A Measure of Truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Mark Question » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:40 am

THOse Gategories of Truth reminds me about THOse Truth Theories.

Still, there is One absolute Truth and starting Point for Descartes and us All. Logical Truth.

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Mark Question » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:25 am

Hjarloprillar wrote:Fact&Truth.101

On earth, if i push glass off table. it will fall.
There are no recorded incidences where it does not.
Ever.
'truth' ?

Show me one incidence where the glass does not fall.

knowledge, truth, belief. all rolled into a law that governs our universe.
One does not 'argue' about existence of gravity.

have you noticed?
The 1st absolute
If such a definition helps the confused

We dont really 'know how gravity works' We just know it as FACT.[truth]
It is an effect to us. yet everything in our world is governed by the law.

Why is there such a law is what we could bee talking of.
Not this ego driven babble.

Gee. I enjoy your posts and while i may not agree with all that you say i think we are on same page. [so to speak]
[Consciousness.. as in your profile.... and law. i bet you were 'misunderestimated' :lol: ]

good thread
You Can fool WHOle Society of Ants. You Can play with Other Animals and GIve Them facts You like. You Can be play Toy Too. YOUR facts Can be what Ever Some Wants if it is Brighter Than You and us All. it Can be artificial Intelligence Too. its ancestors Can be robotic Vacuum Cleaners and nonplayer characters..

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by HexHammer » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:04 am

Mark Question wrote:THOse Gategories of Truth reminds me about THOse Truth Theories.

Still, there is One absolute Truth and starting Point for Descartes and us All. Logical Truth.
What you say is kinda incoherent, could you stop writing in weird ways and say it plainly in lay terms?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:17 am

Hi guys;

It has been so long, that I forgot that I had this thread. I would like to thank everyone for responding, and although it is a little late to address the issues, below are my thoughts on your responses.

Bill;

I enjoy viewing a lot of your posts, but some are too far out for me. I live in Southeast Michigan, so yes, we are neighbors.

Voice of Time;

I don't agree with your assessment. There is a difference between knowledge and information, and that difference is truth. When we have knowledge, what we have is a true reflection of something that is real, but information does not require truth and can just be a bunch of garbage. Do you disagree? I think that our difference of opinion is just semantics.

Hexhammer;

I agree that science is always changing, learning, and adapting, which is why I stated that Acceptable Truth is only reliable for the foreseeable future.

You are also correct in your statement that Common Truth is never 100%. It can't be because it is subjective and subject to the variable personalities, perspectives, focus, and memory of the subjects. Most scientists and many philosophers reject subjective truth because it is not 100% reliable, but I think this is a mistake. When we reject subjective truth, what we are doing is rejecting experience. We are saying that experience means nothing because it can not be proven reliably.

But if we take people who have common experiences, and we extract the information that is commonly held to be true, and that information is consistent with at least 90% of the subjects, then I think that we can reasonable accept that it is a common truth. People who get scarlet fever usually have a high and dangerous temperature, so does this mean that I will get a high fever if I get scarlet fever? No, but it is likely that I will because it is a common truth -- so get out the aspirin.

I think that there are a lot of ways that Common Truth can give us valuable insights into subjective experience, but we can not accept everything subjective to be truth. So I set the percent at 90 or above, because I think that if it is below 90%, then we are not considering some crucial information that would redefine what the subjective truth actually is, such as: Some people who get scarlet fever have damage to internal organs, but this is not that common, so it is not a common truth -- it is a possibility. But prior to antibiotics and fever reducers, it may have been a common truth.

Hjarloprillar;

Thank you. Although I left this forum and did not respond to your post, I did read and think about it. I skipped truths that had already been discovered. I was so busy trying to find something to help me in my exploration of truths, that I forgot the ones that others before me have learned about. So I created another category, Discovered Truths. These would be Laws of Physics that science uses, and Laws of Nature and Universals that philosophy uses. There is a great deal that is already established in Discovered Truths.

Mark Question;

Logical truths are only of value under some very specific circumstances. They lead to misinformation and lies under other circumstances.

Regarding Absolute Truth or The Truth, these are my thoughts. A truth that is absolute is a truth that is consistently true under all circumstance, from all perspectives, and without regard to time, so it would be a fact. There is no such thing as the Absolute Fact; the words would never be used together. When people put absolute in front of truth they are usually talking about idealism.

G

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Mark Question » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:03 am

Mark Question;
Logicaltruths are only of value undersomevery specificcircumstances.They lead to misinformationand lies underother circumstances.


Analytic thinking like philosophy is only of value under some very specific circumstances? It leads to misinformation and lies under other circumstances?
Can you give one example?

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Mark Question » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:07 am

HexHammer wrote:
Mark Question wrote:THOse Gategories of Truth reminds me about THOse Truth Theories.

Still, there is One absolute Truth and starting Point for Descartes and us All. Logical Truth.
What you say is kinda incoherent, could you stop writing in weird ways and say it plainly in lay terms?
Please show me the incoherence you found.

Weird or not, my skills in english are poor.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:39 am

Mark Question wrote: Gee stated: "Logical truths are only of value under some very specific circumstances.They lead to misinformation and lies under other circumstances."

Analytic thinking like philosophy is only of value under some very specific circumstances? It leads to misinformation and lies under other circumstances?
Can you give one example?
Mark Question;

Please note that I was not talking about "analytic thinking". I like analytic thinking -- a lot. What I stated is that we can not always trust "logical truths". Logic, rationalization, critical thinking, and more methodologies are all part of analytic thinking, and each one of these methods can be used properly or improperly producing truth or lies.

One example might be when I decided to learn Formal Logic. I found an on-line site and started to read the introduction, where it explained that logic has nothing to do with truth. It stated that something that is true can be logically proven false; something that is false can be logically proven true. So I thought to myself, "What is the point of Formal Logic?"

I set out to examine these methodologies and yes, analyze them. What I discovered is that logic and rationalization are both internal examinations of truth; they test truth by comparing two or more things. I believe that Heidegger referred to them as "school room tools" used to examine theories. They work very well to disprove a theory because the ideas in the theory are known, or at least theorized. But how does one compare unknowns? Can it be logical that something that I may or may not be thinking is comparable to something that I may or may not be doing? Of course not. Logic requires known things.

Science uses logic and rationalization a lot, because science deals with knowns; but philosophy deals in unknowns, so this is where logic and rationalization can fail. Consider the following thought experiment:

A man is going to (a) drive or (b) fly to his closest neighbor's house for dinner. The logical and rational answer would be (a) drive, because we do not fly to our neighbor's house for dinner -- often we walk. But if the man were a forest ranger, who lived on the side of a lake and owned a sea plane, and his closest neighbor lived four miles away on the other side of the lake, then the answer would be (b) fly.

So logic and rationalization can both fail us when there are unknowns involved. In that case, we need to go back to critical thinking, which examines all of our supposed and assumed facts. Critical thinking is like examining puzzle pieces in that comparison is not required, only intense study. Once we are sure of our facts, then we can use logic or rationalization to compare what we think we know.

It is my thought that Descartes, being one of the most rational men ever born, was very aware of the limits of logic. He understood logic well, both it's strengths and it's failings, so he told us to doubt ourselves. He was warning us about suppositions and assumptions. imo

G

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Mark Question » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:17 am

Gee wrote:
Mark Question wrote: Gee stated: "Logical truths are only of value under some very specific circumstances.They lead to misinformation and lies under other circumstances."

Analytic thinking like philosophy is only of value under some very specific circumstances? It leads to misinformation and lies under other circumstances?
Can you give one example?
Mark Question;

Please note that I was not talking about "analytic thinking". I like analytic thinking -- a lot. What I stated is that we can not always trust "logical truths". Logic, rationalization, critical thinking, and more methodologies are all part of analytic thinking, and each one of these methods can be used properly or improperly producing truth or lies.

One example might be when I decided to learn Formal Logic. I found an on-line site and started to read the introduction, where it explained that logic has nothing to do with truth. It stated that something that is true can be logically proven false; something that is false can be logically proven true. So I thought to myself, "What is the point of Formal Logic?"

I set out to examine these methodologies and yes, analyze them. What I discovered is that logic and rationalization are both internal examinations of truth; they test truth by comparing two or more things. I believe that Heidegger referred to them as "school room tools" used to examine theories. They work very well to disprove a theory because the ideas in the theory are known, or at least theorized. But how does one compare unknowns? Can it be logical that something that I may or may not be thinking is comparable to something that I may or may not be doing? Of course not. Logic requires known things.

Science uses logic and rationalization a lot, because science deals with knowns; but philosophy deals in unknowns, so this is where logic and rationalization can fail. Consider the following thought experiment:

A man is going to (a) drive or (b) fly to his closest neighbor's house for dinner. The logical and rational answer would be (a) drive, because we do not fly to our neighbor's house for dinner -- often we walk. But if the man were a forest ranger, who lived on the side of a lake and owned a sea plane, and his closest neighbor lived four miles away on the other side of the lake, then the answer would be (b) fly.

So logic and rationalization can both fail us when there are unknowns involved. In that case, we need to go back to critical thinking, which examines all of our supposed and assumed facts. Critical thinking is like examining puzzle pieces in that comparison is not required, only intense study. Once we are sure of our facts, then we can use logic or rationalization to compare what we think we know.

It is my thought that Descartes, being one of the most rational men ever born, was very aware of the limits of logic. He understood logic well, both it's strengths and it's failings, so he told us to doubt ourselves. He was warning us about suppositions and assumptions. imo

G
rationalization,critical thinking,and more methodologiesare all part of Logical thinking.

logically proven false is logical Truth.

how does one compare unknown is asking how does one compare unthinkable. your knowledge is your thinking.

Descartes was analyzing via logical abstract aproach, not via realism or other Isms. That was the New big thing and wittgenstein continued from That, i Think.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:34 am

Gee wrote:Voice of Time;

I don't agree with your assessment. There is a difference between knowledge and information, and that difference is truth. When we have knowledge, what we have is a true reflection of something that is real, but information does not require truth and can just be a bunch of garbage. Do you disagree? I think that our difference of opinion is just semantics.
Knowledge certainly has something to do with truth. Never heard of false knowledge? I think you are inventing an opinion on knowledge here and not making a very informed description of something which is basically a cultural construct (meaning it isn't a firm object of inquiry but subject to situational use), since while the notion of "knowing" exists in all or virtually all cultures, the notion of "knowledge" is much more historically, culturally, technically and paradigmatically defined.

Too much has been said about knowledge that you could possibly try to make up a mind for what it is here and now, and no, there is no common sense for which you could return to either, people simply doesn't use the word in the same way, all that is similar of all instances of its use is its relation to "knowing", but at this loose relationship everything stops.

Your idea of "true reflection of something that is real" is also pure imagination, there is no such thing as a "reflection" that a human being can hold in its mind. Human beings are subject to a thousand and one different filters that infer with any purity of reflection (although I have to ask if a reflection could even be made, since what we are seeing is in fact not what is true about what we see... we understand from what we see only what we need to understand, not necessarily what we see), it is so muddy when it arrives that it's only representative of its own mud, and certainly no reflection of anything. Human beings process stimuli -> we don't reflect reality.

And while you say that information does not require any truth to it, the same is for knowledge. Religious knowledge, is also knowledge, and I'm not talking about divine sensations, I'm talking about religious texts for instance or preaches. It's all just garbage, all just silly stuff that we interpret, and incorporate into ourselves to form knowledge that is such similar it is possible for religious people to form religious-intellectual connections, and share their "experiences" of faith, religion and the religious bodies.

It is all, simply, wrong... what you say.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:23 am

Mark Question;

Please consider the following:
Mark Question wrote: rationalization,critical thinking,and more methodologies are all part of Logical thinking.
If you go to Wiki and type in "Logical thinking", you will be referred to "Critical thinking", so maybe we are talking about the same thing -- just using different words. I have no problem with Critical thinking. My comments related to logic, pure logic, and it's failings.
Mark Question wrote:logically proven false is logical Truth.

But that "logical Truth" may not be true, if you do not have all of the facts. Consider that all people understand that one can not live life on a ball; the idea is ridiculous. One needs a flat surface to build a home, to plant a field, and to live life, so the idea that the Earth was a sphere was logically untrue -- besides, people on the bottom would fall off. So it was Logical truth that the Earth was flat.

Eventually we discovered that Earth was a huge sphere, so it appeared flat, and that gravity holds people onto Earth no matter where they live. This was also a Logical truth, but it was more true because it had more facts.
Mark Question wrote:how does one compare unknown is asking how does one compare unthinkable. your knowledge is your thinking.
Actually thinking can be guessing, or speculating, or imagining, or fantasizing, or a lot of other things -- it is not necessarily knowledge. Thinking can be right or wrong, it can be truth or lies, so when you compare two things that you are thinking about, you can come up with garbage if your thinking is not based on facts, truth, and/or knowledge.

Logic is only valid when dealing with facts or truths, is useless when dealing with the subjective mind of others, and is useless if the facts are misrepresented or missing. Consider that a computer works with logic, but if you put bad data into a computer, it will spit out the most ridiculous things. A computer is pure logic and has no ability to reason.

G

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:37 am

The Voice of Time wrote: Knowledge certainly has something to do with truth. Never heard of false knowledge?
I think the words "false knowledge" are a misnomer at best and probably an oxymoron in fact.
The Voice of Time wrote:Your idea of "true reflection of something that is real" is also pure imagination, there is no such thing as a "reflection" that a human being can hold in its mind.
I disagree here, but will concede that you may not be able to hold such an idea in your mind.
The Voice of Time wrote:It is all, simply, wrong... what you say.
Clearly you disagree with my interpretation of the word "knowledge".

So, Oh Great One, could you kindly give me your interpretation of the word "knowledge"? In one sentence.

G

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:48 pm

Gee wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote: Knowledge certainly has something to do with truth. Never heard of false knowledge?
I think the words "false knowledge" are a misnomer at best and probably an oxymoron in fact.
I don't. And if knowledge couldn't be false, then a lot of things wouldn't make sense in speech or thought. It simply doesn't work to treat knowledge as if it's detached from "right/wrong, false/true, correct/faulty" dichotomies. It doesn't make sense considering how people use it and I don't see somebody having their own niche meaning to be able to convey any authority on the matter.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:51 pm

"Historically, culturally, technically and paradigmatically defined specifications of knowing."

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by HexHammer » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:41 am

Mark Question wrote:Please show me the incoherence you found.
Mark Question wrote:Still, there is One absolute Truth and starting Point for Descartes and us All. Logical Truth.
- what is 1 absolute truth? ..never heard of any irl absolute truth, only in silly philosophy fora where they never ever gets to prove it, but talks about it 24/7.

- suddenly you speak of starting point for Descartes and us all ..how would that be a starting point if we in the first place doesn't know the absolute truth?

- what is logical truth? ..people with poor logic like rainmen or retards ..wouldn't understand it, infact it suggest you don't know much about intelligences and cognitive abilities.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:48 am

The Voice of Time wrote:"Historically, culturally, technically and paradigmatically defined specifications of knowing."
So knowledge is a true reflection of historic, cultural, technical, and paradigmatic specifications? I can work with that. (chuckle chuckle)

I think you like to argue with me.

G

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests