Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Back to Basics

I'm going to return now to a variant on the question that inspired me to subject my my blog to a mitotic split and create this spin-off. I am deeply interested in the fundamental ways people perceive the world and how they interact in it. So here is my question:


How do you personally decide what is true or not true?


Should be simple enough.

10 comments:

Rimshot said...

I would so very much love to answer that. But first, we're going to have to define 'true'.

Rimshot said...

P.S. In the most non-argumentative way I know how: aren't ALL Atheists really Agnostic, since the overarching argument of the atheists is "Prove it"?

Random Thinker said...

I had some thoughts on that:

http://outoftheboxthinker.blogspot.com/search/label/Truth%20and%20Faith

Moominmama said...

rimshot: that's exactly what i'm asking. what is "true" for you? How do you know if something is true or not?

ps. no, not all atheists are really agnostic. the overarching argument, i've found, isn't usually "you can't prove there's a god," but "you can't offer ANY evidence there's a god." there's a big difference between evidence and proof.

and as a corrollary to that, i've met loads of theists who have said to me "prove god doesn't exist." so it seems theists are at least as concerned with proof as atheists. and while we're on the subject, surely the burden of proof lies with those arguing the positive existence. i don't need to prove there is no god any more than i have to prove there are no invisible unicorns in my garden or a teapot orbiting the sun. i could think of a million and one things you can't prove don't exist. like it or not, the burden of proof lies with those who want to prove the existence, no the non-existence.

but please do give me your ideas on truth.

Rimshot said...

I remember a discussion I had a few years ago with a friend about 'true'. We agreed that the generally accepted belief by the majority by definition is what is 'true' at the moment. i.e., the world is flat.

I suppose the underlying implication to that is that 'true' is a moving target.

Anonymous said...

To Random Thinker (I reply here because your blog won't let me comment without a blogger account):

No what is proved by this arguement is that the english language taken as a whole can have no truth function defined on it because:

a) It is inherentely imprecise.

Note the mathematical examples you gave only had indeterminate truth value because you failed to specify what model you were working within.

b) It has too great an expressive power.

Sentences like "This sentence is false" show you this. No such sentence can be expressed in mathematical language although trying to do so has led to great breakthroughs in mathematical thought.

c) The same utterance in the English language at different times, places and by different observers can mean different things. This is a peculiarity of human languages. It is not a universal trait of all possible languages.

Basically it is true that there is no way of assigning a truth value to all sentences in the English langauge in a sensible way. However this is due to the structure of the language not the notion of truth. Mathematical languages have truth defined for a given model. This is a mathematical fact called Godel's completeness theorem.

FirstNations said...

scientific method.

Rimshot said...

C.B "ps. no, not all atheists are really agnostic. the overarching argument, i've found, isn't usually "you can't prove there's a god," but "you can't offer ANY evidence there's a god." there's a big difference between evidence and proof."

Au contraire...I can offer many 'proofs' of a God. And I don't follow the difference (in this instance, other than semantics) between proof and evidence.

F.N: "scientific method."
Doesn't cover a whole lot that can be true for you then, does it?

Rimshot said...

I've attempted a brief definition of my thoughts on Truth here. Maybe it'll help, maybe not, but if you have a free moment and care to read it...

http://theessentialshot.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-definition.html

Henry North London 2.0 said...

a fact is a belief held by many people and verified by cross referencing what we know to be true

Oh this is very existential isnt it...

What is truth? and what is false

Is this the real life or is this just fantasy...