This is not meant to be a treatise on the subject of truth, but merely the harmonising of the various discussions and thoughts on truth that have been represented on our site, so that they are presented more cogently.
Truth could be defined as the true or actual state of a matter.
Unfortunately it is not that simple, since philosophically there is no agreement on what truth is or how it is determined.
To summarise some recent blogs:
Joe King recently suggested that "truth is the way you see it. There is no “one” truth, but there are half-truths and blatant lies." His opinion is that there are deliberate half-truths and blatant lies. Perhaps, but half-truths and blatant lies are truth to somebody else. So it becomes a circular argument.
This is closely associated to a comment by Fish Eagle where she states that "the problem is that truth is relative. Your truth may not be the same as mine." Indeed, truth is very much a matter of perception.
Andrea then provided a posting highlighting the Bright Side of Optimism. People tend to seek out evidence that is aligned with their hypotheses, and to associate with like minded people. Therefore perceived truth is reinforced. So if you hang around with enough like minded people there tends to be a lot of self-congratulation, and truth rarely advances.
Which reminds me of a book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational (not very good), where he shows that people have a tendency to reinforce their expectations. So if you believe something beforehand, your mind tends to reinforce your view. This is why two people supporting two different ideals, who observe the same incident, will describe what they saw differently e.g. apparent police brutality on black people.
Of course the whole debate around truth was brought to the fore by Diamed, who mentioned some trivia in isolation and got the tongues wagging. Actually this may yet prove to be a watershed moment for some. Andrea highlighted that facts are not always just the observed evidence, which takes us to the issue of deciding what constitutes facts. Facts of course constitute many things, the measurable, the observed and the reasoned, and the ability to uncover facts is dependent on intellect.
Somewhere in all of this Vanilla Ice drew attention to Bullshit, which is worthy of a read. Bullshit, it seems, is not concerned with truth or lies but with results. In other words it is manipulative. Moreover Bullshit is inevitable when you ask people to comment on subjects that they know nothing about.
Commentary
So what does this all mean? It means that we are probably all guilty of prejudice. We live in a knowledge age, so we are usually in possession of some information beforehand. Rarely do we research our opinions, so we base our beliefs on the little information we have and we defend these positions. We then seek out associations that reinforce our views, creating an insular group and we present our group think as proof of the facts. Anyone that disagrees with us is either a liar or is dispensing half truths.
This is where science comes in. Science has as its mantra, the pursuit of truth. It is immaterial that somebody may get a Ph.D in the mating habits of fleas, or that the topic is considered irrelevant, or that the findings were incorrect. What is relevant and noble, is the contribution towards the pursuit of truth. Truth has nothing to do with major breakthroughs but everything to do with the incremental additions to an existing body of knowledge. Remember this the next time you want to shoot an academic down in flames.
So what constitutes truth? Well for me truth is based on the preponderance of probability from a scientific perspective. The more research conducted in an area, the more the findings will converge over time giving you a good idea as to the state of things e.g. IQ and its implications, and is the reason why scientific freedom must be protected, and political correctness rejected and vilified.
Scientific findings coupled with my sense of observation and reasoning will usually give me good grasp of what the truth may be. However I need to be liberal and intelligent enough (and this is the key) to be able to accept the truth, even when it is inconvenient. Now this is a pipe dream in a world dominated by religion, race and ethnicity, with each demanding their right to not be offended, which is tantamount to the suppression of truth.
Moreover, intelligence is crucial. Without a reasonable level of intelligence (say an IQ of 90) you will not be able to differentiate between truth, half-truths and lies, but will accept "truth" as presented to you by somebody that you align yourself with, and you will not have the cognitive ability to guard against Bullshit. This is where manipulation comes in and probably explains why the ANC will remain in power until the second coming of Jesus Christ, in other words forever.
So, in essence, we need to constantly challenge our beliefs and conventional wisdom by encouraging dissenting views, always demanding evidence, and use our powers of observation, reasoning, common sense and intellect to arrive at our truth.
Is it possible in the world we live in? Probably not, but it is still worth striving for.
So what does this all mean? It means that we are probably all guilty of prejudice. We live in a knowledge age, so we are usually in possession of some information beforehand. Rarely do we research our opinions, so we base our beliefs on the little information we have and we defend these positions. We then seek out associations that reinforce our views, creating an insular group and we present our group think as proof of the facts. Anyone that disagrees with us is either a liar or is dispensing half truths.
This is where science comes in. Science has as its mantra, the pursuit of truth. It is immaterial that somebody may get a Ph.D in the mating habits of fleas, or that the topic is considered irrelevant, or that the findings were incorrect. What is relevant and noble, is the contribution towards the pursuit of truth. Truth has nothing to do with major breakthroughs but everything to do with the incremental additions to an existing body of knowledge. Remember this the next time you want to shoot an academic down in flames.
So what constitutes truth? Well for me truth is based on the preponderance of probability from a scientific perspective. The more research conducted in an area, the more the findings will converge over time giving you a good idea as to the state of things e.g. IQ and its implications, and is the reason why scientific freedom must be protected, and political correctness rejected and vilified.
Scientific findings coupled with my sense of observation and reasoning will usually give me good grasp of what the truth may be. However I need to be liberal and intelligent enough (and this is the key) to be able to accept the truth, even when it is inconvenient. Now this is a pipe dream in a world dominated by religion, race and ethnicity, with each demanding their right to not be offended, which is tantamount to the suppression of truth.
Moreover, intelligence is crucial. Without a reasonable level of intelligence (say an IQ of 90) you will not be able to differentiate between truth, half-truths and lies, but will accept "truth" as presented to you by somebody that you align yourself with, and you will not have the cognitive ability to guard against Bullshit. This is where manipulation comes in and probably explains why the ANC will remain in power until the second coming of Jesus Christ, in other words forever.
So, in essence, we need to constantly challenge our beliefs and conventional wisdom by encouraging dissenting views, always demanding evidence, and use our powers of observation, reasoning, common sense and intellect to arrive at our truth.
Is it possible in the world we live in? Probably not, but it is still worth striving for.
0 Opinion(s):
Post a Comment