Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

[dimreepr]

Which one?

[koti]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which one?

No, that one is an idiot. I’ve read his papers, nobody agrees with him, hes full of it. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by koti

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

No, that one is an idiot. I’ve read his papers, nobody agrees with him, hes full of it. 

who knew a tit would have such a small nipple?

[puppypower]

When you tell white lies, the most common reasons are to make people feel better and/or not hurt their feelings. The question becomes, why is this important to where you think you need to lie? The white lies prevent you from getting into an awkward situation that can be hard to fix. Or the white lie can make you feel good, because the other person feels good and reflects this back to you. In the end, lying is selfish.

The truth is not always convenient. It may open a can of worms if the person reacts in an irrational way. A lie allows one to avoid this drama. If the wife or husband asked if she/she looked fat in their new outfit, lying will save you an entire evening of drama. It is the lessor of two evils, which is why it is called white. 

With PC, the goal is to make everyone so sensitive to everything, and too neurotic to know the difference, that it becomes expeditious to lie, so you can avoid all the drama. If I went to a left wing university and spoke of the latest Hillary corruption news, which may be truth, I would have a lot to deal with. It may be easier to stay quiet or to pretend to go along, since this path of white lie will make my life easier. However, it if I really care for others,  lying will reinforce a delusion and neurotic tendencies that are not heathy in the long term.  But not everyone has the skill to perform psychological surgery without malpractice suit by the irrational. I may come back to lying, to get out without damage. 

In the end, lying is type of shake down and tribute expected of honest people, by the neurotic people. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by puppypower

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, puppypower said:

When you tell white lies, the most common reasons are to make people feel better and/or not hurt their feelings.

13 minutes ago, puppypower said:

In the end, lying is selfish.

How is that selfish?

 

[Gees]

There are more responses than I expected, and I like to think about your posts before I respond. So I hope you will all give me some time to respond appropriately. Thank you for your patience.

 

Dimreepr;

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 3:48 AM, dimreepr said:

Yin and Yang 

Although I have not studied it extensively, I am aware that Yin and Yang is a study of balance in life and Nature, which means that it is wisdom. Are you saying that since everything ends up balancing itself, that truth is not necessary? Or that it is not relevant? Or that it changes?

The word, Philosophy, translates to "love of wisdom", and wisdom is just an advanced level of truth, so truth is very relevant.

Science takes facts and compares and adds them up to calculate "statistical facts" which are used in Science. Wisdom is similar.

Philosophy takes truths, accumulates them, then measures them against other truths and balances them with other truths, then walks them through time. If we do this correctly, we end up with wisdom. I'll give you a small seemingly insignificant example:

I was reading old adages (old wisdoms) many years ago, when I read, "Always build your house East of your field." I thought to myself, this one does not apply to me as I am not a farmer and don't build houses. A week or so later, as I was driving to work, squinting, and playing with my car visor, I was thinking that since it was Winter, I would also be fighting to see on the way home from work. I told myself that if I ever changed jobs, I would look for one West of my home. It was at that point that I finally understood the old adage.

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Truth

Most of us have to work, and many have to travel to that work. Truth

A farmer works from sunup to sundown. Truth

Traveling to and from work every day of your work life with the sun in your eyes is damned irritating. Truth

So build your house East of your field, or find work West of your home. Life is irritating enough, no sense adding to it. 

You do have a valid point. Truths about good and bad, and right and wrong, are balanced in wisdom, so there is a connection there. +1 But none of this invalidates truth; if anything, it supports the validity of truth.

Gee

 

Puppypower;

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 7:01 AM, puppypower said:

Another way to approach this is to use science as a litmus test. Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular? The answer is no, because we all benefit, collectively, by truth in science, even if that truth means we may have to deal with some neurotic people. Science is converted to engineering which make consumer products, Lying in science can cause serious injuries; the new pill is safe so take it. 

This made me smile, because you do have a point. +1 When I watch TV the only thing I see as much as advertisements for new drugs, is advertisements from attorneys wanting me to sue someone because of badly-tested drugs. This shouldn't happen, but it does.

Many people like to tell me that Science does not deal in truths, but in facts. This is both, true and false. There are many different kinds of truth. In reality facts are just static objective truths. In Science, you also have scientists, which means that you have people. When you have people, you have social truths and political truths and even emotional truths. This is unavoidable. The good news is that most "lying" that is done about facts in testing can be discovered if the procedures that Science values are used properly.

 

Quote

White lies are a way for the ego, to avoid neurotic reactions, from those who may need to be deceived, so they will shut up. The mother may lie to the child about him being smart, so she does not feel bad, if he feels bad. She is lying for herself, to avoid the discomfort that might be induced by her child because the true may make him feel bad. This is short term thinking.

White lies come under social truths and are necessary in any society. Whether she is lying for herself, her child, or both of them, applies to motivation and would be better studied by a psychologist. I don't know why you think this is "short term thinking" as social lies are necessary to promote the smooth continuance of societies.

 

Quote

Truth is designed for long term thinking, whereas relative truth and white lies is about short term thinking. Truth is important to science since science has a long term vision often connected to consumer products. In politics, the scale is shorter in time, so lies and relative truth make more sense. The lie may only need to last until election time. If there is a negative long term consequences, the politician and fake news, can lie again and again, to buy additional time. 

I don't think I can agree with your first sentence, and the rest has turned into a ramble. There are many kinds of truth; facts which are static and objective, wisdom which is enduring and very long term, and the truth that is relevant to now. There was a time when I could say that I was five years old, and it was the truth -- it would not be the truth if I stated it now. The nature of truth is subjective, and it can be relevant to time, perspective, and type of truth.

 

Quote

 

If you compare the Conservative approach to the Liberal approach, in terms of time scale, Conservative is about long term values. Liberal is new and cutting edge and is shorter term ideas. Truth would be more useful to conservatives, while relative morality would serve Liberalism better; appeasement.

 

I can agree that Conservatives have long term values and Liberals have shorter term ideas, but fail to see how this relates to truth. You seem to be stating that one group's truth is more valid than another group's truth. That is about judgment, not truth.

 

Quote

If you look deeper, this breaks down to male and female or conditional and unconditional love. Conditional loves sets long term standards, unconditional changes with needs. We are more feminized in modern times, so relative morality seems to be as valid due to the practical needs of appeasement. 

I don't agree with any of this and think you are trying to rationalize love. Good luck with that.

Gee

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Gees said:

Many people like to tell me that Science does not deal in truths, but in facts. This is both, true and false.

IMO, it’s just wrong. Science deals in process, methods that help us forever journey closer to reality by helping minimaize the everpresent influence of our personal biases.

Sometimes we’re fortunate to learn new facts and arrive at certain truths as a result of this method, but the method itself is what matters. The process is a way to describe the truest essence of science, and it does so far better than any collection of data or facts ever possibly could.  

Apologies if you feel this is off-topic. I’m sincerely not trying to distract from your topic and will once more watch from the sidelines. I just think people too often misrepresent what science really is and it needs to be corrected at every turn.  Perhaps that’s my inner philosopher talking, though <chuckle>.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

IMO, it’s just wrong. Science deals in process, methods that help us forever journey closer to reality by helping minimaize the everpresent influence of our personal biases.

Sometimes we’re fortunate to learn new facts and arrive at certain truths as a result of this method, but the method itself is what matters. The process is a way to describe the truest essence of science, and it does so far better than any collection of data or facts ever possibly could.  

Apologies if you feel this is off-topic. I’m sincerely not trying to distract from your topic and will once more watch from the sidelines. I just think people too often misrepresent what science really is and it needs to be corrected at every turn.  Perhaps that’s my inner philosopher talking, though <chuckle>.

Yes, it's about 'how', not ''why'.

[Area54]

On 14/03/2018 at 1:15 PM, Strange said:

Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

That's true.

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Area54 said:

That's true.

Or is it ...

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

White lies come under social truths and are necessary in any society. Whether she is lying for herself, her child, or both of them, applies to motivation and would be better studied by a psychologist. I don't know why you think this is "short term thinking" as social lies are necessary to promote the smooth continuance of societies.

White lies deny those being lied to information. Whether done to protect, calm, or whatever it still denies individuals access to information. The usefulness of a white lies is manifested internally by the one who is lying which leaves it open to error. Only when information is shared can it be tested. It is why in science peer review is so important. I have ideas I was sure were correct in my head be proven false once shared. The move eyes something the better. More brains equal more processing power. Lying is something that only benefits the liar.

10 hours ago, Gees said:

I don't think I can agree with your first sentence, and the rest has turned into a ramble. There are many kinds of truth; facts which are static and objective, wisdom which is enduring and very long term, and the truth that is relevant to now. There was a time when I could say that I was five years old, and it was the truth -- it would not be the truth if I stated it now. The nature of truth is subjective, and it can be relevant to time, perspective, and type of truth.

Nope, the state of being true in binary. When you were five it was true for 364 days and then it was no longer true and never would be again. Things are or are not and the only relevant matter of perspective is our ability to understand what things are. Uncertainty based on a lack of knowledge creates situations where one must subjectively choose or assume what the truth is but those guesses have to actually impact on what the truth is. 

[koti]

11 hours ago, Gees said:

There was a time when I could say that I was five years old, and it was the truth -- it would not be the truth if I stated it now. The nature of truth is subjective, and it can be relevant to time, perspective, and type of truth.

This confirms what I wrote in my previous posts that the only instance when the objectivity, validity (or whatever) of truth can be debated is when the concept of truth should not be applied to that issue.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Nope, the state of being true in binary. 

That suggests you should (must) be able to uniquely determine whether every single statement is either true or false. If not, how do you know it is binary.

What about things that are unknown? Or unknowable? Or partially true? Or provisionally true? Or conditionally true?

If you look at Snopes and other fact-checking sites they don't have a binary distinction because they know reality is more nuanced than that.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Things are or are not and the only relevant matter of perspective is our ability to understand what things are. Uncertainty based on a lack of knowledge creates situations where one must subjectively choose or assume what the truth is but those guesses have to actually impact on what the truth is. 

What about facts that are relative. Is it "true" that the Sun is stationary and we orbit around it? Or is it true that the Sun orbits the galaxy and we follow a complex path around that?

All motion is relative so can you say that it is true that A is stationary and B is moving?

Can you say it is true that two events happened at the same time when, from another frame of reference one could have happened before the other or vice versa?

Edited March 16, 2018 by Strange

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

That suggests you should (must) be able to uniquely determine whether every single statement is either true or false. If not, how do you know it is binary.

What about things that are unknown? Or unknowable? Or partially true? Or provisionally true? Or conditionally true?

If you look at Snopes and other fact-checking sites they don't have a binary distinction because they know reality is more nuanced than that.

What about facts that are relative. Is it "true" that the Sun is stationary and we orbit around it? Or is it true that the Sun orbits the galaxy and we follow a complex path around that?

All motion is relative so can you say that it is true that A is stationary and B is moving?

Can you say it is true that two events happened at the same time when, from another frame of reference one could have happened before the other or vice versa?

The truth doesn’t care about these dilemmas. 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

What about things that are unknown? Or unknowable? Or partially true? Or provisionally true? Or conditionally true?

Things are or are not whether they are or are not known to me. Understanding why something is and what something is aren't equal. What I think is true always come with the caveat that it is to my best knowledge. 

2 minutes ago, koti said:

The truth doesn’t care about these dilemmas. 

Correct

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, koti said:

The truth doesn’t care about these dilemmas. 

But it is affected by them.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But it is affected by them.

No its not, the truth either is or is not and is not affected by anything. It cannot be changed, infulenced, the truth is a done deal state. Always. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by koti

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

No its not, the truth either is or is not and is not affected by anything. It cannot be changed, infulenced, the truth is a done deal state. Always. 

Let's take the being 5 as an example, it's a result of a purely arbitrary measure of time, change that measure and it would be possible to be 5 again, or if different countries use different measures it could be true here and false there. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

change that measure

Change the measurement on what is true per the measurement changes. No real dilemma there. 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Let's take the being 5 as an example, it's a result of a purely arbitrary measure of time, change that measure and it would be possible to be 5 again, or if different countries use different measures it could be true here and false there. 

Sure. But the truth still doesn’t care, its always there however complex the system is. Feynman once said something along the lines of - Maybe nature is to be summerized in a theory of everything and maybe it will turn up to be an endless onyon like layer construct which we will never uncover fully” The truth still doesn’t care about his statement, or about anything said in this thread or about anything for that matter.  

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Change the measurement on what is true per the measurement changes. No real dilemma there. 

China has only one time zone so 12 noon can be both day and night (light and dark) which is true?

8 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure. But the truth still doesn’t care, its always there however complex the system is. Feynman once said something along the lines of - Maybe nature is to be summerized in a theory of everything and maybe it will turn up to be an endless onyon like layer construct which we will never uncover fully” The truth still doesn’t care about his statement, or about anything said in this thread or about anything for that matter.  

The twin paradox means that one is 5 for 1 year and other is 5 for 20 years they're both true?

[koti]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The twin paradox means that one is 5 for 1 year and other is 5 for 20 years they're both true?

In this case the truth is that it is silly to state a question whether one is true and the other not  

Edited March 16, 2018 by koti

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

In this case the truth is that it is silly to state a question whether one is true and the other not  

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, koti said:

The truth doesn’t care about these dilemmas. 

The truth is an abstract concept that we are discussing. I am just testing how one would define it as absolute when it can be different for different people.

 

4 minutes ago, koti said:

In this case the truth is that it is silly to state a question whether one is true and the other not  

So there are things that are neither true or false?

55 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Things are or are not whether they are or are not known to me.

What about the spin of a particle that hasn't yet been measured? As far as we know, it doesn't have a value until you know it.

Quote

What I think is true always come with the caveat that it is to my best knowledge. 

So truth is conditional?

 

39 minutes ago, koti said:

No its not, the truth either is or is not and is not affected by anything. It cannot be changed, infulenced, the truth is a done deal state. Always. 

So if we are sitting in the middle of a train and we see two flashes of lightning hit each end of the train at the same time, we can it is true that those two flashes of light were simultaneous?

And that is always true and cannot be changed by anything?

[koti]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

Sure. But the truth doesn’t care about Marcus Aurelius’s statement too, nor about the fact that you posted it twice in this thread.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The truth is an abstract concept that we are discussing. I am just testing how one would define it as absolute when it can be different for different people.

 

So there are things that are neither true or false?

The abstract concepts of truth that we are discussing here can be exposed to iterpretation, I agree. The absolute truth that I am leaning towards in this discussion doesn’t care about that too. 

If things can neither be true or false or whatever other scenario, then that is the truth. 

Not that it would change anything but could you give an example of a thing that is neither true or false?