Is truth relative? - Page 4

Brian · 12-08-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

Oh, well just ignore us then. Keep on posting like it's 1999.

This technology wasn't around then so I don't think that'd be possible

Atom · 12-09-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

This technology wasn't around then so I don't think that'd be possible

Ever wonder why little lies are white? Me too. Absolute lies should be black I think.

Atom · 12-09-2007, 12:47 AM

Referring to the post above ...

my thoughts shift like that when I'm stoned and in a good mood .. so I just go with it sometimes.

chicgeek · 12-09-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

Ever wonder why little lies are white? Me too. Absolute lies should be black I think.

Good thought.

Jul · 12-09-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Can you give me an example of truth being changed by knowing?

robert s. gave an excellent example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Confusing "knowing" with "truth".

That's like the 6th time in this thread.

Not exactly. Because to my opinion "truth" is the statement based upon known and verified facts. Truth cannot exist without "knowing".

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Truth is an attribute that attaches to statements that accurately represent reality. Thus defined, reality being one, truth also can only be one.

That is the same thing that I am saying - the truth that our earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth - a 1000 years ago was the ONLY truth, but knowing NEW facts changed THAT truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

I have a hard time calling this third truth a truth because it basically means that we can never really know the truth.

Thanks Zap. This is an excellent example of truth

You just described the nature of truth.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

the truth that our earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth - a 1000 years ago was the ONLY truth, but knowing NEW facts changed THAT truth.

This is the heart of the problem.

Insofar as the earth was never the center of the universe, the statement "the earth is the center of the universe" was not true then, and is not true now.

Remember, truth is an attribute that attaches to a statement which accurately represents reality. In reality, the earth was never the center of the universe. Even if 100% of the human population thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that would not make it true.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

The way I see it, so far in this thread, there are at least 3 truths.

There is the truth that I alone have determined for myself.
There is the greater scope of truth that we, as humans, have collectively agreed by majority is truth, to the best of our knowledge.
Then, there is the truth, that includes things we do not know (ie. Earth is flat 1000 years ago vs. Earth is round today). I have a hard time calling this third truth a truth because it basically means that we can never really know the truth. People in the year 1000 were convinced the Earth was flat. It doesn't matter what we think we know today. That was their truth. 1000 Years from now, we could discover throught some strange physics that the Earth is actually banana shaped. That leaves us in the position of not being able to call anything truth with 100% certainty.

You are defining how people try to ascertain truth, how people conclude that what they believe is accurate. I could believe 1,000 things right now, and reality might disagree on 999 of them. Since truth is reality as it exists, that would make my opinions (thought to be true) not the truth.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

truth is ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE

try and figure that one out, huh

*bows*

Relative to?

And the statement of course contradicts itself. If truth is relative, you cannot say that it is "absolutely" anything.

Jul · 12-09-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Insofar as the earth was never the center of the universe, the statement "the earth is the center of the universe" was not true then, and is not true now.

Again, you are saying this knowing about the universe the only facts that people have found till 2007. People know very little about the universe. Maybe the earth IS in the center of it.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jul

Again, you are saying this knowing about the universe the only facts that people have found till 2007. People know very little about the universe. Maybe the earth IS in the center of it.

Are we discussing whether the earth is the center of the universe or whether the physical world is physically changed by mere belief?

And, no, the world is not the center of the universe. Science makes a priority of knowing, observing, predicting and then testing those predictions. The result is often accurately known truth.

If truth were indeed relative, science could not exist.

Nobody is saying that it is easy to know the truth. Perceptions are susceptible to error. But the idea that is I belief I am a coffee bean, I will become one, is sheer nonsense.

Atom · 12-09-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

... I have a hard time calling this third truth a truth because it basically means that we can never really know the truth. ...

Well that's just the way it is. Just imagine if the opposite were true and we could know the truth. Life wouldn't even be worth living, if you really think about it.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 09:20 AM

It's interesting to see how people who obviously espouse Sketicism (Zap, Jul, et al) have felt the need to defend a epistemological relativism, when it's common to believe that students of the Skeptic school of thought are diametrically opposed to epistemological relativism.

Skepticism - Truth is near impossible to know with certainty, if not entirely impossible. Full truth value should be denied to most, if not all, statements.

Epistemological relativism - Truth is easy to know. Anything a person believes exists as truth. Full truth value is belongs equally to all statements.

Brian · 12-09-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Relative to?

And the statement of course contradicts itself. If truth is relative, you cannot say that it is "absolutely" anything.

People on this forum seem to have lost their ability to sense humor at all.

Atom · 12-09-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

It's interesting to see how people who obviously espouse Sketicism (Zap, Jul, et al) have felt the need to defend a epistemological relativism, when it's common to believe that students of the Skeptic school of thought are diametrically opposed to epistemological relativism.

Skepticism - Truth is near impossible to know with certainty, if not entirely impossible. Full truth value should be denied to most, if not all, statements.

Epistemological relativism - Truth is easy to know. Anything a person believes exists as truth. Full truth value is belongs equally to all statements.

I did notice this. A seeming inability to commit for this certain group, versus a seeming ease of commitment for the "absolute" group. Interesting.

John Scott · 12-09-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

I did notice this. A seeming inability to commit for this certain group, versus a seeming ease of commitment for the "absolute" group. Interesting.

That would be for the "relativist" group.

Atom · 12-09-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

That would be for the "relativist" group.

No, "absolute" was not an error. I am suggesting that neither relativism nor skepticism are commitable 100%, whereas I believe that the "absolute" theory is commitable 100%, and that a third group stemming from somewhere between relativism and skepticism, would be not 100% commitable as well.