Is there such a thing as truth?

[Hegel]

The similarity between science and religion as philosophies is that both groups state outright that there is a truth out there. There is a real world and we know how it works. Both groups quibble about what this truth is, and how to obtain it, but the basic ideology is the same.

It has been stated philosophically that the burden of proof lies at the feet of the one who is making a claim. If we desire to be true skeptics (certainly not everybodies goal) we must treat all ideas to be held untrue until proven true. This includes the above assertation of both the scientific and religious schools of thought.

This leads us to the simple question: can we prove the existence of truths? The only possible way to do this, is to find a truth, and show it to everyone. Science claims to have a way to figure this out, and religion claims that they already have it, but neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth.

As such, any attempt thats sole goal is to find a truth, which may of may not exist is really missing out on all of the possible non-truths that it pushes off as being less important since it is not-true. As such, until we can prove that truths exist, it is most likely better to treat all different ideas as ones of equal worth, even if the worth is in different areas.

While the theory that pink dragons that float in the sky is what causes rain may not have very many applications in the apperantly real world, we can't guarantee that this world which appears to be real is real, therefore the pink dragon theory should at least get recorded, along with all the other theories of rain, such as the water cycle theory, and all the other theological theories that have floated around the world for millenia.

This turned out to be a bit of a ramble, and I apologize in advance for that.

 

[Christian]

Science claims to have a way to figure this out,

Science does not claim to have a way to figure out the truth. The essence of science is that theories must be falsifiable, testable. Nothing should be above that.

That we conclude that because a theory has yet to be proven false (because it's predictability is 100% so far), it is true, is our jump, not science's.

 

[Dancing David]

Science only claims to have observational approximation of the observed 'physical' world. There is no truth ever.

Just as the scientist can not prove that the world exists the philosopher can only argue that it doesn't, they are both wrong. And both equaly true.

There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.

Religion is just faith, only a few brave people are willing to put thier faith to the replication test.

Thanks Hegel, you just convinced me that monism and all it's 'mental' world stuff is still just semantics.
There is no truth, all thier is is human values that we place upon other things.

 

[Beleth]

There are no truths in science. There are just facts, and hypotheses. Hypotheses either contradict the facts, or don't contradict any facts yet.

The hypotheses which contradict the facts, such as the pink-dragon-causes-rain hypothesis, don't really need to be documented, as they are of no interest. Only hypotheses which aren't yet contradicted by facts are interesting.


But this is just a rewording of every other reply made here so far.

 

[Hegel]

There are no truths in science. There are just facts, and hypotheses. Hypotheses either contradict the facts, or don't contradict any facts yet.

The hypotheses which contradict the facts, such as the pink-dragon-causes-rain hypothesis, don't really need to be documented, as they are of no interest. Only hypotheses which aren't yet contradicted by facts are interesting.


But this is just a rewording of every other reply made here so far.

What I'm saying is that is over-simplifying a vast world of ideas. By stating that something that doesn't match up to the facts is false, in reality that is what you are saying, that means that there is an implied Truth to which they are failing to measure up against, in this case the real world. The point is that what is so great about facts, or the word of God, or the messages sent by the martians, that makes them the Truth and all other things to be discarded.

 

[hammegk]

no

 

[elliotfc]

Science only claims to have observational approximation of the observed 'physical' world. There is no truth ever.

Just as the scientist can not prove that the world exists the philosopher can only argue that it doesn't, they are both wrong. And both equaly true.

There is no truth ever, humans can only approximate the 'truth' whatever ill considered thought that may be.

Religion is just faith, only a few brave people are willing to put thier faith to the replication test.

Thanks Hegel, you just convinced me that monism and all it's 'mental' world stuff is still just semantics.
There is no truth, all thier is is human values that we place upon other things.

I suspect there is truth, but it can not be proven or had, and if it is in fact had there would be no way of knowing if it was truth.

How can you disprove the existence of truth? If you don't believe in the existence of truth that is just faith. Not that there is anything wrong with faith.

-Elliot

 

[Dorian Gray]

I have unequivocal evidence of truth. No, wait, I lied.

There is such a thing as truth, but I don't think there is such a thing as absolute truth.

 

[Zero]

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about science claiming to have a lock on truth, and just jump to my answer. 'Truth' would depend on having ALL the information, I think(I don't have enough information to know that 100% )

Show me someone that knows everything, and even then it is quesswork, because he could weight his answers to questions based on bias. I don't think there is any way around the inherent limitations of humanity...


...but I could be wrong!

 

[Iacchus]

Is there such a thing as truth?

Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

I'm not sure if matter analogies can be extended to thought analogies.

I think you could possibly be on to something though. Not sure. Maybe.

Non-absolute truth may or may not be a piece of absolute truth, I don't think we have anyway of verifying that.

I will say that if absolute truth exists, then the truth we can ascertain is quite like the analogy you offer.

-Elliot

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

Absolutely! As a matter-of-fact, how can you have truth if it weren't derived from an absolute?

How can you have a piece of cherry pie, without the existence of a "whole" cherry pie in the first place? Oh, and how sweet it is! ...

You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

I see the difference as being that you just make things up that suit you, there's the difference. We don't know if there is 'absolute' anything, and that is as close to "truth" as we've got.

 

[Upchurch]

Way back in college, when I took various classes in philosophy, they differentiated between two kinds of truth. Truth (cap "T") was understood to be absolute truth and truth (lowercase "t") was understood to be relative truth. Well, "relative" isn't the right word, I don't think. truth is a lesser form of Truth that isn't necessarily true in all cases. There can be different kinds of truth, some of which can even be contradictory, but there can only be one Truth. For example, "That tree is beautiful" and "That tree is ugly" may both be true depending on who you ask, but neither is True.

truth can be shown to exist almost entirely by it's assertion, but Truth is a more difficult beast to identify, if it exists at all.

So, to answer your question, does truth exist? Yes. Does Truth exist? I'm not sure.

 

[c4ts]

What is truth?

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

...
You see this is the difference between holistic thinking and scientific scrutiny ... Where the one acknowledges "unity" and the other hacks it to pieces (a hack job).

You just blew your cover, socky.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

You just blew your cover, socky.

No no NO!! Iacchus is the hamster!!

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

I see the difference as being that you just make things up that suit you, there's the difference. We don't know if there is 'absolute' anything, and that is as close to "truth" as we've got.

That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

You need to know the history of Iacchus to understand. Also, if you look at the analogy, all he is saying is that we can see, hear, feel, touch, smell things, so they are real. Anyone who says this is a philosophy forum is either trolling, or never studied any philosophy.


Edited to add: All of his analogies (included this one) relay things that could be much more clearly stated without the anology. He doesn't use analogies to try to relay a difficult to explain idea, he uses them to try to mystify his ideas.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

Spend a little time at it. You'll feel the mean spirit move in yourself too.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as truth?

That's kind of mean-spirited. She (he?) offered an interesting analogy that can lead to thought/discussion, and you just showed it the back of your hand. Anytime a person offers an analogy the person is "making things up"? So much for analogies I guess. Skeptics make things up all the time in these discussions, so be fair and at least tip the cap to an analogy by ripping it to shreds instead of dogmatically banishing it by decree.

-Elliot

I've known this goofball for awhile...this is a special case.