs. "fact," and the point was that "facts" sometimes turn out to be not so factual i.e. flat earth and the sun being the center of the universe; so in reality, even "facts" can be wrong. You are reiterating MY point.
If not, then since in 1776, people in England believed that America belonged to the Crown, then we could say that that in 1776, it was a FACT that America belonged to the Crown. I doubt you would teach your students that, just that it was a FACT to English people. I would therefore suggest that you teach your students in the same way as you would want them to learn about America.
You have no idea what or how I teach my students. I need no suggestions from you on my teaching methods. It is amazing that you can draw conclusions about my teaching ability from a post in a POF forum--assumptions, again.
And I must ask, do you teach? In a school, I mean, not on POF.
FYI, if being informed really annoys you, just state so, and I'll avoid informing you about anything in future. I'd rather you live without the benefits of knowledge than have me upset you.
Your interpretation of my lack of knowledge was just that: your interpretation.
It only annoys me when the tone is slightly supercilious, and both suggestive and assumptive of my ignorance. You continue the superciliousness and the condescending tone in this last post. I consistently quest for knowledge; good teachers are good students, and good teachers and know how to impart information.
If I want to know something from you, I'll ask. | |
|
|
|