Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, observable, testable with instrumentation. J.
“…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 - **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
