Truth

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Truth

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 am UTC

What is your definition of it?
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:55 am UTC

There isn't one?

Do you want an ultimate Truth?

Objective Truth?

Subjective Truth?

Implied Truth?

All things are true to those that believe them.
Somethings that they believe are not true.

The 'truest' truths are those that multiple people come to subjectively, and these may represent some facet of an actual truth.

I think, to avoid crap like what I've posted above, you should specify more of what you intend to actually discuss.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
e946
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:32 am UTC

Postby e946 » Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:06 am UTC

Running.

What is your definition of it?

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: Truth

Postby yy2bggggs » Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:43 am UTC

Maseiken wrote:What is your definition of it?

Truth is the degree (yes, it's variable, and may not always be measurably variable) to which a description matches the thing that is being described.

It should be noted that a major portion of truth, in my definition, is a description--something that is being meant. The statement "birds fly, pigs do not" is true, as is "cos^2(theta)=1-sin^2(theta)", and, "Sherlock Holmes had a pipe". All three of these statements are true in completely different types of ways, and the only real thing they have in common is the relationship between what is meant by each of the statement and the thing being described.

I reserve the right to refine my definition as I discover more accurate ways of defining what I already mean by truth, as well as the right to self referentially emphasize that sometimes we mean things more precisely than we can define them.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:16 am UTC

I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

I believe that only untruths come in degrees - ranging from untruth by omission to blatant lies.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Aeltar
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:07 pm UTC
Location: Yes, please!
Contact:

Postby Aeltar » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:26 am UTC

I think truth (and the telling thereof) is defined as such:
A person is telling the truth if they are stating all relevant details, being concise and accurate, and intending to not deceive.

Lies are still lies if committed by omission. If you say, "Bob has red hair," and Bob has red hair with some brown streaks, you are telling a lie. The same principle applies to more complex issues.
functionally_stupid wrote:If you ever feel the urge to say "I love you" to a friend, a lover, a parent, who-the-fuck-ever - say it. SAY IT. I cannot stress this enough.

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:55 am UTC

SilverWolfe wrote:I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

I believe that only untruths come in degrees - ranging from untruth by omission to blatant lies.

I think that truths can come in degrees. Take, for example, the statement: the earth is flat. We know this to be untrue from various observations; however, locally, we can accurately describe a small region of earth as being flat. We can now improve upon this with the following statement: the earth is a sphere. This explains the observations that were inconsistent with the flat earth theory, and creates an pretty accurate model of the whole planet. However, we can improve upon this with the statement: the earth is an oblate spheroid. This model more accurately describes the earth: we see our planet has a bulge near the equator due to a centrifugal force from the earth's rotation. This model is still not perfectly accurate as the bulge is slightly larger in the southern hemisphere than it is in the northern hemisphere.

All of my above statements have some degree of truth. The only statement I would expect to find people arguing is outright false is "the earth is flat." The truth of that statement only applies when modeling a very small portion of earth. And, in fact, I would argue that "the earth is a sphere" contains enough truth to be useful to most people: I can think of few situations where the added truths about bulges near earth's equator would be necessary.

All this being said, you could argue that each of my above statements are false and simply becoming less false with each refinement. I, rather, think of them as incomplete: each statement contains a higher degree of truth than the previous but further refinement may be possible yielding statements with an even higher degree of truth. With each refinement, the theories of physics contain a higher degree of truth: general relativity and the standard model may be incomplete, but they are not false or lies.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:08 am UTC

bonder wrote:
SilverWolfe wrote:I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

All of my above statements have some degree of truth.

All this being said, you could argue that each of my above statements are false and simply becoming less false with each refinement. I, rather, think of them as incomplete: each statement contains a higher degree of truth than the previous but further refinement may be possible yielding statements with an even higher degree of truth.

That is what I would personally call "degrees of untruth". Note that I didn't comment on the appropriateness of these degrees - that would be a topic for another thread. Also: to me a lie and an untruth are not necessarily the same thing; and an untruth by ommission or incompleteness does not automatically make something "false". I'm simply placing "truth" at the very extreme end of a scale where something is complete, honest, and accurate - and calling everything below that an "untruth".

Roughly:

Truth - Untruth by Incompleteness or Omission - Minor Changes to the Truth (minor lies) - Major Changes to the Truth (major lies) - Falsehoods/Outright Lies

If that makes any sense at all.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:06 am UTC

But any truth you believe is reliant on a multitude of other factors that you assume to be true, either because of prior evidence (Also questionable) or because it is inconceivable to believe that they are not true.

Any one of these truths is similarly reliant, and any alteration to what is actually the case could conceivably lead you to an entirely incorrect worldview.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:31 am UTC

SilverWolfe wrote:I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

I believe that only untruths come in degrees - ranging from untruth by omission to blatant lies.

Is honesty necessary?

If a creationist lied and said that we evolved, would that statement not be true?

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:20 pm UTC

Andrew wrote:
SilverWolfe wrote:I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

I believe that only untruths come in degrees - ranging from untruth by omission to blatant lies.

Is honesty necessary?

If a creationist lied and said that we evolved, would that statement not be true?

No, the statement would not be true because I do believe that honesty is integral to the "complete package" that is truth - or some such ill-defined nonsense that helps me explain my world view.

I think I need some sleep...
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:59 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Postby Andrew » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:29 pm UTC

Interesting. I would call that statement true because it accurately reflects real life.

Would you consider it false? Can a statement be neither true, false, nor nonsense?

Lester :P
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Lester :P » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:30 pm UTC

SilverWolfe wrote:
Andrew wrote:
SilverWolfe wrote:I think truth is pretty absolute: it is an accurate, complete, and honest description or statement.

I believe that only untruths come in degrees - ranging from untruth by omission to blatant lies.

Is honesty necessary?

If a creationist lied and said that we evolved, would that statement not be true?

No, the statement would not be true because I do believe that honesty is integral to the "complete package" that is truth - or some such ill-defined nonsense that helps me explain my world view.

I think I need some sleep...


I agree that honesty is integral, but I don't think not telling someone or distracting them to talk about something else is lying, lying is when you deliberately say something that you believe is false.
`When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-Neither more nor less.'
`The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,'said he,`Which is to be master-That id all.'

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:20 pm UTC

What if someone tried to con someone in the 15th century by selling them a book about how the earth was round.

They believe themselves to be lying...
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

Lester :P
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Lester :P » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:42 pm UTC

Maseiken wrote:What if someone tried to con someone in the 15th century by selling them a book about how the earth was round.

They believe themselves to be lying...


Yes, they are lying, but it's the truth.
`When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-Neither more nor less.'

`The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,'said he,`Which is to be master-That id all.'

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:43 pm UTC

...
So are we talking Derrida here or....
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
Invisible_Insane
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:53 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca. Occasionally Brooklyn.
Contact:

Postby Invisible_Insane » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:44 pm UTC

Lester :P wrote:
Maseiken wrote:What if someone tried to con someone in the 15th century by selling them a book about how the earth was round.

They believe themselves to be lying...


Yes, they are being deceptive, but it's the truth.
fix'd.
God is to Microsoft as Human Nature is to Windows Vista.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:16 pm UTC

A noun. In another form it can be an adjective. And sometimes an adverb.

It relates to facts, but like everything else in language, it's connection with a concrete is fairly loose and easy to shake free, given the context of the surrounding words.

Like everything else in language, context is key.

That's the truth.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:48 pm UTC

That's not a definition,
that's a set of vague boundaries.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
peri_renna
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:52 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby peri_renna » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:55 pm UTC

I think bonder has it pretty close - truth is proportional to the degree of correspondence with reality. "Force equals mass times acceleration" is very true, under most circumstances - it's only when you get [big masses, high velocities, and long distances/small masses and very short distances] that it stops corresponding.

Anyway, I don't get why people keep saying the earth is flat. It's not! There's a hill right over there, and somebody dug a ditch down there, and there's lumps that'a'way from tree roots, etc., etc., etc. "The earth is flat" is false - corresponds poorly with reality - because it makes no sense on the small scale (see above) and makes no sense on the large scale (see ... well, further above).
I try to avoid criticizing people when they are right. If they genuinely deserve criticism, I will not need to wait long for an occasion where they are wrong.
- Eliezer Yudkowsky, "Einstein's Arrogance"

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:58 pm UTC

Truth is observable and subjective to context.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
peri_renna
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:52 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby peri_renna » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:02 pm UTC

Sure. bonder and I would agree - we observe the degree of correspondence to reality in the context we're using.

Man, I love this definition! :D
I try to avoid criticizing people when they are right. If they genuinely deserve criticism, I will not need to wait long for an occasion where they are wrong.
- Eliezer Yudkowsky, "Einstein's Arrogance"

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Okay then.

The true or actual state of a matter | conformity with fact or reality | a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like | the state or character of being true | actuality or actual existence | an obvious or accepted fact | ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience | agreement with a standard or original

Trying to define truth is ultimately futile; for every person who says Truth = Fact and approaches it on a scientific, verifiable basis you have a philosopher who approaches it as a universal ideal that links persons of different cultures together with a common thread of understanding. And there's also smarmy bastards like myself who reject both as being overly simplistic while at the same time overly complicated for the sake of being complicated.

Truth is a belief. Sometimes one's beliefs and facts line up with each other, sometimes they do not. (Hey! Bring religion into it! Okay!) For every devout Christian who knows in both their heart and mind that a universal truth is that God sent his only son to earth to die for the benifit of mankind, removing original sin and allowing his creations to ascend to Heaven to spend eternity by his side, singing his praises... you have an athiest who knows the truth of self-delusion. Or a Buddhist who knows the truth of allowing material desires to cloud one's being.

It's a belief. And I believe it's a poorly defined set of boundaries within a linguistic context.

Better?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:15 pm UTC

It's how close something is to the platonic ideal, instead of just being a shadow. So there are degrees of truth, and once you reach a certain threshold (that is context dependent) you have "truth".

Which is why I kind of don't like the word, as it implies assumptions that I do not agree with.

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:34 pm UTC

peri_renna wrote:Anyway, I don't get why people keep saying the earth is flat. It's not! There's a hill right over there, and somebody dug a ditch down there, and there's lumps that'a'way from tree roots, etc., etc., etc. "The earth is flat" is false - corresponds poorly with reality - because it makes no sense on the small scale (see above) and makes no sense on the large scale (see ... well, further above).

When someone says that the earth is locally flat, they mean that the average curvature of a piece of earth is very nearly zero. You can have a piece of earth with curvature = 0 with hills and ditches if the ditches "cancel out" the hills in the curvature calculation.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

User avatar
OmenPigeon
Peddler of Gossamer Lies
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:08 am UTC
Contact:

Postby OmenPigeon » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:59 pm UTC

bonder wrote:When someone says that the earth is locally flat, they mean that the average curvature of a piece of earth is very nearly zero. You can have a piece of earth with curvature = 0 with hills and ditches if the ditches "cancel out" the hills in the curvature calculation.


Or it could be a football field.

Also, calling statements which don't satisfy some platonic ideal of TRUTH 'partial untruths', and then claiming that you haven't made a judgment about their 'appropriateness' is pretty silly. The word 'untruth' has a negative judgment built into it.

Leaving truth to Plato also leads inexorably to the conclusion that no true statements exist. This, in my opinion, is frightfully silly. Clearly, no statement is going to capture the entirety of TRUTH, that doesn't mean that we can't accept close approximations.

Heh. I started thinking about statements being an epsilon away from TRUTH, and then got on to thinking about a series of statements (like bonder's, above) that approached TRUTH in the limit, and what sort of hoops I'd have to jump through to define a way of taking the limit of a function that generated truer and truer statements. Because all we can really do when someone starts questioning truth is throw math at them. Or, something. Maybe?
As long as I am alive and well I will continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in scraps of useless information.
~ George Orwell

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Postby Maseiken » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:55 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Okay then.

The true or actual state of a matter | conformity with fact or reality | a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like | the state or character of being true | actuality or actual existence | an obvious or accepted fact | ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience | agreement with a standard or original

Trying to define truth is ultimately futile; for every person who says Truth = Fact and approaches it on a scientific, verifiable basis you have a philosopher who approaches it as a universal ideal that links persons of different cultures together with a common thread of understanding. And there's also smarmy bastards like myself who reject both as being overly simplistic while at the same time overly complicated for the sake of being complicated.

Truth is a belief. Sometimes one's beliefs and facts line up with each other, sometimes they do not. (Hey! Bring religion into it! Okay!) For every devout Christian who knows in both their heart and mind that a universal truth is that God sent his only son to earth to die for the benifit of mankind, removing original sin and allowing his creations to ascend to Heaven to spend eternity by his side, singing his praises... you have an athiest who knows the truth of self-delusion. Or a Buddhist who knows the truth of allowing material desires to cloud one's being.

It's a belief. And I believe it's a poorly defined set of boundaries within a linguistic context.

Better?

yes

SecondTalon wrote:Trying to define truth is ultimately futile

Well... yeah, that's why I made the damn thread!

Bonder wrote:When someone says that the earth is locally flat, they mean that the average curvature of a piece of earth is very nearly zero. You can have a piece of earth with curvature = 0 with hills and ditches if the ditches "cancel out" the hills in the curvature calculation.

Well, since the earth is a gravitational mass, it's curvature is pretty close to a good'ole'sphere,
You would have to have a pretty curvy Crater to counteract that curvature, and it still wouldn't be flat in the immediate sense, it'd feel like a big bowl. wow... that's REALLY weird. it's kind of hard to imagine... I'm not even sure what I'm imagining anymore...
EDIT:Plus... what if you took it off earth... would your perception of it change? Blurghergrrpshg... creepy.
Last edited by Maseiken on Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

lukkucairi
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Postby lukkucairi » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:56 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
It's a belief. And I believe it's a poorly defined set of boundaries within a linguistic context.


it's a socially-negotiated construct.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:16 am UTC

Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?

lukkucairi
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Postby lukkucairi » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:50 am UTC

zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


because we need the concept for our societies to work.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:38 am UTC

lukkucairi wrote:
zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


because we need the concept for our societies to work.


So it's like "good and evil", or "punishment" then?

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:38 am UTC

Maseiken wrote:
Bonder wrote:When someone says that the earth is locally flat, they mean that the average curvature of a piece of earth is very nearly zero. You can have a piece of earth with curvature = 0 with hills and ditches if the ditches "cancel out" the hills in the curvature calculation.

Well, since the earth is a gravitational mass, it's curvature is pretty close to a good'ole'sphere,
You would have to have a pretty curvy Crater to counteract that curvature, and it still wouldn't be flat in the immediate sense, it'd feel like a big bowl. wow... that's REALLY weird. it's kind of hard to imagine... I'm not even sure what I'm imagining anymore...
EDIT:Plus... what if you took it off earth... would your perception of it change? Blurghergrrpshg... creepy.

I was only referring to looking at a small region of earth's surface. Of course the earth cannot be flat when you look at the earth as a whole. It's been a while since differential geometry, but I'm pretty sure you can't have a closed surface with a curvature of zero...in any case, the earth is certainly not one.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

User avatar
OmenPigeon
Peddler of Gossamer Lies
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:08 am UTC
Contact:

Postby OmenPigeon » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:00 am UTC

zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


... because there are true things?

To digress into pedantry, I didn't say that it would be silly to say there was no such thing as truth. I said it would be silly to say there are no true statements. Maybe there isn't a difference or it doesn't matter, but just in case lets be precise. We are talking about truth, after all.

So, yeah. It's silly to say there's no such thing as a true statement because there are true statements. "The square root of two is irrational," "the earth is a sphere," the earth has a bulge in the middle," "I have a small bit of metal in my pocket" are all true statements.

On the basis of the evidence, I'm inclined to reject any definition of truth that denies that true statements exist.
As long as I am alive and well I will continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in scraps of useless information.

~ George Orwell

User avatar
Narsil
Ask me about my junk!
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:59 pm UTC
Location: Columbus.

Postby Narsil » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 am UTC

Truth is what we call it when we're too scared to admit we're lying or don't know what we're talking about.
Spoiler:
EsotericWombat wrote:MORE JUNK THAN YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR

Mother Superior wrote:What's he got that I dont?
*sees Narsil's sig*
Oh... that.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:09 am UTC

OmenPigeon wrote:
zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


... because there are true things?



No, there are things we see often enough to believe in.

You cannot ever demonstratably prove an objective 'Truth'.. not even that one. :P

You can narrow done Subjective Truths till they appear to be commonly experienced across the board.. but that doesn't make it objectively True.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:12 am UTC

VannA wrote:
OmenPigeon wrote:
zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


... because there are true things?



No, there are things we see often enough to believe in.

You cannot ever demonstratably prove an objective 'Truth'.. not even that one. :P

You can narrow done Subjective Truths till they appear to be commonly experienced across the board.. but that doesn't make it objectively True.


That doesn't mean there are no true things even if we cannot know them.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:16 am UTC

If you can detect it, you can measure it, you are affected by it.

If you cannot be affected by it, if you cannot detect it, and you cannot measure it, you cannot demonstrate its existance.. which removes it from being a Truth.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

lukkucairi
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Postby lukkucairi » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:38 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
lukkucairi wrote:
zenten wrote:Why is it silly to say there is no such thing as "truth"?


because we need the concept for our societies to work.


So it's like "good and evil", or "punishment" then?


yep, essentially our justice system relies on the concept of objective truth to function.

other stuff too, like morals and values - "truth" is an entry point for creating a society that rises above anarchy and rule of muscle.

nrioq
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:13 pm UTC

Postby nrioq » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:10 pm UTC

The problem with defining 'truth' is that it is a word that has different meanings depending upon the context. I mean more that just "what kind of truth", objective, subjective, etc. Sometimes when people say truth, they mean a fact (something that can be proven by physical observation), other times they mean something that has been proven by mathematics or logic, and other times they are referring to a general statement about life.

My personal preference is to not use the word in regards to conclusions made by facts/science or mathematics/logic since it is a poorly defined word that does not add to the clarity of either. One can debate the foundations of them and whether they are truth, but I find calling the results of such endeavors truth is not helpful.

So narrowing that down, my first iteration of the definition of the truth is:

Truth - A statement or concept based on what is real or based on the nature of reality or life.

User avatar
DeadCatX2
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby DeadCatX2 » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:19 pm UTC

lukkucairi wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:It's a belief. And I believe it's a poorly defined set of boundaries within a linguistic context.

it's a socially-negotiated construct.

Truth is based on a consensus. If we all agree it's true, then it's true. Truth is malleable and can be changed as the consensus changes.

So, I agree with "socially-negotiated construct".


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests