Rick S said >>>Let's say someone gives an unconvincing argument even though he is correct<<<
That is what I want to find out. How would I know he is correct and how does HE know He is correct? I understand the subjective point. But how am I to judge that HE is in fact correct. How is he to relate to me that I am wrong and HE is correct? We need SOME kind of objective standard to judge. So, am I "correct" in assuminng that HE sees truth as relative? stemcell On Oct 27, 6:18 pm, Rick S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The word "truth" is sometimes applied as a kind of final conclusion. > It reminds me of the 19th century scientist who confidently said that > there was no more left to learn in science. Of course, the idea of > what is truth has been debated for centuries. I cannot give a short, > pat answer. As for me trying to prove some subjective proof to you > through objective means, I doubt that I could. They are different > versions of reality that exist simultaneously. Your last point brings > up an interesting idea. Let's say someone gives an unconvincing > argument even though he is correct. The truth remains the same > regardless of his ability to articulate it. Though he may then be > crushed in a debate by an opponent, who would probably feel that his > argument was proven, the truth remains unchanged. There are many ways > to win an argument. There might be fewer ways to discern the truth. > > Rick S > > On Oct 27, 5:45 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
