Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → "There is no truth."

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: "There is no truth."

 (Read 32166 times)
  • 12 3 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     OP - April 05, 2015, 05:55 PM
    This is another essay that's being translated into arabic for the Shabakeh magazine (it's for arab atheists).

    -------------

    "There is no truth."

    This is an interesting philosophy that lots of people have. People that believe this aren’t consistent about it though. They’ll say things like “Parents should teach their kids to love one another,” which is an assertion about what things are good or true. They're acting as if there is truth, while other times asserting that there is no truth. And they choose which times are which arbitrarily. Basically they choose by whatever is most convenient for them at the time. No reasoning needed. Just blind assertions is ok.

    Why do people buy in to this kind of philosophy? I think they do it because they want to ignore criticism and this philosophy helps them with that goal. Effectively, their philosophy helps them think sorta like this:

    "You can't say I'm wrong or tell me what to do because there is no truth. Everything you say is just your opinion."

    I can understand why people want this. Imagine an authoritative parent who forces his opinions on his child. The child disagrees with his parent, and he doesn't want to be forced to do things against his will. So the parent’s philosophy basically says:

    "There is one truth and I know what it is, and you should follow it even if you're not convinced that it's the truth. Your agreement is not necessary. Just trust me and blindly obey me. And if you don't obey me, I'll hurt you, with punishment, as a means to providing you with incentive to obey me. And if my initial attempts at punishing you aren't effective at hurting you, then I'll get creative and figure out exactly what *would* hurt you!!"

    So some children in this sort of situation decide to defend themselves from their parents' irrational treatment by effectively saying:

    "There is no truth. So you can't force me to follow what you say."

    But this is mistake. They confuse assertions of truth with good reason to use force against someone. Just because I believe something is good to do, that doesn't mean that it's morally right for me to force other people to do that thing. Basically the only time force is the right thing to do is when it's in self-defense against an aggressor.

    So instead of denying that truth exists, you can say:

    "I agree with you that there is one truth, but I disagree with you about what that truth is. So, no I will not follow your ideas which I believe are false. I will not trust you because trust is wrong. I will live by my code and I'll update my code if I have reason to believe that I should change it. And to help myself find and fix the flaws that I have, I will seek out critical discussion in search of the truth."

    This approach is better than the anti-truth philosophy because it doesn't ignore criticism. Ignoring criticism effectively means closing off avenues to finding the truth. It means preventing mistakes from being found and fixed. It means stagnation.

    The point is that criticism is the only defense against stagnation, so this philosophy treats criticism for what it is, A GIFT!!!

    For more on these ideas and others, and to contribute your ideas, join my Rational Atheism group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/popperianatheism/
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #1 - April 05, 2015, 06:57 PM
    Qtian asked me to post this reply on his behalf, since his ban is still active  Tongue :

    The statement "There is no truth" seems to be part of a taxonomy of self-refuting statements.

    In that when someone says that "there is no truth" from a relativistic point of view, there must be a standard of truth which the statement in question conforms to.

    One may argue that the root statement is exempt from this epistemic standard, but I would see that as a case of special pleading. Even if the root statement is exempt, we can still create a series of meta statements from the root statement, which must also be true (I.e. "It is true that there is no truth").

    Here's a clearer example:
    "Science is the only useful form of knowledge"

    Do note that Science itself, cannot ascertain the truth of the above root statement.
    You are the Universe, Expressing itself as a Human for a little while- Eckhart Tolle
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #2 - April 05, 2015, 07:18 PM
    Well for me, I'm not sure I believe in the category of capital 'T' "Truth" that religious people claim to have access to. We have no direct access to what reality actually is and have to interpret everything through our senses which can not be shown to accurately reflect any external world. I don't think anyone of us are in the position to say "You are absolutely wrong" because there is no one, universal epistemology for determining whether one is right or wrong. However, we can define truth in a meaningful way, such as the following video does. We can determine whether something is small 't' true or false by setting up useful axioms such as in language or mathematics and determining the "truth" of explanations based on their explanatory scope and ability to make accurate and useful predictions. If one's definition for absolute "Truth" is what one reads in a holy book or what one feels when they worship, if that is how they determine what is true or false, so be it. However, this version of "Truth" is pretty useless, as it does not give them access to important explanations of the world and makes no useful predictions.

    Truth is not an intrinsic property of the universe or something that even has to correspond to "Reality." Rather it is a label we put on things if they play by the rules of set axioms, the conventions of language, have great explanatory scope, and can make accurate predictions. You can dispute this definition of truth, but this view of truth has led to all the progress made by reason, logic, and science. In other words, it works.

    This view is expanded further in the following video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #3 - April 05, 2015, 07:44 PM
    Why was Qtian banned?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #4 - April 05, 2015, 08:01 PM
    Self ban I believe
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #5 - April 05, 2015, 08:05 PM
    Quote from: Ishtar90 on April 05, 2015, 06:57 PM
    Qtian asked me to post this reply on his behalf, since his ban is still active  Tongue :



    Cheesy That's cheating, Qtian!


    Glad to see you posting again, Rami.  yes
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #6 - April 05, 2015, 08:32 PM
    Quote from: Ishtar90 on April 05, 2015, 06:57 PM
    Here's a clearer example:
    "Science is the only useful form of knowledge"

    Do note that Science itself, cannot ascertain the truth of the above root statement.

    Ya that's a hilarious one!  We need philosophy in order to do science. 

    The scientific method is philosophy.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #7 - April 05, 2015, 08:34 PM
    Quote
    The scientific method is philosophy.


    Wait...is it?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #8 - April 05, 2015, 08:37 PM
    You can make the argument that science was born from philosophy, or at least philosophers, however the scientific method is not philosophy
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #9 - April 05, 2015, 08:39 PM
    Quote from: justperusing on April 05, 2015, 08:01 PM
    Self ban I believe


    Self-defeating if still interacting. Good luck to him.
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 08:32 PM
    Ya that's a hilarious one!  We need philosophy in order to do science.  

    The scientific method is philosophy.


    Have you written that book yet? Make sure there's a forward by Yezeevee!
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #10 - April 05, 2015, 08:40 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 08:37 PM
    You can make the argument that science was born from philosophy, or at least philosophers, however the scientific method is not philosophy

    That's what I'd have thought. I mean, the scientific method is...a method. A process. And sometimes it leads us to the wrong conclusion, so it really is no more than a tool, but, I don't know the first thing about philosophy, so I was wondering if there was some definition ordeal that I was not aware of.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #11 - April 05, 2015, 08:40 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 08:32 PM
    The scientific method is philosophy.


    Well, the scientific method is discussed in philosophy and the social sciences as tools of enquiry. Perhaps our savious can elucidate on this pressing issue...

    I say he calls on Kant and Comte....
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #12 - April 05, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Quote from: justperusing on April 05, 2015, 07:18 PM
    Truth is not an intrinsic property of the universe or something that even has to correspond to "Reality." Rather it is a label we put on things if they play by the rules of set axioms, the conventions of language, have great explanatory scope, and can make accurate predictions. You can dispute this definition of truth, but this view of truth has led to all the progress made by reason, logic, and science. In other words, it works.

    I don't follow.

    There is only one truth. And nobody has direct access to it.

    What we do have is the ability to create knowledge of the truth. We know this because we have computers and spaceships.

    And our knowledge is flawed (fallible).
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #13 - April 05, 2015, 08:45 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 08:34 PM
    Wait...is it?

    Yes.

    If it were science then we could use the scientific method on itself to find and fix flaws in the scientific method. Which is not the case.

    Doing science means creating empirical theories which make predictions about physical reality, and ruling out empirical theories by testing their predictions against physical reality. This method is the scientific method.

    Now what would it take to find and fix flaws in the scientific method? Could we do science on it? What predictions about the physical world does the scientific method make? None. What empirical evidence could rule out the scientific method? None, because the scientific method doesn't make any predictions about physical reality.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #14 - April 05, 2015, 08:46 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 08:37 PM
    however the scientific method is not philosophy

    Why do you believe that?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #15 - April 05, 2015, 08:55 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 08:40 PM
    ...I was wondering if there was some definition ordeal that I was not aware of.

    Seeking definitions isn't very useful. Seeking explanations is. (See _The Beginning of Infinity_)
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #16 - April 05, 2015, 08:55 PM
    Wait. Hold the phone. Grin The scientific method is observing a problem, making a guess about the cause, designing the experiment, collecting the data, and doing it over again if you still have questions. It's just a fancy word for doing an experiment logically and correctly.

    The scientific method is a tool. And, if the scientific method gives us an erroneous result when we follow it, doing another experiment which we design using the very same scientific method is what gives us the correct result. What is all this about fixing the scientific method and the scientific method predicting or not predicting something about the physical world?

    Are you thinking of something else when you say scientific method? If not, I feel like you're comparing two totally unrelated things, and perhaps it's because, like Jedi and Quod sort of touched on, they once were discussed side-by-side?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #17 - April 05, 2015, 08:58 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 08:39 PM
    Have you written that book yet? Make sure there's a forward by Yezeevee!

     Cheesy
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #18 - April 05, 2015, 09:00 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 08:45 PM
    If it were science then we could use the scientific method on itself to find and fix flaws in the scientific method. Which is not the case.

    Yes it is.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #19 - April 05, 2015, 09:01 PM
    Well, fix mistakes made while following the scientific method by following the scientific method again.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #20 - April 05, 2015, 09:01 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 08:45 PM
    the scientific method doesn't make any predictions about physical reality.

    Are you high?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #21 - April 05, 2015, 09:05 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 08:39 PM
    Have you written that book yet? Make sure there's a forward by Yezeevee!

    That book has already been written. _The Beginning of Infinity_.

    You can read the intro here: http://beginningofinfinity.com/excerpt
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #22 - April 05, 2015, 09:05 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:01 PM
    Are you high?

    No. I think you're confused.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #23 - April 05, 2015, 09:05 PM
    I'm sure you do.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #24 - April 05, 2015, 09:09 PM
    Oh, were you going to write a book yourself, Rami?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #25 - April 05, 2015, 09:09 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 08:55 PM
    Wait. Hold the phone. Grin The scientific method is observing a problem, making a guess about the cause, designing the experiment, collecting the data, and doing it over again if you still have questions. It's just a fancy word for doing an experiment logically and correctly.

    The scientific method is a tool. And, if the scientific method gives us an erroneous result when we follow it, doing another experiment which we design using the very same scientific method is what gives us the correct result. What is all this about fixing the scientific method and the scientific method predicting or not predicting something about the physical world?

    Are you thinking of something else when you say scientific method? If not, I feel like you're comparing two totally unrelated things, and perhaps it's because, like Jedi and Quod sort of touched on, they once were discussed side-by-side?


    The scientific method has improved since it was invented 2700 years ago. So you can imagine 100's of different versions of the scientific method.

    Now in order to rule out that the current scientific method (let's call it SM34), we'd have to come up with another one (let's call it SM35) and explain what flaw SM34 has which SM35 doesn't have. In other words, what improvement SM35 has over SM34.

    So SM34 is a theory and SM35 is a theory. Are they empirical theories? No because they don't make empirical predictions which means that they can't be ruled out by testing their predictions against physical reality.

    Do you see what I mean?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #26 - April 05, 2015, 09:10 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:05 PM
    I'm sure you do.

    Considering that you haven't explained how i'm wrong, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #27 - April 05, 2015, 09:11 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:09 PM
    Oh, were you going to write a book yourself, Rami?

    About the scientific method? No. It's already been done very well. I don't have anything to say about it that hasn't already been said.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #28 - April 05, 2015, 09:13 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:01 PM
    Well, fix mistakes made while following the scientific method by following the scientific method again.

    But the scientific method requires creating empirical theories that can be empirically tested.

    You can't empirically test the scientific method. Do you see what I mean?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #29 - April 05, 2015, 09:14 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:09 PM
    The scientific method has improved since it was invented 2700 years ago. So you can imagine 100's of different versions of the scientific method.

    Now in order to figure out that the current scientific method (let's call it SM34) is wrong, we'd have to come up with another one (let's call it SM35) and explain what flaw SM34 has which SM35 doesn't have. In other words, what improvement SM35 has over SM34.

    So SM34 is a theory and SM35 is a theory. Are they empirical theories? No because they don't make empirical predictions which means that they can't be ruled out by testing their predictions against physical reality.

    Do you see what I mean?


    Honestly, no.

    I understand what you're saying if I were to accept that the thing that we are currently using daily, in actual science, which we call the scientific method, is something that can be called a theory. But I don't. It's not a theory, it's a method.

    And yes, the method had to be tweaked over time to get to be the tool that gives us the only correct results that it is today, there's no denying that. But that doesn't make it any more a theory than a digital micrometer is a theory? We had to work on that and make earlier prototypes to get that right, too.
  • 12 3 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »