Hi y'all - sorry I'm a bit late on this and that's no lie. "Define truth" Here's a definition that I like: "The conformity of a proposition to the way things are. Precise analysis of the nature of truth is the subject of the correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, redundancy, and semantic theories of truth."
Please don't ask me who determines the way things are - that would be too subjective. On Oct 28, 12:20 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Orn said >>> Convention. Agreed upon. > ‘truth’...<<< > > That still does not tell me what "truth" is other than what someone > says it is. A majority might DISbelieve evolution but that does not > make it false. > > Orn said >>> By know, I mean have direct experience rather than a > shared > notion of what a word means. <<< > > Define truth? What do you mean "direct experience"? How do I judge > that? If it is not some "absolute" , no gradations or variations, > then it is meaningless. This is my point. If one is to say that > someting is true, then one needs to provide an objective standard that > EVERYBODY can agree upon, independent of how they FEEL. For > instance. I can measure the room temp, which is cold by the way, an > find that it is 39 degrees. If I do this over and over (and that said > room is constant) then even if I say that I think the room is 100 > degrees then I am mistaken. But if I say that it is 39 degrees, then > I am making a truth statement. There is no subjectivity in there. > > Orn. Thank you for the conversation. I hope it continues. :-) > > Humanist said >>> Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, > measurable, observable, > testable with instrumentation.<<< > > How so? Is your BLACK my BLACK? Is your RED my BLACK? Tell me how > you can measure a subjective claim like that? > > stemcell > > On Oct 27, 11:15 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…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.” – Stem > > > Yes stem, all concepts are subjective. This includes the notion of > > color and other sense organ things. We have a convention about what in > > these realms is ‘true’ (small ‘t’) and what is not true. Example: a > > stop light is red, the go light is green. Convention. Agreed upon > > ‘truth’. Nothing objective in an ultimate sense yet though. Someone > > who is red/green blind comes to mind here to show yet another reason > > why it is relative/subjective too. > > > “Kind of like the meaningless statements when one talks about > > "collective consciousness" or "god/God".” – Stem > > > Well, these things are ‘meaningless’ if one does not know what they > > are. By know, I mean have direct experience rather than a shared > > notion of what a word means. Always has been that way. This is one > > fairly good example of why negative theology has been around > > ‘forever’. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology > > > On Oct 27, 3:45 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
