Misconceiving Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by WanderingLands » Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:24 pm

the Hessian wrote: So the conversation deadpools. And the whole thread becomes a performance paying homage to its title and the discouraging consequences of misconceiving truth: people unable to engage other people in productive ways.

I think the persistence of people's inability to engage other people in productive ways is a fundamental problem. That's why I'm invested in this conversation.
I am actually open to engaging with other people on this forum. It's only people who are immature that I ignore.
the Hessian wrote: Look, I've done the courtesy of reading very carefully everything that has been posted, including reading every word of all of the material that was hyperlinked into the discussion. I've done so with an extremely open mind.
Well, you didn't look at it hard enough to maybe try and debunk it. Instead, you sent me a link to RationalWiki which heavily biased and immature on such matters as dissident science, and also is heavily loaded with logical fallacies as I have pointed out in my response to that link of yours.
The fact that a group of people can't even productively engage with something as obviously flawed as Orgone Energy or Aetherometry doesn't inspire much hope for people's ability to productively engage with the more pressing and nuanced problems facing us today.
I actually did try to engage in on Aetherometry. It was you who just simply not only sent me a link, and not even try to disprove the points of Aetherometry, but in my response to my critique of RationalWiki's article on it you then continued on with a song about Orgones instead of directly engaging in me.
I can understand and sympathize with your feeling "frustrated," "depressed" and "alienated from society."

But to effectively demand that others...
  • reject all existing knowledge and "start from scratch"
  • discount the utility of their reason in examining assumptions, checking for coherence in definitions and assuring validity of conclusions
  • overlook or ignore instances of incoherence between beliefs and actual experiences of the real world
  • adopt a paranoid orientation toward anyone who might question what they are doing


...as a pre-requisite of their being worth expending breath on, is breath-takingly delusional.
1. What I meant by "starting from scratch" was not merely to reject all existing knowledge; it means to dig deep into said knowledge and to separate what is true and what is false. It means to reject being camped into whatever philosophy or ideology that you're in and examine it as well as to examine yourself.
2. I do not discount any reasoning or examination. It's actually part of starting from scratch.
3. I am not ignoring the incoherence between beliefs and actual experiences; it is actually part of starting from scratch to examine belief and critique it as well as experiences also.
4. No such paranoia here; only examining what's right ad rational and what wrong and irrational or fallacious.

Also, there is no such "demanding others" in this topic. It's just a request and my proposition that we should start from scratch so we can actually see what's going on in this world, instead of being swayed by others and get caught in the crowd momentum.

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

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:24 pm

WanderingLands;

Hello. Although I have never responded in any of your threads, I have read a few of them. I suspect that you have a good mind, but tend to lean toward idealism on many occasions. I would like to address two points; one of yours and the other was, I believe, Hessian's.

You might want to reconsider the use of words like "absolute truth" or "The truth". If you consider what the words "absolute truth" actually mean, I think you will see my point. In order for a truth to be "absolute", it must be true in all times from all perspectives.

Truth is relative. If I state that I am typing in this forum, it would be the truth; but later tonight, it will not be the truth -- truth is relative to time. If I state that I am an intelligent and good person, it is the truth, from my perspective; but my enemies may well possess another truth -- truth is relative to perspective.

So what would a truth that is true in all times from all perspectives be? It would be a fact. It is true that my coffee cup is a coffee cup, but it is also a fact because it will remain a coffee cup no matter who looks at it and no matter the time of day. All facts are true, but all truths are not necessarily facts. So when someone states that they have found an absolute truth, what they are really stating is that they have found an absolute fact. No one would say that, as it makes no sense. Facts are always absolute, which is why they are facts.

When one starts to mix facts and truth and use them interchangeably, it becomes idealism because it turns truth into facts that don't actually exist as facts. Idealism is the antithesis of realism, and truth is supposed to reflect that which is real. So "absolute truth" is always about idealism, and idealism corrupts the reality of truth, so the words, "absolute truth" actually create an oxymoron by their existence. imo

Regarding your motion and non-motion ideas, I should first state that I do not know diddly squat about science. But I read an article, which I did not really understand, about how a particle can turn into a wave when it is not observed. Now my idea of a wave is motion, but a particle does not seem to me to be motion, so it is both? Whatever it is, it seems to have the science people scratching their heads trying to figure out what the fact of it is. It seems to be relative to perspective, so I can see where someone might want to call this truth. (chuckle chuckle)

Hessian;

That Rational Wiki article that you linked was horrible. WanderingLands is correct in the assessment of that article. Anything to do with rationalism does not belong in a philosophy forum, as rationalism is pure nonsense from a philosophic perspective. imo

G

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:18 pm

Gee wrote:
Regarding your motion and non-motion ideas, I should first state that I do not know diddly squat about science. But I read an article, which I did not really understand, about how a particle can turn into a wave when it is not observed. Now my idea of a wave is motion, but a particle does not seem to me to be motion, so it is both? Whatever it is, it seems to have the science people scratching their heads trying to figure out what the fact of it is. It seems to be relative to perspective, so I can see where someone might want to call this truth. (chuckle chuckle)
I think the confusion in relation to motion and non-motion can come about because light waves are not the same as mechanical waves that need a medium to move through. Unlike water waves for example, light waves don't need a medium to propagate.

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:31 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:
Regarding your motion and non-motion ideas, I should first state that I do not know diddly squat about science. But I read an article, which I did not really understand, about how a particle can turn into a wave when it is not observed. Now my idea of a wave is motion, but a particle does not seem to me to be motion, so it is both? Whatever it is, it seems to have the science people scratching their heads trying to figure out what the fact of it is. It seems to be relative to perspective, so I can see where someone might want to call this truth. (chuckle chuckle)
I think the confusion in relation to motion and non-motion can come about because light waves are not the same as mechanical waves that need a medium to move through. Unlike water waves for example, light waves don't need a medium to propagate.
Particles are always in motion due to the amount of heat/ energy stored within it.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:28 am

Sappho de Miranda wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:
Regarding your motion and non-motion ideas, I should first state that I do not know diddly squat about science. But I read an article, which I did not really understand, about how a particle can turn into a wave when it is not observed. Now my idea of a wave is motion, but a particle does not seem to me to be motion, so it is both? Whatever it is, it seems to have the science people scratching their heads trying to figure out what the fact of it is. It seems to be relative to perspective, so I can see where someone might want to call this truth. (chuckle chuckle)
I think the confusion in relation to motion and non-motion can come about because light waves are not the same as mechanical waves that need a medium to move through. Unlike water waves for example, light waves don't need a medium to propagate.
Particles are always in motion due to the amount of heat/ energy stored within it.

Yes, so the answer to Gee's question is both.

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:44 am

The universe and everything in it moves... whether it is a particle or a wave... the universe moves. Science has never seen anything within the universe that does not move. Even the definition of absolute zero which entails minimal movement, has within that definition... movement.

There is no such thing in the universe to which we exist that does not move... so far as we have observed scientifically. We are so entailed to this universe that we can't even imagine a universe that does not move in terms of what that would mean, because the act of thinking itself requires movement within the brain in order to think.

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:58 am

Monty Python in [b][i]The Universe Song[/i][/b] wrote:Whenever life gets you down, Mrs.Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you've had quite enough

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the 'milky way'

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth

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

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:38 am

Sappho de Miranda wrote:The universe and everything in it moves... whether it is a particle or a wave... the universe moves. Science has never seen anything within the universe that does not move. Even the definition of absolute zero which entails minimal movement, has within that definition... movement.

There is no such thing in the universe to which we exist that does not move... so far as we have observed scientifically. We are so entailed to this universe that we can't even imagine a universe that does not move in terms of what that would mean, because the act of thinking itself requires movement within the brain in order to think.
Sappho de Miranda;

Well, apparently science does not know everything. I would like to make the argument that if you put a virtual anything in front of my teenage grandson, he can be immobile for hours. But you would probably find a way to refute that.

So let's try this; in my home state, Michigan, we have a "No Fault" law regarding auto accidents. It considers that if both autos are moving, then each driver probably had some percentage of fault in the accident, so each takes care of their own vehicle. But if your car is innocently parked in front of your house and an idiot slams into it and demolishes it, then it is the fault of the driver of the moving vehicle.

So, are you going to argue that your car was in fact in motion because everything is in motion? Or are you going to say, "Damned skippy, that idiot better have lots of insurance because he is going to replace my car which was immobile and therefore not at fault in this accident. And he is going to rent me a vehicle to use until my car is replaced because I have to go to work in the morning."?

Truth is all about perspective. Perspective, perspective, perspective.

G

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:11 am

Gee wrote:
Sappho de Miranda wrote:The universe and everything in it moves... whether it is a particle or a wave... the universe moves. Science has never seen anything within the universe that does not move. Even the definition of absolute zero which entails minimal movement, has within that definition... movement.

There is no such thing in the universe to which we exist that does not move... so far as we have observed scientifically. We are so entailed to this universe that we can't even imagine a universe that does not move in terms of what that would mean, because the act of thinking itself requires movement within the brain in order to think.
Sappho de Miranda;

Well, apparently science does not know everything. I would like to make the argument that if you put a virtual anything in front of my teenage grandson, he can be immobile for hours. But you would probably find a way to refute that.

So let's try this; in my home state, Michigan, we have a "No Fault" law regarding auto accidents. It considers that if both autos are moving, then each driver probably had some percentage of fault in the accident, so each takes care of their own vehicle. But if your car is innocently parked in front of your house and an idiot slams into it and demolishes it, then it is the fault of the driver of the moving vehicle.

So, are you going to argue that your car was in fact in motion because everything is in motion? Or are you going to say, "Damned skippy, that idiot better have lots of insurance because he is going to replace my car which was immobile and therefore not at fault in this accident. And he is going to rent me a vehicle to use until my car is replaced because I have to go to work in the morning."?

Truth is all about perspective. Perspective, perspective, perspective.

G
This depends on the reference frame you are using. That is to say,inertial or non-inertial frames of reference. Two observers can agree if they are using the same reference frame,all they have to do is add or subtract velocities in terms of one car moving at a constant speed and one being stationary. On the other hand ,this frame doesn't take into account non-inertial reference frame. An example of this would be the earth rotating. So I guess you could say that science does take into account perspective.

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:55 am

Gee wrote:
Sappho de Miranda wrote:The universe and everything in it moves... whether it is a particle or a wave... the universe moves. Science has never seen anything within the universe that does not move. Even the definition of absolute zero which entails minimal movement, has within that definition... movement.

There is no such thing in the universe to which we exist that does not move... so far as we have observed scientifically. We are so entailed to this universe that we can't even imagine a universe that does not move in terms of what that would mean, because the act of thinking itself requires movement within the brain in order to think.
Sappho de Miranda;

Well, apparently science does not know everything. I would like to make the argument that if you put a virtual anything in front of my teenage grandson, he can be immobile for hours. But you would probably find a way to refute that.
Indeed. On a macro scale, thumbs and lungs are visibly moving. On a micro scale, cellular death and division is occurring. On a quantum scale, particles are moving about atoms.

Given your comments, now in blue italics, I almost feel the need to apologize for daring to refute you as I have done. It's certainly not my intention to offend, and whilst I appreciate that I am rather 'Vulcan' in that I avoid making this an emotive debate, equally, I hope that you appreciate I am nothing more than a challenge your your 'perceptions which perceive as needing re-evaluation... And surely that can't be a bad thing since philosophy is a constant process of re-evaluation.

Whilst it is true that science 'does not know everything' and might I add, nor does it claim to, it is also the case that the journey of science has led to some commonly held 'perceptions' resulting from ordinary observation and repeatable experimentation, of which one includes the notion that particles move.
So let's try this; in my home state, Michigan, we have a "No Fault" law regarding auto accidents. It considers that if both autos are moving, then each driver probably had some percentage of fault in the accident, so each takes care of their own vehicle. But if your car is innocently parked in front of your house and an idiot slams into it and demolishes it, then it is the fault of the driver of the moving vehicle.
Ah... Do you think that you are confusing your concepts of the material world which exists 'out there' in the sensory world and the world of ideas, which exists in your mind and the mind of others who agree with the 'No Fault' social contract and to which no sensory data can be ascribed? I think yes.

In the thought experiment you provided you ask me to compare and contrast the idea of a car accident which has real sensory data... I can see the car is damaged and if I run my hands across the damage, I can feel the damage. If I was there at the time of the accident, may have seen and heard the car being slammed into. Then, you ask me to compare that to a social contract... namely ''No Fault" law' which cannot be tasted, smelled, touched etc.

Social Contracts don't actually exist in reality except as a thought shared and agreed upon or not according to the culture (that is; a collection of social contracts and social traditions) to which you exist. So things like manners, mores, money etc has no tangible existence except as agreed upon ideas.

So, are you going to argue that your car was in fact in motion because everything is in motion? Or are you going to say, "Damned skippy, that idiot...
What do you mean... 'Damned skippy'? is that a racial slur against Australians?

Belief is about perspective and truth is about data.


Then again… being perfectly absolute about it, Descartes had the right of it, when he claimed that nothing can be known except that I think therefore I am.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5329
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:11 am

WanderingLands wrote:There are those who want to know the truth, but many of them have not found it. They become frustrated and depressed. They are polarized into two directions: to either give up or self-destruct, as the journey is truly dark and is full of paradoxes and illusions that perplexes and at times depress people. Why the frustration? Why the depression? They know in their hearts that there is no end, but are too stubborn to go back to square one in searching for Truth.

The others who are either unconscious or unknowing of the seeker's dilemma, or those who don't believe in Absolute Truth (whatever type of philosophy or thought they have), see no value in the search for Truth. Those who don't believe that there is Truth either scoff or criticize with the seekers, and the seekers get even more angry as they feel that they are being somewhat "attacked". The rest, who are the pure masses that just live their small lives, just continue their small lives and just simply ignore the seekers, which alienates the seekers. Either way, the seekers feel misunderstood and alienated from society.

The external struggles reflect and amplify the internal struggles inside the seekers' hearts and mind (possibly Soul or Spirit). Again, why is Truth so hard to find, especially in the world where all sources of knowledge are specialized and separated into even more diverse and pluralistic particulars? Maybe it is because they expect that Truth is too great, and they afraid of hearing the Truth, as they seek salvation and instead find internal agony. Truth is surprising, but it is indeed simple: it has always been there in the endless, eternal Universe. We are all interconnected; a breathing organism of Oneness ~ that is the Truth. You may not literally fly away to Heaven, but that is because Heaven is indeed on Earth (or the Universe), and so once you realize that simple Truth, you will see that all of the particulars are interrelated and thus make more since than what you have made it out to be.
The truth, yes...

Not all experience depression or frustration, and one need not start at square one, as the truths already learned do not disappear when one experiences lulls in their understanding of universal truths.

The truth is never disappointing, rather only those that sell themselves at the expense of truth, as the truth always sets one free. Those that only see a glittering prize, as the only worthwhile endeavor, never to acknowledge the truth of their programmed disease cause depression and frustration in me. Especially if they are responsible for the reckless steering of the human ship, that unfortunately we're all aboard.

If one could live in their own world, unaffected by the ramifications of others selfishness and recklessness, then no problems would I have, a utopia of my own design or rather that of the universe, realized by those that truly listen, as it creates this life, the miracle, the chance to experience the beauty of existence, oh the marvel, the wonder, this symbiotic biosphere, billions of years in the making.

It's indeed unfortunate that many men turn their heads, reeling at the fear of their death, creating unneeded dramas as a means of distraction in facing that ultimate plight. Better to revel in the beautiful moments saving that dread for the end, where it belongs, as then one might just find that there is really no need to take heed to that fear, amongst all that life's worth, of truly living, as the contrast would be staggering, to say the least, potentially rendering that fear meaningless.

If that time was so good, it could only be worth it!

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

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:17 pm

Ginkgo wrote: This depends on the reference frame you are using.
Agreed. The perspective.

G

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

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:58 pm

Sappho de Miranda wrote:
Gee wrote:Well, apparently science does not know everything. I would like to make the argument that if you put a virtual anything in front of my teenage grandson, he can be immobile for hours. But you would probably find a way to refute that.
Indeed. On a macro scale, thumbs and lungs are visibly moving. On a micro scale, cellular death and division is occurring. On a quantum scale, particles are moving about atoms.

Given your comments, now [no longer] in blue italics, I almost feel the need to apologize for daring to refute you as I have done. It's certainly not my intention to offend, and whilst I appreciate that I am rather 'Vulcan' in that I avoid making this an emotive debate, equally, I hope that you appreciate I am nothing more than a challenge your your 'perceptions which perceive as needing re-evaluation... And surely that can't be a bad thing since philosophy is a constant process of re-evaluation.
Please forgive me. While typing the above response, my sight fell on the coffee cup in front of me and stimulated my sense of humor. The coffee cup in question has a caricature of an old woman with a frown on her face and her hands on her hips, and on the cup is written, "Raising teenagers is like trying to nail jello to the wall". If you have never raised teenagers, you may not know how frustrating and funny this is.

Please consider that "Spock, the Vulcan" was in fact the most compassionate character on Star Trek. The Doc and Captain Kirk were both "passionate", and this was used in contrast to Spock's compassion. Compassion is still an emotion, but it is guided by thought.

I am not sure that I could agree that philosophy is "a constant process of re-evaluation". That seems more in line with what science does; it proves something, learns more, then re-evaluates. Philosophy is more of an exploration. imo
Sappho de Miranda wrote:Whilst it is true that science 'does not know everything' and might I add, nor does it claim to, it is also the case that the journey of science has led to some commonly held 'perceptions' resulting from ordinary observation and repeatable experimentation, of which one includes the notion that particles move.

Well, I don't do science, I do philosophy. Specifically I study consciousness. Decades of study have produced my definition of consciousness as a "self-balancing chaos, motivated by want, in perpetual motion". Some physics people at a science forum noted that my definition could also be applied to matter, so I think that ordinary observation and perception can have some merit.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:
So let's try this; in my home state, Michigan, we have a "No Fault" law regarding auto accidents. It considers that if both autos are moving, then each driver probably had some percentage of fault in the accident, so each takes care of their own vehicle. But if your car is innocently parked in front of your house and an idiot slams into it and demolishes it, then it is the fault of the driver of the moving vehicle.
Ah... Do you think that you are confusing your concepts of the material world which exists 'out there' in the sensory world and the world of ideas, which exists in your mind and the mind of others who agree with the 'No Fault' social contract and to which no sensory data can be ascribed? I think yes.
I disagree. To divide the "material" world from the "idea" world is a false dichotomy. Matter and mind are both part of physical reality.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:In the thought experiment you provided you ask me to compare and contrast the idea of a car accident which has real sensory data... I can see the car is damaged and if I run my hands across the damage, I can feel the damage. If I was there at the time of the accident, may have seen and heard the car being slammed into. Then, you ask me to compare that to a social contract... namely ''No Fault" law' which cannot be tasted, smelled, touched etc.

Social Contracts don't actually exist in reality except as a thought shared and agreed upon or not according to the culture (that is; a collection of social contracts and social traditions) to which you exist. So things like manners, mores, money etc has no tangible existence except as agreed upon ideas.
No. What I asked you to do is admit to cause and effect. To say that everything is motion is to deny a large body of cause and effect. It is like when science states that all of reality is energy, yet I can not plug my cell phone into reality, I have to plug it into an electrical socket or get batteries. Truth is about perspectives, and this thread is about truth.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:
So, are you going to argue that your car was in fact in motion because everything is in motion? Or are you going to say, "Damned skippy, that idiot...
What do you mean... 'Damned skippy'? is that a racial slur against Australians?
No it is not. It is a colloquialism that means an absolute affirmative like "you bet your boots" or "you can take that to the bank". It never occurred to me that it could be taken as a slur, so I would like to apologize to all the Mates down under.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:Belief is about perspective and truth is about data.
No. Belief relates to emotion; truth relates to perspective; data is fact.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:Then again… being perfectly absolute about it, Descartes had the right of it, when he claimed that nothing can be known except that I think therefore I am.
Descartes also told us to doubt ourselves. He was a brilliant man, who gave us a lot with regard to logic and math, among other things. But it is a damned shame that he did not have the foresight to realize that people would corrupt his "I think therefore I am", into "anything that does not think, or does not think well, is therefore not". This corruption has allowed us to inflate the value of intelligence, or good thinking; and to devalue anything or anyone who does not have greater intelligence, or not good thinking. An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species.

G

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:33 pm

Gee wrote:An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species.
G
When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.

Look, G, I have some sympathy for what I think you're trying to say. But, what does perspective have to do with the apparent truth of water freezing at 0C? Or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equaling the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Or the conversion of fuel into mechanical energy that helps me drive to work every day? Even the differing perspectives about motion that you referenced can be expalined using formulae that describe these differing relations.

There are lots of things that are perspective, perspective, perspective. Value judgements, aesthetic tastes, design choices. We can make a mess of things when we try to assert too much truth here. But we can also make a mess of things when we try to deny or distort truth where we know better.

I owe Wandering a response to her response to my rant a while back. I haven't forgotten. I'm just unpacking and working through exactly what I want to say. My point isn't really about Orgone energy per se. But it does seem to be a great example of what can happen when things get flipped upside down, and value judgements, aestehtics tastes and design choices become truths, and empirical and logical truths become a matter of perspective.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by cladking » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:56 pm

the Hessian wrote: When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
1913.

The downfall of western civilization began with "Totem and Taboo".

IQ tests go back somewhat further.

Look, G, I have some sympathy for what I think you're trying to say. But, what does perspective have to do with the apparent truth of water freezing at 0C? Or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equaling the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Or the conversion of fuel into mechanical energy that helps me drive to work every day? Even the differing perspectives about motion that you referenced can be expalined using formulae that describe these differing relations.
We believe water freezes at 32 degrees because that's what our thermometers usually show when it begins freezing. It even feels like 32 degrees to some people when water freezes.

So? This doesn't mean we understand water, ice, vapor, or clouds. It doesn't mean we understand why it freezes at 32 degrees unless it supercools. This might be an easy question that I should know the answer for but what happens to the vast amount of heat that is supposed to be released when supercooled water freezes? There should be 80 calories per gram released when supercooled water turns to ice. If it were retained it would warm the water to above freezing making the process impossible.

This is probably something that is understood but it still highlights how people see what they know and what they don't know is invisible to them.
There are lots of things that are perspective, perspective, perspective. Value judgements, aesthetic tastes, design choices. We can make a mess of things when we try to assert too much truth here. But we can also make a mess of things when we try to deny or distort truth where we know better.
There is such thing as absolute truth but it's only true from a defined perspective and in defined terms. Everything else is perspective. We "believe" in modern science but most people can't define it much less understand it. Few scientists even have a metaphysial understanding of it. Everything exists within a framework of what we believe and a framework or format imposed by language. We are our thoughts and our thoughts are in language. Specialization complicates this further still.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests