Is there such a thing as truth?

[T'ai Chi]

Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

Science is not a ' they ', it is a process..



Go look up ' axiom '... We will discuss it in class tomorrow...

 

[DVFinn]

So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is one of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.

One definition I pulled from the web was:

"Conformity to fact or actuality"

If that definition is used than certainly truth exists. We may not know what it is in relation to every subject, but that doesn't stop it existing.

Try this:

"One plus one equals two"

Either this statement is true, or it is false. Either way truth exists, because if this isn't true than its inverse is.

The similarity between science and religion as philosophies is that both groups state outright that there is a truth out there.

While this is basically true the key difference is that Religion not only assumes that their are absolute truths, but also claims that those truths are known. Science has no such arrogant presumptions, but instead considers the spectrum of human knowledge and observation, when evaluated for reliability in accordance with scientific method as evidence for a particular truth or set of truths. When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified. The moment a person claims absolute and infallible knowledge they have ceased to act scientifically.

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).

To make this quote more sensible replace the term "acknowledges" with "assumes" and append "Of course it's easy to hack something to pieces when it's already full of holes."

 

[Hegel]

So, how about a definition of "Truth" before debating whether it exists or not? It always helps to know the question before assembling the answer. Truth is opne of those crazy words that can be spun a number of ways.

One definition I pulled from the web was:

"Conformity to fact or actuality"

In that definition is used than certainly truth exists. We may not know what it is in relation to every subject, but that doesn't stop it existing.


That is if you assume that there is a fact or actuality to conform to. If there is not, then a Truth as such would not exist.

Try this:

"One plus one equals two"

Either this statement is true, or it is false. Either way truth exists, because if this isn't true than its inverse is.


This assumes that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. While science uses this assumption as one of its axioms, that doesn't nessecarily make it true.


While this is basically true the key difference is that Religion not only assumes that their are absolute truths, but also claims that those truths are known. Science has no such arrogant presumptions, but instead considers the spectrum of human knowledge and observation, when evaluated for reliability in accordence with scientific method as evidence for a particular truth or set of truths. When contradictory evidence is found then our ideas on what is true must be modified. The moment a person claims absolute and infallible knowledge they have ceased to act scientifically.


I completely agree about this definition of the difference between science and religion, however I'm complianing about the assumption of Truth at all, and the measuring of all ideas against what we think to be the Truth.

[/B]

 

[Igopogo]

Is there such a thing as truth? - Yes

Is there such as discovering the truth? - I don't think so.

 

[Beleth]

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.

Yeah, pretty much.

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.

Facts aren't the Truth. They are, if you will, "symptoms" of the Truth. They are the effect the Truth has on our senses.

Einstein said it best when he compared the universe to an unopenable pocketwatch, and all we can do to figure out what's going on inside the pocketwatch is to watch the movement of the hands and listen to the ticking. The Truth is unobtainable. The best we can do is observe the effects the Truth has on us (AKA "facts"), and generate reasonable hypotheses based on those facts.

We can't know what the Truth is but we can know what isn't the Truth. Any hypothesis which contradicts the facts is not the Truth.

 

[epepke]

Science doesn't so much claim they have the way to truth, rather, I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

No.

OK, I'll just whip it on you and see who groks it:

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

 

[elliotfc]

Is there such a thing as truth? - Yes

Is there such as discovering the truth? - I don't think so.

I dig this. I only add a third important part...

It is worthwhile to search for the truth.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No.

OK, I'll just whip it on you and see who groks it:

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

What is falsehood?

Is the following statement a truth?:

Falsehood exists.

-Elliot

 

[T'ai Chi]

Science is not a ' they ', it is a process..

The first post in this thread clearly talked about science and religion as groups, as schools of thought, and said (bold mine) "neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth". I was echoing the posters' terminology by saying "they".

Go look up ' axiom '... We will discuss it in class tomorrow...

I did look up 'axiom'. A dictionary said 'that which is assumed' and 'a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted'.

I can't wait for the teacher evals.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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! ...

Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Science is not a search for truth. It is a retreat from falsehood.

Possibly. Although I see those things as basically the same thing.

 

[elliotfc]

Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is.

You dismantled the analogy very nicely.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The first post in this thread clearly talked about science and religion as groups, as schools of thought, and said (bold mine) "neither group actually proves that what they state is a truth". I was echoing the posters' terminology by saying "they".

[/b] Echo is noted... But you said " ... I believe ' they ' " Which seems to be an assertion on your part that science is something other than a process.....



I did look up 'axiom'. A dictionary said 'that which is assumed' and 'a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted'.

I can't wait for the teacher evals.

So in the context of your earlier statement..

I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it is one of the axioms of science.

It would read :

" I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it ( the existance of truth )is assumed by science. "

or...

" I believe, they outright assume truth is out there, that is, it ( the existance of truth ) is taken for granted by science. "


Both statements are redundant, and it seems to be you, making a claim that science is a ' they ', the echo notwithstanding...


We will give you credit for proper use of the dictionary..

 

[epepke]

Possibly. Although I see those things as basically the same thing.

Hmm... Zero for two so far.

Let's try again. All I need to show that something is false is to show that something contradicts or doesn't agree.

I don't have to show that is it somehow a possibly imperfect reflection from some Ideal True Falsehood.

Nobody gets these ideas about falsehood. Nobody posts a thread "Does falsehood exist?" For some reason, only Truth gets the Platonic treatment which sucks the eff out of it and makes it ineffable.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Hegel
This assumes that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. While science uses this assumption as one of its axioms, that doesn't nessecarily make it true.

Isn't that what "contradictory" means---namely, that two contradictory statements cannot both be true? That's what I always thought it meant. What do you mean by the word "contradictory"?

 

[lifegazer]

"Is there such a thing as truth?"

Even the absolute negation of this question = an absolute truth.

In what sense can we say that there are/is no meaningful truth? Only in nonsense, imo.

The truth awaits us. Let us acknowledge she is there and we may find her.

 

[Iacchus]

Problem - the 'whole' cherry pie is not the only cherry pie. No two cherry pies are alike. There is a Guinness "largest cherry pie ever baked", and there is the McCherry Pie, and there is Sara Lee.

In other words, there are many different truths, and no absolute truth. I think absolute truth is infinite, and no matter how much truth one discovers it is still only a part. How is this different from the above? This encompasses all possible cherry pies, in whole or in part.

If nothing else, there will always be smaller and smaller particles, and a larger and larger universe. How is using the word 'always' not a contradiction of the above? I am a part of that truth, and therefore have never experienced it from any other point of view. If I did, I would not be me in this situation. That is knowledge of truth that cannot be known.

How is this not all a bunch of bullsh*t? It is.

Yes, but in the name of "which" absolute are you preaching to me? That which is "totally" unfounded?

Or how can I warrant such a comment as your last, without thinking I somehow got hit over the head with "an absolute?" Isn't that what you would like me to think? Otherwise, by what means do you justify such a thing?

 

[Iacchus]

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.

As you may well know "Russ," I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

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.

And what makes you so "absolute" in your understanding of things?

Hey, if it wasn't for an absolute ground to everything (reality?), there would be no way -- hmm ... that almost sounds absolute now doesn't it? -- for you to articulate the scribblings on your computer screen, let alone anything else.

 

[RussDill]

As you may well know "Russ," I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

Another meaningless response from the great Iacchus. Try again.

And what makes you so "absolute" in your understanding of things?

That is my opinion of your behavior. If you disagree, let us know why.

Hey, if it wasn't for an absolute ground to everything (reality?), there would be no way -- hmm ... that almost sounds absolute now doesn't it? -- for you to articulate the scribblings on your computer screen, let alone anything else.

umm..right, completely unrelated dribble.