What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[Mock Turtle]

So who is lying? Interesting comment you made. Is it relevant to this thread?

Of course it is relevant. I'm honest enough as to knowing I might never have any truth - and it doesn't bother me that much. What does bother me are those who try to peddle the young Earth scenario, the fiction that we humans are so separate from other species, that we have not evolved just as much as all other life, and several other equally relevant things. Given that these often silly beliefs do tend to drag us down as a species and as to progress.

 

[firedragon]

Of course it is relevant. I'm honest enough as to knowing I might never have any truth

Like, you dont know if you're typing or not?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Mate. Science is inductive. It can give you objective truths. Its possible. E.g. if Science finds out that there is a world beyond our solar system, it can later become an objective truth. In philosophy, science gives inductive facts. Do you understand?

You’re familiar with David Hume, and the problem of induction? And the distinction between relations of ideas, and matters of fact?

Hume argued that inductive reasoning could never be rationally justified, arguing that causal relations between phenomena were purely speculative, and that “there is nothing to a law of nature over and above some observed regularity of events in the past”.

Scientific laws are theory laden, so while observation can be empirically supported, the theoretical elements, being unobservable, are - a strict empiricist would argue - entirely speculative.

Whilst laws such as Newton’s laws of motion, for example, allow for accurate predictions regarding the behaviour of interacting objects, they cannot be said to tell us objective truths about the nature of the forces acting on those objects - as we have seen in the 20th Century when special and general relativity, and quantum theory, revealed limitations to Newton’s laws.

The assumption that scientific laws tell us facts about the world, is by no means the consensus view among philosophers of science. Far from it, in fact. For almost a century, the orthodox (Copenhagenist) view of quantum mechanics, for example, was that it could offer no ontology which might help to describe the underlying reality of the material world, and it was meaningless to expect it to do so.

The ambitions of Einstein and Stephen Hawking, that the aim of all science was to offer a complete description of the universe, is or at least was, an unorthodox minority view among quantum physicists.

 

[firedragon]

You’re familiar with David Hume, and the problem of induction?

Yep.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yep.

Well then you are presumably familiar with the limitations of both science and philosophy, when it comes to providing a description of objective reality - if indeed, such a thing exists.

Are you also familiar with astronomer Arthur Eddington’s argument that “the world appears to us as symbols, which the alchemist mind transmutes”? Or the many arguments from quantum theory, that the observer can never be independent of the act of observation nor of the phenomena being observed, and that therefore “reality is in part created by the observer” (Henry Pagels)?

 

[PearlSeeker]

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

Truth. Nevertheless, knowing (not believing!) what a lot of people believe is also important.

 

[firedragon]

Well then you are presumably familiar with the limitations of both science and philosophy, when it comes to providing a description of objective reality - if indeed, such a thing exists.

Hume was speaking of inductive practices being founded on the relation of cause and effect, but this relation is, from an empiricist point of view, the constant conjunction of events, the objective content of a posited causal relation is always merely that some regularity or pattern in the behaviour of things holds.

How is that an explanation of a limitation in philosophy? Are you saying that Hume claims there is no "objective reality" (A phrase you brought in, and a topic you wish to discuss)? It could be. I just can't imagine David Hume making such a claim, but please do quote his writing where he claims there is no objective reality, not even an analytical truth, I will read what you quote and be enlightened about Hume.

Thanks.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hume was speaking of inductive practices being founded on the relation of cause and effect, but this relation is, from an empiricist point of view, the constant conjunction of events, the objective content of a posited causal relation is always merely that some regularity or pattern in the behaviour of things holds.

How is that an explanation of a limitation in philosophy? Are you saying that Hume claims there is no "objective reality" (A phrase you brought in, and a topic you wish to discuss)? It could be. I just can't imagine David Hume making such a claim, but please do quote his writing where he claims there is no objective reality, not even an analytical truth, I will read what you quote and be enlightened about Hume.

Thanks.

You've misunderstood. I never argued there was no objective reality - indeed, I'm pretty sure I didn't introduce the concept to the thread either - but rather that we could only experience or understand reality subjectively. Do you understand the distinction?

 

[PureX]

You just said truth is objective without understanding the implication of what you concluded with.

The truth is what is. and that includes both what we think "is", is, and whatever else there is, too. What part of this are you trying to argue with?

 

[PureX]

Mate. Science is inductive. It can give you objective truths.

There are no "objective truths". Tgere is only 'what is'. All science can do is help us change our minds about what we think "is", is, by exposing some functionality or other.

Its possible. E.g. if Science finds out that there is a world beyond our solar system, it can later become an objective truth. In philosophy, science gives inductive facts. Do you understand?

What I understand is that you have fallen victim to the modern fantasy of "scientism", wherein you think science is the only means by which humans can determine the truly true, truth, which is "objective" rather than "subjective". An aberrant "ism" that seems to have captivated a lot of anti-religious materialists these days.

 

[osgart]

Well truth is in light of virtue. Truth and facts are not the same thing. There is a truthful way of using facts. There is a lying way of using facts to make seem so scenarios. Truth is the opposite of lying.

And there are times when deception as a defense is the truth; to conceal a matter, or to avoid malevolence.

Truth is for the living. Facts are what reality actually is even if nobody is around to witness it.

Truth is far more important than what people believe. What people believe is important within the context of truth.

Aside from the truth no one will ever see an honest day.

Without facts represented truthfully then we are all spinning our wheels going nowhere.

Belief can be a dangerous thing, and/or it can be compelling, and/or benign, and/or worthy of testing.

 

[firedragon]

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

Truth. Nevertheless, knowing (not believing!) what a lot of people believe is also important.

Hmm. That's a profound statement PearlSeeker. I will definitely take that to note.

Thank you.

 

[firedragon]

Well truth is in light of virtue. Truth and facts are not the same thing. There is a truthful way of using facts. There is a lying way of using facts to make seem so scenarios. Truth is the opposite of lying.

I agree with you. You are using truth and facts in different ways. No problem. Just that in certain contexts, truth and and facts are used synonymously. Nevermind, I understand what you say. The OP is speaking about a principle. Not the philosophy of truth itself.

I must say though that truth is not only the opposite of lies. It is also truth in a philosophical sense, or a logical sense. A truth could be that, you are using a keyboard of some sort. That is a truth. An objective truth. I am looking at a screen. That's an objective truth. I am using my eyes. That's also an objective truth.

And there are times when deception as a defense is the truth; to conceal a matter, or to avoid malevolence.

That is not considered truth. It could be a subjective truth, but not an objective truth.

Truth is for the living. Facts are what reality actually is even if nobody is around to witness it.

Err. Bro. That's not quite right. Truths are also reality if it's objective. For example, the earth exists today is an objective truth, and even if no body is there to witness it today, it is still a fact. Do you understand?

Belief can be a dangerous thing, and/or it can be compelling, and/or benign, and/or worthy of testing.

Agreed.

 

[firedragon]

You've misunderstood. I never argued there was no objective reality - indeed, I'm pretty sure I didn't introduce the concept to the thread either - but rather that we could only experience or understand reality subjectively. Do you understand the distinction?

Okay. I understand your point.

Where did Hume say that?

 

[firedragon]

The truth is what is. and that includes both what we think "is", is, and whatever else there is, too. What part of this are you trying to argue with?

You are now speaking about a subjective truth. It exists. But objective truths also exist.

 

[firedragon]

There are no "objective truths".

So I keep asking you. Are analytical truths objective or subjective?

Rather than answering anything else, just answer this question.

Thanks.

 

[PureX]

So I keep asking you. Are analytical truths objective or subjective?

Rather than answering anything else, just answer this question.

Thanks.

What is an "analytical truth"? Because the term makes no sense except perhaps in opposition to an "intuitive truth". Both of which are subjective assignations.

 

[firedragon]

What is an "analytical truth"? Because the term makes no sense except perhaps in opposition to an "intuitive truth". Both of which are subjective assignations.

If I tell you that by my side, right now, next to me, there is a married bachelor, what would you say?

 

[wellwisher]

Truth is the best logical conclusion, based the data you use. If your data set is not complete the best logical conclusion you draw, without all the data, may be appear true, but it can be unintentionally false.

Science, for example, is a work in progress. As new technology appears and new data is generated, the best conclusions; theories, may need to be revised, to include all the new data. Until that time, what may be seen as the truth, will be defended like dogma.

In the Jan 6 trials, not all the data is being presented. The data is being limited to that which benefits one political party over the other. However, if you assume this is all the possible data, you will draw the conclusions that the data is designed for you to draw.

In math, if you were ask to plot data points on a graph, everyone will draw the same basic curve, with the same data points. But as we add new data, the curve may change. One can us use limited data to lie but appear to tell the truth, by simply cherry picking the data that others need to use to draw their conclusions.

Here is an interesting thought experiment, I designed it several years ago, that shows how our perception of truth is dependent on the data we have.

Picture a large mural on a wall. Like in Photoshop, I mask off most of the mural; cover it up, and only allow a small window to see a small part of the mural. The goal is to infer the truth of the mural. from only windows of data.

In this small window to the mural, we can see the face of a young woman who appears to be in anguish. Based on that limited data we may conclude she is heart broken and sad at her state in life.

Next, I open the window wider and can I see she is wearing what appears to be old tattered gym clothes. This add new data to the first conclusion. We conclude she is poor and maybe homeless. This may be part of what is breaking her heart.

I open the window of data even more and notice she appears to be in a gymnasium, with other women in the background, who are in various stages of standing and stretching. Some are in nicer clothes. Now our conclusion is different. She is not homeless, but in a gym. She appears to be working out. Her shabby clothes, may mean she has just started joined and is starting to get into shape.

I open the window of data even more and now I notice this is not a gym floor, but she is on a stage. We can see now other women on the side who are dancing like ballerinas. Now we conclude she much be part of a dance troupe. We assume she may be at tryouts, since she appears straining under the pressure.

Finally, we open the window all the way open to get all the data. We notice this a major city music hall and there is a famous dance coach on stage, who is pushing our woman, who is at center stage. She is the prima ballerina, in her lucky work out clothes, trying too prefect a very difficult move.

From any of the limited windows of data, almost nobody would be able to accept the final truth of her status as a prima ballerina. Since there was not enough data to make that an easy conclusion compared to the unintentional half truth that better fits the limited data. People will often prefer the partial truth conclusions, until they can see all the data, which they may not have access to.

 

[Qwin]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Clearly, what matters to a person most is what they value, which is ultimately their life. In the Titanic case - for many wealthy folk, it seems apparent that it was their wealth that mattered most. Only 'seems' however, because at the time it would've been doubtful whether the ship was going to sink, or not. Titanic was touted as virtually unsinkable, so they would have suspected a false-alarm. Having bundles of moolah and the chance of the rapacious riffraff rioting... what defence to take?

"Conundrum" of what to choose, truth or lie? Only at face value. Frequently with historical retrospectives, the choice of truth and lie seem obvious, just as the case of Titanic, even Aisha. If the wealthy on the Titanic knew what we know now, they'd have fought for the boats, as would the riffraff. None, at the time, knew, until too late.

Therefore, before the categoric states of truth or lie are established, there is a state of flux, aka, change; meaning: a process of change. The question then is: is the lie truth, or is the truth a lie? Aisha and even Covid we must not discuss because their truth, or lie, is in a state of flux. Their truth or lie has not been firmly established, and as you say in a case above: "is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent?"

His truth or innocence 'depends' on the situation at the time, but better to say: the truth or lie was in a state of flux. Sure there's ultimate truth or lie when probably every fact is known, but more often than not, it's in flux. Flux involves possible influences on the understanding of truth or lie at the time of an event. Such a flux confronted some US soldiers in Vietnam who carried out the My Lai Massacre. They had been sniped at constantly and their comrades died and were maimed daily, so they shot up a bunch of villagers; men, women and children. At the time the soldiers felt wronged; abused, murdered, and by whom - by people who looked like the villagers at My Lai. As a villager of My Lai, sure you know the Viet Minh, and they would kill you if you don't feed them, even hide them. Then blat, US soldiers annihilate your family and everyone close to you.

My Lai in a cold court is open and shut. Doesn't matter how wronged you feel, you don't shoot up unarmed civilians. But that incident isn't peculiar to My Lai, it's an age-old problem of soldiering, even of general circumstance. The massacre at My Lai was a tragedy of love and hate, a 'Romeo and Juliet' of war. A flux moment; a moment of change, when truth and lie was blurred. A conundrum? Not-at-all, but again, yet another tragedy of the human condition.

So then, does it matter what people believe, or think, or does truth trump that? Depends, doesn't it... Depends on what you value. If you go along with the herd you may get promoted and liked, regardless of truth. If you don't go with the herd, you may get demoted and disliked, regardless again, of truth. Which would you prefer? That's the tragedy of history, and which with stinted facts of the past, those of today reflect upon, supposing naively, even like those before us, that we of the moment have the truth, and those old farts did not.

As for 'shaping society,' you make it sound almost 'scientifically' possible to shape the world, and many have tried. And, as ever, with the best of intentions, oh yes indeed. Shaping can be done; has been done; is in the process of being done. This world now is a result of shaping, and has it gone wonderfully, and will it end well...