Truth is not simple

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

That's right 100% as a matter o fact.

And the uneducated have no right addressing this matter in any way.

Obnoxious to the very core

 

[outhouse]

Obnoxious to the very core

Only if you do not understand how the ignorant cannot possibly know the truth unless luck be at their side.

 

[Riverwolf]

being bias free is the best factual way to seek the truth

And factually speaking, it is impossible for any individual to be bias free.

 

[Kueid]

I didn't find it yet to say something about the matter. Complex or simple? Only those who claim to know the truth can say and we can't know if they are right till we know too.

 

[outhouse]

And factually speaking, it is impossible for any individual to be bias free.

So at least we understand the less bias one possess the better the chances of seeking truth there is.

 

[Riverwolf]

So at least we understand the less bias one possess the better the chances of seeking truth there is.

Only terms of some fantasy world where an individual's bias can be artificially reduced in such a manner.

The best an individual can do is take into account their biases during an analysis. This is a very hard skill to learn, let alone master. I'm not sure most people have any idea that it's a skill that even exists in the first place, considering all the talk about "being objective" (another thing that's impossible).

 

[Willamena]

But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?

It is mostly a bunch of simple propositions (things) too frequently made more complicated than they have to be. Like the money thing... As long as you can withdraw sufficient funds, the truth of what money "is" doesn't much matter.

Fundamentalism is no better or worse than any other at complicating things.

There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:

"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."​

What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?

I tend not to worry myself with other people's truth or lack of truth (hence I will offer no opinion on what he said. )

 

[outhouse]

Only terms of some fantasy world where an individual's bias can be artificially reduced in such a manner.

I will say your factually false. And context is key, and the bias you claim is not the bias stopping people from finding the truth.

As an atheist I do not hold the bias islam factually possesses, or YEC factually possess, or orthodox jews factually possess.

My bias is factually reduced compared to these known fundamentalist groups.


Knowledge is key and it is the factual context required to better understand the truth. The more knowledge one possesses the closer to any SPECIFIC truth one seeks.


What truth? comes into play here. many truths are not complicated in any way.

 

[outhouse]

CONTEXT here is religious issues in relationship to truth. per the OP

That means religious bias is detrimental to seeking he truth. Fanaticism and fundamentalism place one further from the truth. This is a fact not up for debate.


You want truth you are required to obtain knowledge to get closer to such. Period no debating a fact.

Religions have a long history of fighting knowledge, also a fact.

 

[outhouse]

Philosophically this comes down to epistemology

 

[Riverwolf]

I will say your factually false. And context is key, and the bias you claim is not the bias stopping people from finding the truth.

As an atheist I do not hold the bias islam factually possesses, or YEC factually possess, or orthodox jews factually possess.

My bias is factually reduced compared to these known fundamentalist groups.

Not really. It's still bias towards atheistic thinking, bias against those groups, and bias of not regarding such a mindset as a bias. That it has a far better chance of reflecting non-human reality than YEC is irrelevant to the fact that it's still a bias.

That's why the peer-review process exists. An individual cannot reduce their biases, and so seeking the truth of complicated matters, such as in the sciences, requires group effort. That's the only way to reduce our bias in our collective knowledge. Our collective bias can never be reduced to 0 (and even to this day the sciences have several taboo topics they won't tackle which do not include religious, spiritual, or mystical matters, for the record), but it can get close enough that we can trust our measurements to be accurate, and our interpretations of the data to be adequately informed.

Knowledge is key and it is the factual context required to better understand the truth. The more knowledge one possesses the closer to any SPECIFIC truth one seeks.


What truth? comes into play here. many truths are not complicated in any way.

True. (heh) But those uncomplicated truths are pretty much all things dealing with mundane life. Unless we're dealing directly with the equations, it's not terribly complicated a truth that I am physically incapable of throwing a rock fast enough to reach Earth's escape velocity, and so any rock I throw will inevitably hit the ground somewhere. What goes up must come down: that only recently became a non-universal truth in human experience, and for the vast majority of us, it remains universal.

Religions have a long history of fighting knowledge, also a fact.

Not a fact: a myth. It's a pretty recent phenomenon, actually.

 

[outhouse]

atheistic thinking

You want to tell me exactly what that is?

As far as I know it means I don't have the bias some theist factually do

 

[outhouse]

Not a fact: a myth. It's a pretty recent phenomenon, actually.

It is an empirical fact.

Religions often fight these. And they factually have for a very long time.

Nothing recent about it.


Galileo as an example. The church fought the truth and he was persecuted for his mouth, yet was seeking the truth and was more correct then the church

 

[Riverwolf]

You want to tell me exactly what that is?

As far as I know it means I don't have the bias some theist factually do

No, you don't have that bias. Instead, you have a different bias.

It is an empirical fact.

No it isn't.

History isn't what happened; history is what people at various times said happened. More recently that can get coupled with various interpretations of stuff we dig up (not infrequently via theft).

Religions often fight these. And they factually have for a very long time.

Nothing recent about it.

Galileo as an example. The church fought the truth and he was persecuted for his mouth, yet was seeking the truth and was more correct then the church

Galileo was recent.

If you want to talk "long history", think millennia, not centuries.

 

[outhouse]

No, you don't have that bias. Instead, you have a different bias.

Then we can address how some bias places one closer to the truth then others.

Some bias are more conducive to finding or seeking truth, IE placing one closer to it.

If you want to talk "long history", think millennia, not centuries.

Which is directly tied to my statement of knowledge and those being ignorant were very far from many truths.

history is what people at various times said happened

You know that is incorrect

History is what educated people determine is plausible based on what people said happened used as evidence to study for possible accuracy.

I never stated history was all empirical fact. Some of it is without question, and some history is not knowledge and is not strong enough to get pass educated opinion.

 

[Augustus]

And the uneducated have no right addressing this matter in any way.

He is correct.

People fight the truth tooth and nail.

There is your side and my side, and in the middle is a very thin line known as the truth

Only if you do not understand how the ignorant cannot possibly know the truth unless luck be at their side.

I think you completely missed the point of the OP.

For example:

While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity.

Sort of like when people use the word 'factually' ad nauseam, when they often mean 'I think that...'

There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:

"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."

Like when people get obsessed with other people's beliefs not 'factually' being objectively true, they often miss the bigger and more important picture.

 

[outhouse]

Like when people get obsessed with other people's beliefs not 'factually' being objectively true, they often miss the bigger and more important picture.

The factual fundamentalism within certain religions is not my opinion.

And one only degrades humanity by letting his fellow man wallow in ignorance and misplaced faith

 

[outhouse]

Sort of like when people use the word 'factually' ad nauseam, when they often mean 'I think that...'

Sort of like people who refuse facts? and the argue inanely with everyone that their interpretation is the only correct one?

 

[Quintessence]

I think you completely missed the point of the OP.

Yeah, I was going to say that, but... couldn't figure out how to do it politely?

It's worth noting that the full title of the essay is "In Religious Matters, Truth is Overrated." I almost titled this thread that, but focused it down a bit more because of the need to limit the amount of excerpts I put up. I particularly like the point Halsted makes in his second section - pointing out that what the "truth" is just plain doesn't matter to some people on any day-to-day basis. Whenever I see arguments about "how was the universe created," I just scratch my head and go "the answer to this is relevant to my daily life how?" Like Halsted, I'm more interested in the meaningfulness behind the truths people find for themselves and less interested in "the truth."

 

[outhouse]

I think you completely missed the point of the OP.

You commonly quote mine OP's and replies out of context.

Like this case when you present a shallow and narrow quote to place the whole OP in your personal context