Jump to content


Click to Visit Netshops!
Photo
- - - - -

Why Do Many People See Truth Differently?




  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21 PeakVista

PeakVista

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationRocky Mountains - Colorado - USA

Posted October 07 2016 - 10:46 AM

In terms of relative truths as known by mind through analytical reason, I think probably mathematical truth is about the closest we get to something irrefutable. Once the terms are understood and agreed upon, 2+2=4 is very hard to dispute.

 

BlackBillBake...

 

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.  Mathematics has proven to appear to be fundamental to our collective human experience of our natural world (i.e. heavens and earth).  I say "appear to be fundamental" because we cannot absolutely say with 100% certainty that there isn't a more fundamental form of describing our perception of reality.

 

Some of our greatest current theoretical physicists state that mathematics can prove that we are living in a hologram type universe and our perceptions are just "A Thin Sheet of Reality".  To learn more on that, just Google those words.



#22 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,230 posts

Posted October 07 2016 - 10:48 AM

I don't believe there is a "Truth", with a capital T.  There is only "truth" that is supported by facts as they are currently understood.  By observing and experimenting we are continually refining out estimation of the truth, approaching it in a asymptotic manner.  All truth is preliminary, subject to the results of the next experiment.

 

As to why people can't seem to agree on the truth I believe it is a result of our different prejudices and "beliefs" (things we accept as fact with no actual evidence).  People are unwilling to critically examine their own conclusions for a variety of reasons: pride, fear, peer pressure, etc.  People hate to be wrong.  Honestly seeking truth is a character-building experience.

I believe that there is Truth (with a capital T), but that Absolute Truth is inaccessible to us, and if we found it, we'd never know for sure. Truth nevertheless has consequences. Climate change will be a disaster--or it won't. One of two people will win the November presidential election in the United States. We can't say with certainty that it will be Trump or Hillary. It conceivably be could be Johnson or Stein. I'm willing to bet that it won't be the latter two, although I'd grudgingly have to admit I could be wrong (but I doubt it). I'm not willing to bet on whether it will be Trump or Hillary, but I am willing to bet that if it's Trump, he won't make America Great again (whatever that means). These are matters of judgment, based on information, personal experience,analytical skills and intuition. I think a person with more information, analytical skills, relevant life experiences and intuitive abilities is likely to make better predictions than a person with less of these traits. But the predictions won't be completely reliable, because we are all fallible. Nobody knows it all. There's always a faster gun in the West. Truth is in that sense always relative, And then there are values--shoulds and shouldn'ts. I think those trade deals Trump and Hilary are attacking will create jobs in other parts of the world and help American consumers in the long run, but I can understand why blue collar factory voters feel threatened by them--since in the long run (as Lord Keynes put it) we'll all be dead. Bentham and Sam Harris have tried to get scientific about values in terms of human wants and needs, but their hedonistic assumptions have been rejected by many ethicists. That part of Truth I think will never be reached by reason alone.

 

What bothers me about the way the thread is framed is the suggestion that everyone's "truths" are on the same plane. This is a useful perspective for avoiding violence at social gatherings, where Trump supporters, Hillary supporters, Johnson supporters, and Stein supporters may be gathered in the same room. But I'm afraid they all can't be right, and I think information, logic, experience and intuition can help us in predicting who is. It does make sense to argue or discuss the candidates' positions. And even in the values area, I'm willing to say that some people have rotten values: the selfish, mean-spirited types, racists, etc. The notion that we make our own reality has been carried to ludicrous and dangerous lengths by "New Thought" followers. I dated a girl from the Unity Church once, who thought we must always be careful not to think bad thoughts because they'll come true. We were walking near a bad neighborhood once and I told her we needed to turn back because we might get mugged. She was horrified that I'd think such a thing because I might make it happen! Gimmie a break!


Edited by Okiefreak, October 07 2016 - 11:10 AM.


#23 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,230 posts

Posted October 07 2016 - 11:09 AM

BlackBillBake...

 

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.  Mathematics has proven to appear to be fundamental to our collective human experience of our natural world (i.e. heavens and earth).  I say "appear to be fundamental" because we cannot absolutely say with 100% certainty that there isn't a more fundamental form of describing our perception of reality.

 

Some of our greatest current theoretical physicists state that mathematics can prove that we are living in a hologram type universe and our perceptions are just "A Thin Sheet of Reality".  To learn more on that, just Google those words.

And then there are Godel"s incompleteness theorems: (1) that in any consistent formal system within which arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements which can neither be proved nor disproved within the system; and (2) such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent.



#24 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,637 posts

Posted October 07 2016 - 11:35 AM

Environment.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#25 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted October 07 2016 - 12:59 PM

And then there are Godel"s incompleteness theorems: (1) that in any consistent formal system within which arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements which can neither be proved nor disproved within the system; and (2) such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent.

 

A context without any content, and vice versa, is a demonstrable contradiction providing the self-evident truth that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does nothing more than beg the question, while any self-evident truth provides its own truths and proofs. Like up and down, back and front, the truth has no demonstrable meaning outside of a specific context, which is why everyone sees the truth differently because it is context dependent.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, October 07 2016 - 01:03 PM.


#26 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,230 posts

Posted October 07 2016 - 03:06 PM

A context without any content, and vice versa, is a demonstrable contradiction providing the self-evident truth that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does nothing more than beg the question, while any self-evident truth provides its own truths and proofs. Like up and down, back and front, the truth has no demonstrable meaning outside of a specific context, which is why everyone sees the truth differently because it is context dependent.

But if the context is identified and understood by the observers, they should at least have a shared understanding of truth. To philosophers, the notions of "truth" and "facts" are problematic. Plato and Aristotle advanced the "correspondence" theory of truth: that a proposition is true if it corresponds to reality or the "facts". As we've seen, finding out what the facts are, beyond immediate sensory perception, is a challenge. As a practical matter, I'm inclined toward C.S. Pierce's view that "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.." It may not really be true, but it's the best we can do. This reveals my own tendency  to accept scientific consensus on such matters as evolution and climate change, as well as scholarly consensus on the existence of an historical Jesus. It's not just a matter of expert opinion, but opinion which is arrived at by the best available methodologies and supported by the weight of available evidence. Some, however, may have a strong need to resist the evidence.  I understand, though disagree,  with the pragmatists who say that truth is what is useful to believe or what "works" for a given individual. If the Twelve-stepper in a recovery program is able to get himself/herself out of the gutter with the help of a Higher Power, far be it from me to challenge the "truth" of that belief. If a coal miner in Appalachia is inclined to believe that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. economy, I'd disagree but understand why the "inconvenient truth" of global warming is denied by so many Republicans. For the sake of conceptual clarity, however, I think some variant of the correspondence theory is essential for meaningful discussion.Of course, we always need to be aware of the limits of our assumptions and hold our "truths" tentatively, awaiting further empirical refutation. Santayana used the term "animal faith" for acceptance of the basic unprovable assumption or postulate that we can trust our senses as the necessary starting point for constructive inquiry. I assume when I'm typing this that you all exist, and that I'm not talking to myself in a solipsistic loop of self-delusion.


Edited by Okiefreak, October 07 2016 - 03:19 PM.


#27 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted October 07 2016 - 04:45 PM

But if the context is identified and understood by the observers, they should at least have a shared understanding of truth. To philosophers, the notions of "truth" and "facts" are problematic. Plato and Aristotle advanced the "correspondence" theory of truth: that a proposition is true if it corresponds to reality or the "facts". As we've seen, finding out what the facts are, beyond immediate sensory perception, is a challenge. As a practical matter, I'm inclined toward C.S. Pierce's view that "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.." It may not really be true, but it's the best we can do. This reveals my own tendency  to accept scientific consensus on such matters as evolution and climate change, as well as scholarly consensus on the existence of an historical Jesus. It's not just a matter of expert opinion, but opinion which is arrived at by the best available methodologies and supported by the weight of available evidence. Some, however, may have a strong need to resist the evidence.  I understand, though disagree,  with the pragmatists who say that truth is what is useful to believe or what "works" for a given individual. If the Twelve-stepper in a recovery program is able to get himself/herself out of the gutter with the help of a Higher Power, far be it from me to challenge the "truth" of that belief. If a coal miner in Appalachia is inclined to believe that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. economy, I'd disagree but understand why the "inconvenient truth" of global warming is denied by so many Republicans. For the sake of conceptual clarity, however, I think some variant of the correspondence theory is essential for meaningful discussion.Of course, we always need to be aware of the limits of our assumptions and hold our "truths" tentatively, awaiting further empirical refutation. Santayana used the term "animal faith" for acceptance of the basic unprovable assumption or postulate that we can trust our senses as the necessary starting point for constructive inquiry. I assume when I'm typing this that you all exist, and that I'm not talking to myself in a solipsistic loop of self-delusion.

 

There are many lesser truths which are all both contexts and contents in different situations and, then, there is the One Greater Truth of Socrates which he called the memory of God that none can remember in all its glory which is, of course, the greater context that the Truth determines everything. That might sound dramatic or mystical, but its another way of saying a statistic of one is an oxymoron. Normally we think of the number one as content, but when placed in the context of statistics it becomes the greater context. Thus, the One Greater Truth progressively reveals itself to us from one moment to the next, while lesser truths only thrive and endure according to how they evolve to support each successive truth. This last is similar to Constructal Theory and Chinese "Chi" in that it describes a systems logic where the truth always remains context dependent, but it can still accommodate classical logic as a subtype in Intuitionistic mathematics.



#28 PeakVista

PeakVista

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationRocky Mountains - Colorado - USA

Posted October 07 2016 - 05:57 PM

But if the context is identified and understood by the observers, they should at least have a shared understanding of truth. To philosophers, the notions of "truth" and "facts" are problematic. Plato and Aristotle advanced the "correspondence" theory of truth: that a proposition is true if it corresponds to reality or the "facts". As we've seen, finding out what the facts are, beyond immediate sensory perception, is a challenge. As a practical matter, I'm inclined toward C.S. Pierce's view that "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.." It may not really be true, but it's the best we can do. This reveals my own tendency  to accept scientific consensus on such matters as evolution and climate change, as well as scholarly consensus on the existence of an historical Jesus. It's not just a matter of expert opinion, but opinion which is arrived at by the best available methodologies and supported by the weight of available evidence. Some, however, may have a strong need to resist the evidence.  I understand, though disagree,  with the pragmatists who say that truth is what is useful to believe or what "works" for a given individual. If the Twelve-stepper in a recovery program is able to get himself/herself out of the gutter with the help of a Higher Power, far be it from me to challenge the "truth" of that belief. If a coal miner in Appalachia is inclined to believe that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. economy, I'd disagree but understand why the "inconvenient truth" of global warming is denied by so many Republicans. For the sake of conceptual clarity, however, I think some variant of the correspondence theory is essential for meaningful discussion.Of course, we always need to be aware of the limits of our assumptions and hold our "truths" tentatively, awaiting further empirical refutation. Santayana used the term "animal faith" for acceptance of the basic unprovable assumption or postulate that we can trust our senses as the necessary starting point for constructive inquiry. I assume when I'm typing this that you all exist, and that I'm not talking to myself in a solipsistic loop of self-delusion.

 

I hate to quote myself but if the foo shits wear it:

 

To put it simply:

 

Truth is whatever a group of people define what it is at a certain point in time. 

 

Edit:  Added a missing the to the "I hate.."


Edited by PeakVista, October 07 2016 - 05:58 PM.


#29 PeakVista

PeakVista

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationRocky Mountains - Colorado - USA

Posted October 07 2016 - 06:09 PM

I am enjoying all the responses.

 

I am very impressed myself.  Truth is very philosophical concept.  We definitely have some very good philosophers on this thread. 

 

<cringe> Thankfully current politics have reared there head here. (looking over my shoulder) No, no don't shoot me. HELP! </cringe>



#30 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted October 08 2016 - 07:39 AM

I am very impressed myself.  Truth is very philosophical concept.  We definitely have some very good philosophers on this thread. 

 

<cringe> Thankfully current politics have reared there head here. (looking over my shoulder) No, no don't shoot me. HELP! </cringe>

Hippies and leftists in general are an eclectic bunch. I've lived on communes for ten years and on one commune we had no less than two physicists, a historian, an environmental chemist, and so on in a population of fifty people. Its easy to dismiss us as all being merely insane drug addicts or whatever without a brain our heads, but the reality is far from that.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, October 08 2016 - 07:40 AM.

  • morrow likes this




Click to shop at Weed Seed Shop