100% certainty is often Illogical

Post Reply New Topic

I don't agree. I managed the perfect small
deception, which would have made everything
better, but couldn't BEAR it. Had to confess far
too much.

I am perfectly capable of lying, where it's not
the heart of the matter - for a joke, or to protect.
But, when it comes to putting a false face up, it
seems so absolutely wrong that I've been damned
for CHOOSING not to lie many a time.

It seems to be like that, as it appears that 'Truth' is not an absolute, it is appears to be relative according to a few philosophies and orthodoxes, while 'Fact' appears more scientific related, which is not always 100% certainty.

Science is a philosophy so I do not think that the distinction makes much sense. I agree with the second aspect, we do not know all of the social issues tied up with truth, it might also be related to our greater rigid ethicality on some level but if we knew how to handle the world on the NT level then we could probably be as machiavellian as the next person.


There is nothing to say that truth isn't absolute, given that truth can often be defined as accordance to fact I don't see why a distinction must exist. In human knowledge there is no absolute truth besides things that are true by definition(4+4=8 for example as given how 4, 8, and addition are defined the statement must be true), and someone who questions logic might question that as well.

i absolutely agree.

however, i partly disagree with greenblue: truth, according to different philosophies can be either a total absolute, completely relative, something inbetween... a big step was made, though, when the focus took a shift from ontology to epistemology, through the insight that IF there is an objective, independent world with a truth of the same feats, we have absolutely no connection to it.
for truth to be absolute, science would be the worst way to approach it, for science is nor objective/universal neither concerned with absolutes. it is merely intersubjective and therefore highly subjective.

In mathematics there are true facts and false facts. A fact is defined as a statement which can be proven to be true or false. So, "God is in heaven" is not a fact, but 2+2=5 is. It's just a false fact. Just don't try to tell that to a neurotypical.

Two issues. One, the whole concept of "false facts"
is something of a mis-used semantics, which started
to be fed to children for some reason. Facts were always
items which were 'true'. The problem came when certain
modern philosophical schools began to deny that there
is any objective truth, and the linguistic philosophers
began to look as facts as a particular type of speech,
rather than any assessment of the verity. A type of
speech which can indeed be proven.

But, taking this further, proofs are impossible without
underlying assumptions, or axioms. Now, these are
essentially matters taken on faith. In addition, our
entire logical system, by which we engage in this
play called 'proofs', is also based on axioms. So, the
whole grounding of these proofs is a matter of conventions,
based merely upon linguistic devices. 2 + 2 = 5 is indeed
true, under certain algebras.

I think that truth by definition relates to objective knowledge and that other definitions are not useful. Now, I think the issue is not that we are unconnected to an objective truth but the nature of our connection is uncertain, as it can either be a falsehood or very good approximation of truth.

If science is the worst way to look at truth then what better way can you propose given the notion of a logical, outside world? Science is at least systematic and built around logic and empiricism. It is significantly less subjective than most other subjects which are built completely around intersubjectivity.

Well, you would have to tell the NT that you are working in a different system than he/she is used to before you proceed with the notion of a false fact, as within standard definitions of terms that is entirely false.

Yes, but the science that this is based on is based on this human created mathematics system that you understand. this system is only as good as the tools that we have used to create it (in this case our perceptions that 4+4=8 are based on our definitions of numerical concepts defined as symbols). these systems only go as far to say that within the capacity of the human mind as it defines sensory input, this system is correct. The problem arises that our own senses are limited, and thus the concepts that arise from them are as well. So saying 4+4=8 is saying that within our perceptual mathematical system limited by our mind and senses, we cannot percieve any instance that 4+4=9. so we are limited by the tools we use and are born with. another example would be that observed with one set of tools light appears as a wave, observed with another set, it appears as a particle. conclusions are limited to the tools we use to make them.

But your explanation doe not explain why we are that way if first place. Why do we have this weakness.

An NT, salesman, pastors , and politicians survive by manipulating the truth. Making it better then it really is, by hook or crook. Even pastors are responsible for selling Christianity.

A scientist needs to be honest with his co workers. As there are no benefits to believing that 4+4=9 or believing in an atom is bigger then car, or the sun evolves around the moon. If an NT saleman become a math scientist 4+4= (whatever give him pig profits). When religious NTs people get hold of astronomy, you end up with astrology.

we are beings with limited perceptions and tools, our minds cannot comprehend the entire universe, just our niche in it. "truth" does not really exist at this level, it can be manipulated, just some are easier to manipulate than others. physics is a good example: Einstein replaced Newton who replaced Aristotle, our understanding changed but it is limited to the tools we have to observe it. every truth can be replaced with another. we are this way because we are defined by our limits.

Einstein supplemented Newton, he did not replace him. Newton's gravity was not revoked, it was expanded. An object on Earth still falls in the way Newton described. But gravity behaves differently under non-earth conditions ... when travelling near the speed of light, or when falling into a black hole, the time-space continuum is different than it normally is on Earth.

Aristotle was important in moving us away from Plato's view of the world (pure, disembodied logic) to one based on empiricism, and that remains a major current in western thought. His physical science was not that amazing - mostly qualitative stuff that was abandoned in the 1600s when empiricism was re-adopted. But he got the ball rolling.

i wouldnt necessarily insist on objective knowledge (of an outside world) - there are absolutes, but they are quite focussed on the subject itself.
given that there is a world outside, there sure is a connection, but we dont have any connection to the objective, independent-of-us-world. what we see in our collected data from the world is what we put into it: colors, causality... you name it.
science sure is systematic and has a stringent set of rules - but it is after all a special form of our subjective worldview - not a tool to get info of an objective world, but to make statements about the way we perceive the world.
science is a great tool for making things work - but in the end, its not a tool to gather information about the world-in-itself or truth.

calandale:
regarding maths as a science, you are right - due to the regulations of science, there need to be axioms. however, talking about maths when referring to truths usually doesnt mean maths as science but maths as the "thinking practise" (sorry, i dont know a better word for it). of mentally making the judgement that 2+2=4...
there is an apodictic evidence in maths... its just not connected to the rules or whatever of science and it also isnt in any relation to the outside world (there dont need to be two things in order for the number two to exist)

Well, there are things that every person with a functional brain or sensory organs would agree on, such as measurements. Now, we could all share this delusion, but if such were true then all knowledge would be impossible.
If we have a connection to the world then we have a connection to be objective world, we merely have a subjective filter. The fact that we describe our world in crude terms and numbers does not mean that these things lack any reality to them.
But nothing is better than science to find an objective world. If empirical data if not admissible in the pursuit of this knowledge then nothing else can serve us better. I am not claiming that science lacks subjectivity, I am merely claiming that the incredibly high intersubjectivity of science makes it more likely to hit objectivity as there are no multiple logics, or value statements so much as factual statements that all people who seriously look at the information can understand and effectively critique.
If science fails then nothing can replace it as a data finder. The fact of the matter is that in order to make things work we must know about them anyway, so I do not see how the making things work aspect of it is separate from information gathering.

replace, suplement, its all semantics my point was that the Newtonian model was not as definitave as it was once thought.

Not really. Take linear measurements, for example. How they are understood by an individual is to an extent subjective and dependent on that person's education and profession. An inch means something completely different to a bricklayer than to someone machining components for the aerospace industry, for example. The bricklayer's inch as a measurement is useless to the latter. I suppose that's analagous to what would be called being economic with the truth in the vernacular, though without the suggestion of there being deceitful intent. The inch in the aerospace case is qualified with a tolerance, it is a fuller truth than in the former case.

Last edited by ascan on 20 Sep 2007, 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.