Is there any absolute distinction between what is true and false?

Hey everyone.
So I was stumbling through thoughtsmash I saw an interesting question posted here http://www.thoughtsmash.com/thought/110 and I thought I would ask you guys what you thought. It's a pretty intense question, as for me, I think there is no distinction between true and false because its all relative to each person. What about you guys? I'd like you hear others opinions about this.

 

there are subjective things, and there are things that are absolutely true or false.

i'm pretty sure the absolute truth is that you're a spammer.

 

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
A subject is certain of something when he knows that thing; he is uncertain when he does not know it, but he knows he does not: he is consciously uncertain. On the other hand, he is unaware of something when he does not know it, and he does not know he does not know, and so on ad infinitum: he does not perceive, does not have in mind, the object of knowledge. The opposite of unawareness is awareness

 

But are true and false really different? Considering things that are false or only defined because of what is true

 

Explain further, please. And not through the prism of some dusty psychology book, thanks.

 

My god-damn computer won't let me see shit. Anyway,I would say(without reading it) that everyone one needs to learn (and does)the differance between true or false from infancy. Each decision made hinges on just that-throughout life.

 

Wow, made my head spin a little the first time thru, but made sense after the second time thru.

 

It's a mixture of a Donald Rumsfeld quote and a response about his quote.

I wasn't planning on putting a hell of lot of my own personal thought into this thread until the OP made some greater contribution and didn't lead us down a culdesack. I never do with posters who have seemingly contributed zilch so far and are possibly a troll.
Now the thread is being populated with actual contributers to the forum, and hopefully the OPs input is secondary, it will be better.
I do believe the thrust of what I posted, though.

It IS a fact some people post questions and a link like this to advertise their own blog/business/selves etc.
Anyhoo, enough of the cynicism...

I was actually thinking about this today and yesterday...
Another poster posted an article supposedly showing the American government toppling an Australian administration based on evidence (not provided) from wikileaks.
The article sounded authoritative and elements were fairly true, imho.
It was basically American and Australian soft and hard diplomacy.
Diplomacy that, pretty much, every government has a hand in.
American soft/hard diplomacy being the strongest didn't, imho, necessarily mean they had a hand in toppling the Australian government...the article wasn't a fact.
For me, a fact has to be acknowledged on both sides by both vested interests.
In this case the Australian/American governments at the time.
Any other person is merely expressing an opinion, imho.

This isn't a hard and fast description of true/false, btw.
Just, imho, an e.g of it.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6745442#post6745442

 

TRUTH>the sky is yellow and the sun is blue...

 

The concept of a distinction between true and false is variable depending on the person.

Two people given information can form a totally different opinion on the validity of it and deem it to be either true or false.

I honestly believe that people "believe" and "disbelieve" whatever information or facts to suit their own purposes or fit their own preconceived ideals. I do not think that it is something that they often are even aware of doing. More that we are all conditioned to look for what shores up our own views or opinions.

So perhaps true or false is only relevant if there is a receptiveness to changing ones own opinions. Otherwise true or false for most is a very black and white issue that comes from what they are comfortable with.

People, in general, are not known for being overly receptive to changing their own beliefs or opinions regardless of anyones "facts" that might be presented that are contrary to ones own beliefs or truths.

Interesting topic, fujo 1!

 

Btw, there are 666 charaters in my first post. Make of that what you will.

 

What about if the provider of the information is stating it is true and only 1 of the other people are deeming it false?
What about if the consensus is something is false (or true)?

For some people that is true (or is it false?...mmm might have to think about that).
Seriously, Imho, it is true because I have seen countless e.gs of it here, and, no doubt, others think the same of me.
Imho, with out mounting evidence and a pretty clear acknowledgment (as described in my earlier) post)...
I accept most things are an opinion.
However, within these forums (and in general) you kinda have to try and convince others you are telling the truth.
Some do it honestly others don't.
Most of what I just said is true.

 

I don't think the objective truth is variable. Something is either true-or it is not true. What individuals THINK is the truth is subjective and has no ultimate meaning other than how they conduct themselves according to what they perceive as their truth.

 

I've been accused by some members of doing just that myself in some of my posts. And upon reflection I realized that they were right and I now find myself giving my posts alot more thought before posting, at least on serious issues.

I think the internet makes it alot easier to ferret out the truth as it is presented to us by the media who all seem to have their own agenda, or I guess easier for people that don't just swallow everything they are feed.

 

'Tis essentially a question of how we should function as human beings. If it is true that there is no distinction, what are the consequences and should we function that way? Or are we better off just following common knowledge? If the two are partial to each other, then don't we have to recognize the value of both?

It's really a matter of assigning good and/or bad values. Truths good, lies bad. Theoretically, you could have only truths and function as a society. Only lies, I don't think so. Realistically, are people capable of being so objective that they only tell the truth? And if that happened, could we even perform such functions as reproducing, for instance.

 

To that person it is true or false depending on their views and interpretation of said information. That is the issue with absolutes as far as true or false, it is subjective to each person.

Absolutes are only what each person believes them to be.

Having to convince others is what makes it totally unpredictable and rather a lost cause. People rarely change what they think even given the most blatant of "facts" or material supporting that. They instead continue to interpret all information from where they believe the truth to be. Human nature. Rather results in circle conversations.

That it is an opinion someone else has, does not mean it is not correct, it means that it is one that is contrary to ones own opinion.

The very term of objective truth is the problem. What is an objective truth. It is only objective if you believe that to be the truth.

I do agree with you regarding what people think as being subjective.

Been there and have done that myself and still do.

When anyone believes they are correct or right in their views they tend to approach that as an absolute. I honestly do think most people often do so with good intentions.

We are all resistant to changing our opinions, it is human nature.

 

Well,my dear,here is an example of objective truth as perceived by 2 individuals. They are both looking at an object,say a red car. One is color blind and insists the car is black or black and white. The objective truth is that the car is red. The subjective and objective truth is what each perceives-one correct. One subjectively incorrect. Objective is what actually is-subjective is what the second thinks is ,sometimes regardless of the truth. Make any sense,or am I pissing into the wind. We get back to the falling tree. I insist that the same amount of noise will be made whether humans perceive it or not. It is an objective reality. Human hears it-subjective reality.

 

Good examples.

The person who is colour blind, in this example though will have to accept it as being objective as the next person who views the same car may say it is crimson, maroon or any other shade of red that they perceive it to be. If that person is colour blind, then there is no correlation for them between any of those.

Is it a subjective truth in that depending on the spectrum of colours they can not see, I could tell them it is any colour or shade, erroneously. That they see it as colour X is still their truth.

To a person who is deaf, the tree still falls. Do they hear it? They do through other senses but they do not hear it. They will instead say the saw or felt it. *EDIT* More accurately for them the truth is that the ground made a noise or vibration.*end edit*

Are any of them wrong or more correct in the statement of truth as they see it?

The statements of truth might then be instead that there is a car that is a colour and that a tree fell.


Of course, this is all subjective based upon what I perceive to be defining truth and false.

 

OK. I guess we got all that settled.

 

That we did.