An assault on truth
Truth (a bad concept)
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Truth (a good concept)
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
A pride that would be severly misplaced if not shared by other members of the community. http://www.macroevolution.net/ (An example of a theory that's not widely accepted due to such grounds) Side: Truth (a bad concept)
A pride that would be severly misplaced if not shared by other members of the community Not trying to offend, but the above is a poorly phrased argument. http://www.macroevolution.net/ (An example of a theory that's not widely accepted due to such grounds) That first comment really threw me off. I see, you are acknowledging that because of entrenched dogmatic certitude (supposed possesion of truth) within certain scientific communities, there are new possibly helpful insights that get pushed aside. Right? Side: Truth (a bad concept)
1
point
Not trying to offend, but the above is a poorly phrased argument. I still don't think it to be poorly phrased. I see, you are acknowledging that because of entrenched dogmatic certitude (supposed possesion of truth) within certain scientific communities, there are new possibly helpful insights that get pushed aside. Right? Yes, that'd be correct. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
1
point
Terms like 'truth' and 'fact' are de facto assertions that somebody has accurately perceived and cogently articulated objective reality. 'Truth' further entails that somebody has actually understood the perception of objective reality. However, there are valid reasons to doubt that we ever accurately perceive reality. We cannot see past our retinas, nor feel past our fingertips. The indication is that our sensory perceptions occur primarily in our brains, as do hallucinations and dreams. Furthermore, studies on differences in accounts of multiple eye-witnesses recounting the same event indicate significant disagreement about the observed events. That implies that people do not perceive objective reality consistently. Confirmation bias seems to be common enough to explain how our own perceptions are generally consistent with each other, yet still differ from the perceptions of others. Assuming I am correct in my conclusion that people do not accurately perceive reality, then purveying a concept like truth does nothing more than perpetuate the misapprehension that we are objective and know what is really going on. However comforting this may be, there is reason to believe that relying on misperceptions leads to poor decisions. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
|
It is full confidence (not leaving room for doubt) that makes our concept of truth or facts so dangerous. It is (I think) why the scientific method is peculiarly different from other technologies. Most essentially it's about seeking to falsify theories, to find imperfections in what should I argue be assumed to be incomplete knowledge, not "facts" or "truths" Side: Truth (a bad concept)
Yes the scientific method is different from other technologies and I like that term incomplete knowledge ; it's amazing how loosely the the terms "facts " and " truths " are tossed about one can think of several examples that were considered " facts " and "truths " but were proven otherwise . Side: Truth (a bad concept)
2
points
its horrible how truth is something that people are terrified of using because apparently peoples feelings have to come first over truth it's disgusting I mean theres many things that media has lied about in the case of just sparing some feelings. Side: Truth (a good concept)
1
point
Nothing, if you can pull it off. The question is, "known by whom, and verified by what method." Too many people think that if it was on CNN or in the Huffington Post, Washington Post, New York Times, Breitbart, The Blaze, or any similarly biased source, that somehow, it is "known" and if they find two of these that agree, then it has been "verified." Confirmation bias and thinking we have reached confirmed answers are basic to the problem. Consider that many non-geologist scientists, and politicians insist that anthropogenic climate change is a"known" and "verified" emergency, but geologists say that is not at all the case, and that the earth is still in a cool period. It is a problem when people think they have the truth, because the result is that we stop trying to verify or learn information that would support alternate viewpoints. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
Should one think they are aware of a truth it is as if they think themselves to posses an unimproveable piece of information. This leads to a blinding sort of pride that eventually retards our ability to learn. I think of truth as a good thing. It's there. It is a static object that often doesn't get seen from all sides depending on the position of the person viewing it. But I don't think the concept of it is bad. I DO believe, as you say, that it can lead to a blinding sort of pride but again, that depends on the person, not truth. Side: Truth (a good concept)
I think in general you have a good point. here, I think its worth making even more explicitly.. It's there. It is a static object I struggled in vain to conceptualize truth as a static object. that often doesn't get seen from all sides depending on the position of the person viewing it. coceptually though, it usually connotes a completeness or perfectness of the relevant knowledge does it not? But I don't think the concept of it is bad I used "good" and "bad" mainly to make the the debate more provocative. My current opinion is that it's fine and good as an ideal to be pursued but gravely troublesome when considered attained. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
I struggled in vain to conceptualize truth as a static object. Ok, let me try to give an example and see if this helps, it's possible I may fail at this. Imagine a cube, all 6 sides have a different color. By this cube there are six people, each person is standing in such a way that there is one person per cube face. They can only see the flat part and the color that part has. One person will swear the cube is blue, another will swear it's green another still swears it's red and so on. The cube is not moving, it's stationary but the perceptions given vary from person to person. Until those people walk all around the cube they don't realize it has 6 different colors. The problem we come across sometimes is they won't look at the top and bottom of the cube, they just see the four and thus don't get the whole truth. Others refuse to move to see if there is anything else to it, they just take it at face value. Does that make sense? Truth, the whole truth, doesn't change, it just varies from perception to perception. coceptually though, it usually connotes a completeness or perfectness of the relevant knowledge does it not? I don't believe that relevant knowledge and complete knowledge are the same though. What is relevant to you may not be to me. Example, you and I are meeting up, you tell me it's going to be at Cracker Barrel at 5pm this Thursday. To you that may be relevant enough, to me....which Cracker Barrel, I have three near me or is it one closer to you? Or am I understanding what your thought was on on that? I used "good" and "bad" mainly to make the the debate more provocative. Ah, I understand. I agree that when one thinks they know all and then close themselves off to any other understanding, it causes stagnation. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
People should aspire to learn truth but understand that the information they learn as well as the limits to their own senses may mean the truth they think they know actually isn't the truth. And for those of you absolutists who say that's being subjective, it isn't. There may indeed be some absolute truths, but our ability to discern what those are may be flawed. And turning to a holy book and saying there, the god tells you absolute truth, is also flawed when you consider people wrote those books and told those stories and they're limited to what they also think they learned and what their senses may have lead them to conclude. Questioning the truth ultimately is not an assault upon it, it's instead a fresh effort to rise above and understand it better. Side: Truth (a good concept)
1
point
I think truth is inevitable until we want to use logic, by trying to state why truth is a bad concept, one is just trying to make what he says "true".. I'm not saying this because I'm biased towards truth but because in logic we have true and false, and by "true" we are trying to get as close to the way things are, in other words, reality. Side: Truth (a good concept)
1
point
1
point
thanks, marc, but why aren't you "truthfully" convinced yet? even now, as you use the word "truthfully" it is perfectly functional, as there should either be a logical reason or some emotional bias to your side of calling it a bad concept, either way , the argument that you are not convinced is true.. in other words, we can logically reason for it.. (provided that you aren't lying :) ).. Side: Truth (a bad concept)
1
point
|
