What Is True?

[ambush80]

This is a fantastic podcast. It sounds similar to the type of discussions we have here. Please listen to it. I'd love to have a discussion about it.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

 

[ambush80]

At the beginning of the podcast, Sam asks the listeners to weigh in on what the conversation meant to them. This guy's analysis is compelling:



This guy's is even more so:



Here's what's going on in Sam's forum:

https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewforum/7048/

Apparently the topic was incredibly controversial and engaging to many people. It shook my foundational beliefs about what truth might be.

 

[ambush80]

This explains it quite well. It's also how we argue in here.:

 

[ambush80]

I like this guy's analysis:

Also, read the comments. They're fantastic.



I like this one:

"Nacasius4 days ago
You seem to be forgetting that Jesus said there are only 2 Laws.
Submission to God, and The Golden Rule.

Submission to God provides no explanatory power to any subject.

Only proper application of the Golden Rule has ever provided humanity with information about how to live and work and thrive together.

As long as Peterson is a believer in Divine Command Theory, he will never be able to offer cogent arguments to a civilized discussion of facts."

 

[welderguy]

Truth is able to stand on it's own.
Facts need a standard to show they are facts.

This is why you can't exchange the word truth for the word fact.


The biggest question should be "what is the standard?"
You know what I believe it is. But I'd like to know what you think it is.

 

[660griz]

Facts need a standard to show they are facts.

The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability

A philosopher, a physicist, a mathematician and a computer scientist were travelling through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the
window of the train.

"Aha," says the philosopher, "I see that Scottish sheep are black."

"Hmm," says the physicist, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black."

"No," says the mathematician, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is
black!"

"Oh, no!" shouts the computer scientist, "A special case!"

 

[welderguy]

The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability

A philosopher, a physicist, a mathematician and a computer scientist were travelling through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the
window of the train.

"Aha," says the philosopher, "I see that Scottish sheep are black."

"Hmm," says the physicist, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black."

"No," says the mathematician, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is
black!"

"Oh, no!" shouts the computer scientist, "A special case!"

They each were relying on their own individual eyes and minds as their standard of truth. Unreliable.

 

[660griz]

They each were relying on their own individual eyes and minds as their standard of truth. Unreliable.

Yes they were. You mentioned a standard for facts though. Not truth.
However, facts were not stated unless verified.
No standard needed.
However, until more 'test' the mathematician got it right. All they knew for sure is there was one sheep with one black side. All that could be observed.

 

[welderguy]

Yes they were. You mentioned a standard for facts though. Not truth.
However, facts were not stated unless verified.
No standard needed.
However, until more 'test' the mathematician got it right. All they knew for sure is there was one sheep with one black side. All that could be observed.

If we are talking about absolute truth, an immovable standard would be required for the test.
Eyes are unreliable(moveable). They go bad, could be colorblind, crossed,etc.
The mind is very unreliable. Intelligence is all over the spectrum, mental illness, chemical imbalance ,etc.

 

[bullethead]

Belief is a product of the mind. Equally as unreliable.

 

[welderguy]

Belief is a product of the mind. Equally as unreliable.

Do you believe this?

 

[ambush80]

Belief is a product of the mind. Equally as unreliable.

Do you believe this?

Without a mind there's no belief. There IS still truth even with no minds to articulate it. At some point in the timeline of the Universe there were no sentient beings to observe natural phenomena. From what we can tell, the rules of Physics applied then like they do now. They were and are True. The kind of "truth" that Peterson is talking about (and Welder, and Isreal and Semper Fi) is subjective. Some of it is based in utility but most of it is based on wishful thinking. It's actually a redefinition of the word Truth that sneaks in some metaphysics.

 

[welderguy]

Without a mind there's no belief. There IS still truth even with no minds to articulate it. At some point in the timeline of the Universe there were no sentient beings to observe natural phenomena. From what we can tell, the rules of Physics applied then like they do now. They were and are True. The kind of "truth" that Peterson is talking about (and Welder, and Isreal and Semper Fi) is subjective. Some of it is based in utility but most of it is based on wishful thinking. It's actually a redefinition of the word Truth that sneaks in some metaphysics.

What is your immovable standard for knowing this is truth?

 

[ambush80]

What is your immovable standard for knowing this is truth?

I don't need one. Why do you think one is necessary? We'll never know the truth because we don't have all the information but we must use the information that we have in the best way possible (assuming that you want to flourish and not perish). Calling something "true" is one of the ways that we do that. It's a useful descriptor of empirical evidence.

 

[bullethead]

Do you believe this?

I do not believe that people who have belief of higher powers are reliable sources of accurate factual information regarding those higer powers.

 

[welderguy]

I don't need one. Why do you think one is necessary? We'll never know the truth because we don't have all the information but we must use the information that we have in the best way possible (assuming that you want to flourish and not perish). Calling something "true" is one of the ways that we do that. It's a useful descriptor of empirical evidence.

So basically what you're telling me is that you hope it's true, but without an immovable standard(which you deemed unnecessary), you can't be sure.

 

[welderguy]

I do not believe that people who have belief of higher powers are reliable sources of accurate factual information regarding those higer powers.

I see what you did there.

Turned it so you wouldn't say "I believe that people who have belief of higher powers are not reliable sources of accurate factual information regarding those higher powers."

It's still your mind that's making the assessment, and we agreed the mind is not an immovable standard.
So we're back to square one.

 

[bullethead]

I see what you did there.

Turned it so you wouldn't say "I believe that people who have belief of higher powers are not reliable sources of accurate factual information regarding those higher powers."

It's still your mind that's making the assessment, and we agreed the mind is not an immovable standard.
So we're back to square one.

I get careful like that.

And I agree that my mind, which is certainly fallible, is what I use to decide..based off of available evidence that can be backed up with the most reliable facts...what is more likely than not to be more true.
I cant know 100%. And I am fine with that.

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

They each were relying on their own individual eyes and minds as their standard of truth. Unreliable.

And so goes the Pseudo-Science of Global Warming / Anthropogenic Climate Change.

 

[ambush80]

So basically what you're telling me is that you hope it's true, but without an immovable standard(which you deemed unnecessary), you can't be sure.

No. I rely on empirical evidence and you do too. That's why you don't go walking off rooftops. Does gravity work on some distant planet that we don't know about like it does here? I dunno. Do you?

Tell me one thing you know that's unconditionally true with 100% certainty.