Can we know the truth?

Post Reply New Topic

This question is simple: can we know the truth?

Of course, this is a multiple choice poll as well, because I *love* polls, but can we actually know the truth? If we can know the truth, then how? Why is this method usable? Note: for truth, we can substitute in a phrase such as "theory of everything" or anything else as to fit how one would like to conceptualize "truth" in the rather generic way I am using it.

I think that the poll options are self-explanatory, but I will quickly go through them.

"Yes, the truth is simple to find" - There is a truth about reality and the ultimate nature of this truth is easy to reach through our data. Some examples of this idea can include religions certain religions that claim to have the truth.

"Yes, with a lot of effort" - There is a truth about reality and this can be deduced through great effort through processes such as science. An example of this might be a person who thinks that physics will eventually find a theory of everything or a mystic that thinks that enough inward revelation will lead to a final state of enlightenment.

"No, the truth is impossible to find due to limitations on data acquisition & processing" - There is a truth about reality, and this cannot be found despite trying. Elements of this truth can be found, but there is so much data that we cannot effectively deal with it all. An example of this idea may be a person may be a scientist who thinks that there is too much complexity in the universe and change for it all to be understood, or an agnostic who believes in mystical experiences but that making sense of them or bringing all of them coherently together is beyond us.

"No, the truth is impossible to find out because the data required is beyond knowing" - There is a truth about reality, but this requires knowledge that we cannot have in theory. An example of this idea may be the agnostic who claims that the existence of a deity is a real question but not an answerable question.

"There is no truth" - Truth does not exist, the statement "There is no truth" does not even make sense. This idea is essentially nihilism, and can be found in nihilists.

"What I think *is* the truth" - Truth exists and I designate what is true according to what I believe or say is true. Examples of this idea are solipsists or people who believe that truth is a personal construct.

Why didn't you vote? I chose:

I was, however, tempted to go for the last option (what I say=truth). I suppose which of the two I go for depends on how stringent a definition of "truth" I have in mind at any given moment, so I could conceivably give very different answers to this question if you asked me again tomorrow.

Given the obvious limitations of finite humans not only in information procession but also in the failure of our senses to reliably provide us with accurate information, it is impossible for an individual to be completely certain of anything, and group consensus is likewise impotent to define truth for a variety of reasons, the easiest to delineate being a quote from my favorite author: "Sanity is not statistical."

I would have predicted that you to go for one of the last two options, but then given your lackluster description of the nihilist argument I'm guessing you hold that view rather in contempt. Still, you don't seem one to ever make claims about absolute truth, and I've seen you argue some post-modernist stuff, so I'm betting you're either "truth is a personal construct" or "truth is unknowable" for whatever reason.

I am unsure how it would be appropriate to distinguish 'knowledge' from 'belief' in this poll. Could you be more specific?

I don't suppose the answer "maybe" is acceptable?

The truth is out there

Here is an excerpt from the original post.

There is no absolute truth, because in infinity, all so-called truths in this universe are ultimately paradoxes in the limitless probabilities, of something that is a inconceivable intangible paradoxical chaos in itself.

No, the truth is impossible to find due to limitations on data acquisition & processing
No, the truth is impossible to find out because the data required is beyond knowing


I will go with both options, if I understand correctly, I think there are similarities between them.

Not sure how to answer. I get hung up on how to define 'the truth'. Do you mean all of it? I mean, it's not very hard to figure out bits of it, we do it all the time. But all of it? How do you define all of the 'truth'? It's too vague a question to really answer properly.

In other words, it's 42.

Ah, now I want to change my vote. The truth is very simple, especially since AG offered "theory of everything" as a possible definition of truth. "42" tells us not only this, but it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Even better than truth.

Now we need another thread to find out what the question is.

Well yes, that tells us how we can use the word "truth", but my problem is with how we use the word "know" in the phrase "know the truth". How we distinguish knowledge from belief seems important, I am just unsure what the convention for this is...

If you feel confident that you can be certain of something, than you can say you KNOW it. If you are still unsure, but think something sounds plausible, that is belief.

Of course, people claim to know when they really just believe, but then you have to acknowledge that people may hold false beliefs (I am assuming for convenience's sake that an objective reality exists, so I'll ignore any post-modernist rebuttal to this claim). If you think it is possible to claim something with absolute certainty, consider that to be knowledge.

Well, twoshots, here is my answer: "I really do not care". You draw your own lines as the very last option DOESN'T acknowledge a difference to exist as, while others seem to. So, belief and knowledge do not carry a difference unless you want them to.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 05 Jun 2008, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, not too vague at all. You are assuming that I am trying to be incredibly analytical. I am not. The fact of the matter is that the definition of truth used can actually vary between the options selected and possibly the selected option WILL vary almost completely based upon the definition of truth. If I defined truth, then there would be a straightforward correct answer, and the real question up there would be "how good are you at logic?".

Similarities but major differences. I basically was trying to define the former as a technical problem, and the latter as an epistemological problem. The former means that theoretically YES we can know, but we are just so limited that realistically we cannot. The latter means theoretically NO we cannot know, as certain questions are simply not answerable at all given any conceivable method of consistently finding truth.

But my answer depends on what definition you give me. The difference is just semantics (as is the rest of the debate). Ah whatever.

Using my most stringent criteria:
"No, the truth is impossible to find out because the data required is beyond knowing"