A Measure of Truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:01 pm

Like all philosophers, I have spent a lot of time contemplating "truth", and find it to be illusive. Truth is not an absolute, so THE truth, or absolute truth, or ultimate truth, is illusion or idealism. Truth is a reflection of reality, and it is necessary to understand it in order to acquire knowledge; but it is not static, it is forever changing as reality is forever changing. Some truths seem to be more stable however; so, I broke truth into categories of reliability: Simple Truth, Conceptual Truth, Acceptable Truth, Common Truth, Classic Truth, and Philosopher's Truth. These have become my measures of truth.

Simple truth is the opposite of false and lies. This category of truth is very transient and can turn false rather quickly. An example is; I am alive--truth, but it may not be truth in an hour. So this truth is only relative to the "now" of whenever the truth was made or told.

Conceptual truth is truth that has been designated and agreed upon, and as such it is a very reliable truth. Examples of this kind of truth are measurements, directions, language, etc. But then true north adjusts itself, gallons are now liters, and inches are centimeters, so this truth can also change. One aspect of Conceptual truth that is convenient, is that whatever breaks an established truth also usually supplies the material needed to recreate a better truth, so it is still very reliable.

Acceptable truth is truth that can be verified in at least three different ways, preferably from three different kinds of perspectives and is an objective truth. This truth requires evidence and is commonly used by science, Courts, and people in general to establish a truth. An example; What if I saw a poisonous snake on my couch? It looks like a snake, I am afraid, but it does not make sense to my mind because poisonous snakes do not live in my area. I do not accept this truth that is offered to me, I check. I watch the snake or throw something at it to see if it is a snake or one of my grandson's toys, then follow up that test with the appropriate action after I have discovered an acceptable truth. Most science falls under the category of acceptable truth. This does not mean that acceptable truth can not change, as it can and does, science often revises their own truths (facts) to make more acceptable truths when they discover more information. Acceptable truth is more than just "now"; it is a truth that can be relied upon for the foreseeable future.

What I can not accept as Acceptable truth is a "truth" that is established through only one kind of perspective, as this can too easily be falsehood. An example would be a truth based solely on mental deliberations, no matter how logical those deliberations are, they are likely to be rationalization rather than truth. An example of the physical would be something like statistics, no matter how valid, the interpretation can be invalid. An example of spiritual would be a belief in anything that has nothing to support it, as that would look like opinion to me. To be an Acceptable truth, I would need to have some kind of corroborating evidence from another kind of perspective--preferably three perspectives. Example: The police find two people dead at a table, both shot with the same gun, and the gun in the hand of one of them. Many people would accept that one person shot the other, then themself. But I would want a motive for the shooting and a witness that could state that there were not three people originally at that table.

Common truth is truth that is common to at least 90% of a category of people. It is a subjective truth and must be treated as such. There are some philosophers and scientists, who believe that there is no such thing as subjective truth--that is not so. Common truth is knowledge or behavior shared by people who share a commonality, and can include; who people are, what people are, where people live, and common experiences of people. It should be considered that people's Common truths are intermingled as two people can be religious and nonreligious, employer and employee, single and married, but both share the same illness giving them a commonality. So why is Common truth worthy of consideration? Because Common truths can give us knowledge and understanding that could only be otherwise acquired by being all things and knowing all things. Since none of us are God, that is an impossibility, so we acquire truth, knowledge, and understanding where we can find it. Example: Most babies will study the image of a face; this is a Common truth. If your baby does not, it may be of no consequence, but it may also be a good idea to check out baby's vision or watch for signs of Autism.

There is a danger in viewing Common truth in an objective manner. One can not assume that because a person is a child that they will want to play with another person who is also a child, or that one person who is an employee will identify with another person who is an employee. Common truth is subjective, to view commonality in an objective manner is to walk a path that can lead straight into the ignorance of prejudice. Common truth is also transient and lasts only as long as the commonality, but the knowledge obtained through the commonality is valid and can be viewed objectively. So Common truth can give us information, facts, knowledge, and understanding that can be relied upon as truth for the foreseeable future.

Classic truth is just what it sounds like--classic. Whether common or acceptable, these truths have survived as truth for at least a thousand years, and so they are classic truth. Classic truth is no more reliable than Acceptable or Common truth, but it does have the test of time on it's side, so to overturn Classic truth, one needs to have more proof than would be required to overturn an Acceptable or Common truth. The longer a Classic truth is accepted, the more proof is required to overturn it. A specific example of Classic truth would be the idea that the world is flat. It took a long time to overturn that truth. But Classic truth can be relied upon as it is initially an Acceptable or Common truth that has been validated by time.

Philosopher's truth is truth that has been proven to be Acceptable, Common, and Classic. If it does not meet the requirements of all three, then it is not Philosopher's truth. My intention is to categorize a truth so reliable and strong that philosophers can use it to challenge other truths, use it to help build new truths, and to base wisdom upon. A specific example of Philosopher's truth would be that humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. In order to overturn a Philosopher's truth, evidence from both, Common truth and Acceptable truth, would have to be brought to bear, because if evidence invalidated only one aspect of truth, then the Philosopher's truth would simply downgrade to Classic truth. I think that Philosopher's truth could be as reliable as any law of nature.

Occasionally there is a truth that can not be proven, is not commonly known, and is new, and so it does not fit into the above categories. This can be called a possibility, or a probability, or a theory, or hypothesis, but it can not be called truth. It would be difficult to be a person, who has possession of such a truth, always wondering if they are mad or brilliant, but such is the nature of truth.

So, members, how reliable to you think my measures of truth are?

Gee

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:53 am

.













............................................................................
Image







What part of Michigan do you live in?








.

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

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:55 am

Why do you keep asking?

Gee

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:06 am

.






Um, I'm looking for the truth.



Why do you keep avoiding?



Why are you so measured?








.

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 » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:53 am

I think you don't really measure truth. Because measures go up and down on scales and not side-ways on a category x-axis-only horizon.

I also think there's more categories.

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

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:35 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Why do you keep avoiding?
Because I think the question is impertinent, and the answer, none of your business.

Gee

rantal
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:35 pm
Location: Third stone from the sun

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by rantal » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:32 pm

Let us imagine a man who pontificates on the subject of truth, yet when awked a question, the truth is not in him, would we then believe his pontification?

all the best, rantal

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

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:43 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:I think you don't really measure truth. Because measures go up and down on scales and not side-ways on a category x-axis-only horizon.

I also think there's more categories.
Voice of Time;

Thank you for your response, and I agree, truth is not supposed to be measured. It is supposed to be or not. This is a kind of experiment born of my frustration. Let me first state that I study consciousness, then question: Do you have any idea of how many theories there are on consciousness?

There are theories in science, in philosophy, in religion, and in New Age ideas. It is insanity trying to find any truth with regard to consciousness. There is no base of truth to stand upon, no beginning spot, no reality that can be confirmed except for the subjective self, which can not be proven to exist. You may not agree with this last sentence, but if you think about it for a while, you will find that there is nothing that you can say about consciousness that can not be overturned by someone's theory. Hence the frustration.

There are three categories of Truth Seekers; religion, science, and philosophy. Religion uses faith and belief--which is opinion--and not acceptable for my purposes. Science uses evidence, which would be wonderful, except that all of their evidence is tangible, and consciousness is not tangible. So how do I go about trying to find the truth about consciousness? That was my problem, which led me to studying truth.

There are almost as many theories on truth. More than that, truth is not static; what is true now, may not be true later. Truth is also subjective, as truth for you may be a lie for me. Truth is also a double edged blade that cuts both ways--so what is truth? I have read pages and pages on theories about truth, and I have written pages upon pages about truth, and the only thing that I can state--that is unopposed--is that truth is a reflection of reality. So the question becomes, how valid is that reflection?

Science uses layers to build their truths; such as, one to one relations, become number counting, which turns into math, which becomes physics. This idea led me to breaking down the various kinds of truth and assigning a "reliability" factor to them. So I am not measuring truth as much as I am measuring how well I can rely on that kind of truth.

Of course, I can not check my own experiment, as I will find it to be perfect, so I need help. There are no doubt flaws in my thinking, but I will not find them. If you think that I missed some categories, let me know. If you think that my measures can be blown apart, please get the bombs out. I will either try to defend my work, or revise my work, or end up trashing my work--but it is better to know the truth.

Gee

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

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Gee » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:50 pm

rantal wrote:Let us imagine a man who pontificates on the subject of truth, yet when awked a question, the truth is not in him, would we then believe his pontification?

all the best, rantal
First off, Rantal, let me say that I am not a man.

Second, are you implying that I lied when I stated that Bill's question was impertinent, or when I stated that my location was none of his business?

Women do not generally give out their locations to strangers on the internet, unless they are incredibly stupid.

Gee

rantal
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:35 pm
Location: Third stone from the sun

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by rantal » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:02 pm

Sorry, I did not intend to imply you were a man. Man, though strickly speaking 'man' means person, originally males were wapman and females wifman and in English it is still used to refer both to males in particular and to also people in general.
Second, are you implying that I lied when I stated that Bill's question was impertinent, or when I stated that my location was none of his business?

No, my point was a general one, I find the relating of philsophical matters to the concrete and particular, when appropriate.

all the best, rantal

rantal
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:35 pm
Location: Third stone from the sun

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by rantal » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:04 pm

I mean your definitions seems rather muddled and in such situations it is helpful to return to the particular to re-orientate

all the best, urban

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:59 am

'


I'm sorry.


If you are a female I was out of line.


I didn't know.


Please forgive me.




.

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 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:32 am

Gee wrote:and the only thing that I can state--that is unopposed--is that truth is a reflection of reality.
Gee wrote:If you think that my measures can be blown apart, please get the bombs out. I will either try to defend my work, or revise my work, or end up trashing my work--but it is better to know the truth.
I'm good at "getting the bombs out".

I have an objection, so seems there's at least one person that opposes what you say. Truth is not a reflection of reality. In fact, truth has little to do with reality itself. Truth says something about how to think of knowledge, it is the "knowledge-checker". A philosophy of truth is a philosophy of how to think of knowledge that we have. For instance, I might not know anything about reality, locked up in a room for all my life, not able to see or hear of the vast expanse of reality. However, I might still know what I need to know of the world, I can still have the truth, have the "checker", the administrator of what I know.

This administrator is us as a container of both personality, belief and the likes.

1...2...3... BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by HexHammer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:14 am

Rainbow chasing at it's finest!

Does commoners convey information 100% correctly? ..no bits information will always get lost in conveying.

Science books are often rewritten, because we didn't fully understand the subject.

Specially philosophers like to chase their own tail, trying to define and understanding truth.

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A Measure of Truth

Post by Hjarloprillar » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:23 am

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests