Rick S said >>> If I ate a peach and told you that it tasted like an apple to me, how could you possibly prove that I was mistaken? It might taste like a peach to you and everyone else. But it still might taste like an apple to me. <<<
You are right. I guess that is what Orn. calls "subjective truths". But that still does not get you very far. If you want me to agree with your assertion that the peach taste like an apple, I would say, OK. Show me how you got to that conclusion. (Freethinker?) :-) Give me the objective standard by which you judge it to taste like an apple? Unless and untill you do that I have no way to judge the "truth" (value?) of your statement that the peach taste like an apple. Now, this is kind of an absurd argument, to me. Things like taste is subjective...and/or rather the description thereof. If you tell me that you had some kind of oceanic feeling, I can't argue with that. But if you want me to believe it as truth, then you have to supply me with an objective standard. Otherwise I will just have to hold off on my judgement of such I guess. By the way, do you equate "truth" with fact or is it just something that feels good? If so, how do you show that? Conversly, if someone were to show you, give you an objective standard that something is real, a fact, would you be open to admit that that "truth" you hold is false...or at the least subjective? Sorry for the ramble. Orn. said >>> including things like black is not red. Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself.<<< Thanks for the feedback Orn. (an stimulating thought for/in me) I can't help but think of Wittgenstien, though. Even if you are talking about the "thing itself" unless you have a standard of what is RED and what is BLACK then it seems to me it still will be "subjective". For instance, what do you mean by RED? It seems meaningless unless you provide a consistent standard of what IS RED. Kind of like the meaningless statements when one talks about "collective consciousness" or "god/God". stemcell On Oct 27, 4:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “…Is truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing?…” – Stem > > No. > > There are subjective truths…including things like black is not red. > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself. > > There are ultimate truths. Truths having to do with the absolute are > in this category. Things like, all is one. > > On Oct 27, 1:20 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn. said this >>> ultimate truth <<< > > > How is that different from mega-truth? A smidgen of truth? etc.? Is > > truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing? How can a woman be a > > little pregnant? > > > stemcell > > > by the way, truthfully, great thread. :-) > > > On Oct 27, 11:40 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > occurring forever.” – Taylor > > > > A few observations here Taylor. First, I’m not sure which ‘truth’ you > > > are talking about when associating the term with science. Is it some > > > sort of ultimate truth? A unified theory? Perhaps you have addressed > > > this elsewhere, but in context your intention is not clear to me. It’s > > > almost a tautology. > > > > As to your apparently rhetorical question about an ontology based on > > > possibilities, perhaps anything at all is ‘possible’? Not wishing to > > > enter into a formal debate here, but it would seem that numerous > > > fallacies are included within that notion. > > > > As to your last speculation, while, again, perhaps anything is > > > ‘possible’, in this context, the reverse is more probable, being the > > > simplest ‘answer’. Perhaps it is a similar thing to one of Zeno’s > > > paradoxes? > > > > All of this said, I do appreciate your candor and openness in this > > > discussion. > > > > On Oct 27, 7:56 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<OK. But Popper?>> > > > > > Quote mining. > > > > > Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > occurring forever.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
