make truth?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 2:00 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:29 pm When 100% of the world believed the world was flat, was the world flat?
Just about everybody operating at the every-day human scale still safely assumes the world is flat.
But they're wrong. And we know they're wrong. They were always wrong.

So, as you say,
When 100% of the world believed the world was flat - it wasn't.
When 100% of the world believes the world is an oblate spheroid - it won't be.
When 100% of the world believes the world is some precise digital representation of Earth itself - it won't be.

The one thing they all have in common is this: they are all approximately right but precisely wrong.
Well, my point was this: not that thinking the earth is flat would hurt anybody in a local and practical way (unless they were planning to sail to the edge of it, or something, in which case, they would be disappointed :wink: ) The problem is that at that time every single person in the world though the same wrong thing...and it still wasn't right.

In other words, consensus does not make for truth. It may increase the odds that a belief is likely to be true, but not at all guarantee that. In fact, 100% of the people can be 100% wrong. Furthermore, people's perception that the earth was flat had zero effect on the reality that the earth was spherical.

Facts don't care about beliefs or perceptions. Many of our beliefs do, in fact, turn out to be true (at least approximately). But some turn out to be totally false. The flat earth theory is not the only example of such.

My interlocutor of the moment was putting a lot of emphasis on perception, as if perception could "make" reality. It cannot. It can produce delusions, or it can be reflective of reality; but it cannot change reality itself. It is a postmodern prejudice many of us nowadays have to valourize "perception" as if it is some great achievement or some great change-producer. I suggest that's a prejudice of which we need to be skeptical.
The point really went over your head.

The fact is that there is no fact about the shape of the Earth.

There are various approximations with varying accuracy. All of them are "wrong" - none of them are "right" in the absolute sense of being right.

They only vary in their degree of wrongness.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Impenitent »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:21 am
Impenitent wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:57 pm which is it? do they or do they not "compromise the neurological system"?
The neurological system, like all other physical aspects, are neither life or consciousness.
yet without it, there is no consciousness

-Imp
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:57 pm The fact is that there is no fact about the shape of the Earth.
That's a common mistake: the mistaking of epistemology for ontology.

You don't know what the shape of the earth is, maybe. That doesn't imply, though, that the earth has no shape. All it means is that you don't know what the shape it has is.

One possibility is very easy to rule out: it's not flat. And all the people who believed it was, even though they were, at that time, 100% of the consensus, did nothing to make it flat.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: make truth?

Post by attofishpi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:05 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:57 pm The fact is that there is no fact about the shape of the Earth.
That's a common mistake: the mistaking of epistemology for ontology.

You don't know what the shape of the earth is, maybe. That doesn't imply, though, that the earth has no shape. All it means is that you don't know what the shape it has is.

One possibility is very easy to rule out: it's not flat. And all the people who believed it was, even though they were, at that time, 100% of the consensus, did nothing to make it flat.
Of course it is flat - somewhere, in a particular portion. :D
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:05 am That's a common mistake: the mistaking of epistemology for ontology.
And I am certainly not making such a mistake. All "ontologies" are epistemic artefacts.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:05 am You don't know what the shape of the earth is, maybe. That doesn't imply, though, that the earth has no shape. All it means is that you don't know what the shape it has is.

One possibility is very easy to rule out: it's not flat. And all the people who believed it was, even though they were, at that time, 100% of the consensus, did nothing to make it flat.
Now look who's confusing ontology and epistemology.

Whatever the shape of the Earth is, it's not something any human could ever describe with absolute precision so you can trivially rule out every single human representation/description/model with "it's not that".

And yet you, personally, haven't ruled out that the Earth is spherical even though it isnt. Why?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:05 am That's a common mistake: the mistaking of epistemology for ontology.
And I am certainly not making such a mistake. All "ontologies" are epistemic artefacts.
No, ontology deals with what IS, and epistemology only with what part of it each of us KNOWS.

For example, if there's a tiger in the room, your epistemology may not be cognizant of that fact -- you may not see it, or you may be asleep; but ontologically, you'll still be eaten. The tiger's no "epistemic artefact." :wink:
Whatever the shape of the Earth is,
That's an ontological question.
it's not something any human could ever describe with absolute precision
That's an epistemological problem.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:29 pm No, ontology deals with what IS, and epistemology only with what part of it each of us KNOWS.
Idiot. How could anyone ever address the question "What is there?" if nobody knows.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:29 pm For example, if there's a tiger in the room, your epistemology may not be cognizant of that fact -- you may not see it, or you may be asleep; but ontologically, you'll still be eaten. The tiger's no "epistemic artefact." :wink:
The tiger, eh? Which tiger are you talking about and how do you know it's there?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:29 pm That's an epistemological problem.
By eliminating the description "flat" but admitting the description "spherical" you are making some kind of problem alright.

Why do you admit the description "spherical" when you know it's ontologically wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:29 pm No, ontology deals with what IS, and epistemology only with what part of it each of us KNOWS.
How could anyone ever address the question "What is there?" if nobody knows.
How could anybody ask the question, "What do we know?" if there's nothing to know, and no place in existence in which can exist anything that can be known? :shock: There first has to be something in existence, and only afterward can we ask, "How much of that do we presently know?"

Moreover, one thing that's very clear throughout history it is that at no point in history did everybody know everything there was to know.

So the realm of the ontological is always a bigger category than the realm of the epistemological.

Before we (epistemologically) knew there were germs, for example, germs still (ontologically) existed -- and they still killed millions of people. When we (epistemologically) came to understand about germs existing (ontologically), people died a whole lot less often. Ontological facts continued to be ontological facts, regardless of our epistemology of those facts. Germs always existed.

In the same way, the world was never flat. No matter how many people believed it was, their epistemology was not reflective of the ontology of the Earth. In short, they were just wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:29 pm For example, if there's a tiger in the room, your epistemology may not be cognizant of that fact -- you may not see it, or you may be asleep; but ontologically, you'll still be eaten. The tiger's no "epistemic artefact." :wink:
The tiger, eh? Which tiger are you talking about and how do you know it's there?
Perhaps none. Perhaps one. But whether you know it or not, it will eat you if it's there.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 pm How could anybody ask the question, "What do we know?" if there's nothing to know, and no place in existence in which can exist anything that can be known? :shock: There first has to be something in existence, and only afterward can we ask, "How much of that do we presently know?"

Moreover, one thing that's very clear throughout history it is that at no point in history did everybody know everything there was to know.

So the realm of the ontological is always a bigger category than the realm of the epistemological.

Before we (epistemologically) knew there were germs, for example, germs still (ontologically) existed -- and they still killed millions of people. When we (epistemologically) came to understand about germs existing (ontologically), people died a whole lot less often. Ontological facts continued to be ontological facts, regardless of our epistemology of those facts. Germs always existed.

In the same way, the world was never flat. No matter how many people believed it was, their epistemology was not reflective of the ontology of the Earth. In short, they were just wrong.
Well, you seem to know that Earth has a shape.

How do you know that it has a shape if you don't know what it is?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 pm Perhaps none. Perhaps one. But whether you know it or not, it will eat you if it's there.
Bunch of guys in Russia who have pet tigers.
Image
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:06 am Well, you seem to know that Earth has a shape.
Nobody has ever disagreed about that. 8)

If the Earth exists, it has a shape. Now, at one time everybody believed it was flat. Nowadays, everybody -- all educated people, anyway -- know it's spherical (or, to be precise, approximately spherical, not perfectly so). But even if nobody knew what the shape of the Earth actually was, then everybody would still know it has a shape. Logic guarantees it does.
How do you know that it has a shape if you don't know what it is?
Logic.

Any solid that exists has a shape.
The Earth exists.
Therefore, the Earth has a shape.


Nobody thinks otherwise. But the state of their knowledge has no impact on the reality of the shape of the Earth at all.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by commonsense »

IC is correct. Period.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm Nobody has ever disagreed about that. 8)
Nobody has ever justified it. Not even you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm If the Earth exists, it has a shape.
Earth does exist, but the conclusion that is has a shape does not follow.

Trivially demonstrated by the counter example: water exists and has no shape.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm But even if nobody knew what the shape of the Earth actually was, then everybody would still know it has a shape.
How would they know?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm Logic guarantees it does.
No it doesn't. Logic is only as good as your premises. Garbage in - Garbage out.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm Logic.
Logic doesn't manufacture knowledge out of nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm Any solid that exists has a shape.
Begging the question.

For something to be deemed a "solid" it needs to have a firm and stable in shape.

You've smuggled the conclusion in your premise.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm The Earth exists.
Therefore, the Earth has a shape
Even IF your premise is true you have a hidden assumption in your reasoning. Earth is a solid. Earth has a "firm and stable shape".

Everybody knows that's not true! The Earth is constantly changing. Continents are moving. Volcanoes are erupting. Earthquakes are shifting tectonic plates.

Any non-idiot knows that the claim "Earth has a firm and stable shape" is false. Therefore Earth is NOT a solid.

So here's the alternative argument:

Any solid that exists has a shape.
Earth exists.
Earth is not a solid.
Therefore Earth does not have a definite shape.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm Nobody thinks otherwise.
Nobody thought otherwise when everybody thought Earth was flat. And then somebody did.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 1:20 pm But the state of their knowledge has no impact on the reality of the shape of the Earth at all.
You continue to use the definite article: THE shape of the Earth. Even though you haven't yet justified the claim that Earth has a definitive shape.

Weird, that you are trapped in the tautology of your own making.

You can't really claim that the Earth is a "solid" without first justifying the claim that it has a "firm and stable shape".
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Belinda »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:22 pm if someone lies and more people believe the lie more then don't believe the lie, does that make it the truth?
Nobody knows whether or not there be absolute truth. Absolute truth transcends knowledge. No matter how many people believe some idea or experience being eaten by tigers we cannot absolutely explain truth, nor predict that tigers always will kill and eat people.

Lying is deliberately trying to mislead and has nothing to do with transcendental truth.It is the case that social reality might possibly be founded upon a culture of deliberate lies, and if this happens the society is in trouble unless someone comes along and leads people to knowledge and reason.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: make truth?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:52 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:22 pm if someone lies and more people believe the lie more then don't believe the lie, does that make it the truth?
Nobody knows whether or not there be absolute truth. Absolute truth transcends knowledge. No matter how many people believe some idea or experience being eaten by tigers we cannot absolutely explain truth, nor predict that tigers always will kill and eat people.

Lying is deliberately trying to mislead and has nothing to do with transcendental truth.It is the case that social reality might possibly be founded upon a culture of deliberate lies, and if this happens the society is in trouble unless someone comes along and leads people to knowledge and reason.
What would "absolute truth" even refer to? Or rather what would "truth" be if there can be "absolute truth"?
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Age »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:22 pm if someone lies and more people believe the lie more then don't believe the lie, does that make it the truth?
Of course NOT.

The word 'lies' in your question exposes and reveals thee Truth here.
Post Reply