A Measure of Truth

[Gees]

Per my promise to Eise, the following is a copy of a post that I wrote many years ago. I copied it from another forum, and it should be considered as a first draft, as I can already see that I made changes in my ideas since that time. There is no reference to Established truths like Laws of Physics, Laws of Nature, Universals, or even Mathematics, and I had not yet determined that emotion is real, so there is no reference to Emotional truths.

Please note that I was not looking to find truths, but looking to categorize and rate as to reliability the truths that I understood. So please consider:

 

Like all philosophers, I have spent a lot of time contemplating "truth", and find it to be illusive. Truth is not an absolute, so THE truth, or absolute truth, or ultimate truth, is illusion or idealism. Truth is a reflection of reality, and it is necessary to understand it in order to acquire knowledge; but it is not static, it is forever changing as reality is forever changing. Some truths seem to be more stable however; so, I broke truth into categories of reliability: Simple Truth, Conceptual Truth, Acceptable Truth, Common Truth, Classic Truth, and Philosopher's Truth. These have become my measures of truth.

 

Simple truth is the opposite of false and lies. This category of truth is very transient and can turn false rather quickly. An example is; I am alive--truth, but it may not be truth in an hour. So this truth is only relative to the "now" of whenever the truth was made or told.

 

Conceptual truth is truth that has been designated and agreed upon, and as such it is a very reliable truth. Examples of this kind of truth are measurements, directions, language, etc. But then true north adjusts itself, gallons are now liters, and inches are centimeters, so this truth can also change. One aspect of Conceptual truth that is convenient, is that whatever breaks an established truth also usually supplies the material needed to recreate a better truth, so it is still very reliable.

 

Acceptable truth is truth that can be verified in at least three different ways, preferably from three different kinds of perspectives and is an objective truth. This truth requires evidence and is commonly used by science, Courts, and people in general to establish a truth. An example; What if I saw a poisonous snake on my couch? It looks like a snake, I am afraid, but it does not make sense to my mind because poisonous snakes do not live in my area. I do not accept this truth that is offered to me, I check. I watch the snake or throw something at it to see if it is a snake or one of my grandson's toys, then follow up that test with the appropriate action after I have discovered an acceptable truth. Most science falls under the category of acceptable truth. This does not mean that acceptable truth can not change, as it can and does, science often revises their own truths (facts) to make more acceptable truths when they discover more information. Acceptable truth is more than just "now"; it is a truth that can be relied upon for the foreseeable future.

 

What I can not accept as Acceptable truth is a "truth" that is established through only one kind of perspective, as this can too easily be falsehood. An example would be a truth based solely on mental deliberations, no matter how logical those deliberations are, they are likely to be rationalization rather than truth. An example of the physical would be something like statistics, no matter how valid, the interpretation can be invalid. An example of spiritual would be a belief in anything that has nothing to support it, as that would look like opinion to me. To be an Acceptable truth, I would need to have some kind of corroborating evidence from another kind of perspective--preferably three perspectives. Example: The police find two people dead at a table, both shot with the same gun, and the gun in the hand of one of them. Many people would accept that one person shot the other, then themself. But I would want a motive for the shooting and a witness that could state that there were not three people originally at that table.

 

Common truth is truth that is common to at least 90% of a category of people. It is a subjective truth and must be treated as such. There are some philosophers and scientists, who believe that there is no such thing as subjective truth--that is not so. Common truth is knowledge or behavior shared by people who share a commonality, and can include; who people are, what people are, where people live, and common experiences of people. It should be considered that people's Common truths are intermingled as two people can be religious and nonreligious, employer and employee, single and married, but both share the same illness giving them a commonality. So why is Common truth worthy of consideration? Because Common truths can give us knowledge and understanding that could only be otherwise acquired by being all things and knowing all things. Since none of us are God, that is an impossibility, so we acquire truth, knowledge, and understanding where we can find it. Example: Most babies will study the image of a face; this is a Common truth. If your baby does not, it may be of no consequence, but it may also be a good idea to check out baby's vision or watch for signs of Autism.

 

There is a danger in viewing Common truth in an objective manner. One can not assume that because a person is a child that they will want to play with another person who is also a child, or that one person who is an employee will identify with another person who is an employee. Common truth is subjective, to view commonality in an objective manner is to walk a path that can lead straight into the ignorance of prejudice. Common truth is also transient and lasts only as long as the commonality, but the knowledge obtained through the commonality is valid and can be viewed objectively. So Common truth can give us information, facts, knowledge, and understanding that can be relied upon as truth for the foreseeable future.

 

Classic truth is just what it sounds like--classic. Whether common or acceptable, these truths have survived as truth for at least a thousand years, and so they are classic truth. Classic truth is no more reliable than Acceptable or Common truth, but it does have the test of time on it's side, so to overturn Classic truth, one needs to have more proof than would be required to overturn an Acceptable or Common truth. The longer a Classic truth is accepted, the more proof is required to overturn it. A specific example of Classic truth would be the idea that the world is flat. It took a long time to overturn that truth. But Classic truth can be relied upon as it is initially an Acceptable or Common truth that has been validated by time.

 

Philosopher's truth is truth that has been proven to be Acceptable, Common, and Classic. If it does not meet the requirements of all three, then it is not Philosopher's truth. My intention is to categorize a truth so reliable and strong that philosophers can use it to challenge other truths, use it to help build new truths, and to base wisdom upon. A specific example of Philosopher's truth would be that humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. In order to overturn a Philosopher's truth, evidence from both, Common truth and Acceptable truth, would have to be brought to bear, because if evidence invalidated only one aspect of truth, then the Philosopher's truth would simply downgrade to Classic truth. I think that Philosopher's truth could be as reliable as any law of nature.

 

Occasionally there is a truth that can not be proven, is not commonly known, and is new, and so it does not fit into the above categories. This can be called a possibility, or a probability, or a theory, or hypothesis, but it can not be called truth. It would be difficult to be a person, who has possession of such a truth, always wondering if they are mad or brilliant, but such is the nature of truth.

 

So, members, how reliable to you think my measures of truth are?

 

Gee

 

[Lasse]

8 hours ago, Gees said:

I had not yet determined that emotion is real,

I would say it is real but I might be alone with ny opinion.

The level of emotional intelligence for sure scaleable(digitally)

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Simple truth

Reality itself. The applied laws of Nature.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Conceptual truth

Our physical reality based understandig of Nature. (Relativity)

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Acceptable truth

Physically provable facts.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Common truth

Knowledge we teach to each other.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Classic truth

The first thoughts about Nature. Interesting questions and answers of their time. Good sources for questions in evolving Science.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Philosopher's truth

logic, logic, logic.

Can question everything and can try to answer every Natural phenomena by logic. Anything physically contradicts a recognition, the recognition is invalid.

I think somewhere philosophers protects truth. For me that manifests in protecting Nature and it's principles, as well as Science and it's philosophy on the path to discover It. The purpose of Science is to recognize Reality through relativity.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Lasse

[Ten oz]

Simple, conceptual, and acceptable are basically all the same per your definitions in my opinion. Simple truths, like you're alive, can be verified and agreed upon which are your stated prerequisites for conceptual and acceptable truths. For the other 3 (common, Classical, Philosopher's)  I'd replace the word "truth" with the word "opinions". Just because lots of people agree with something or have believed something for a long time doesn't make it truth. Majority opinion is still just an opinion. 

[Lasse]

How you scale(measure) them? 

Digitally one could say on an 0-10, 0-100 scale.

A bit like a human resource scaling.

For something to be true, physical evidence is required. By that a proven truth just right can be.

The evidence can be direct (observed in reality) or indirect (the best possible theory when all physical evidences accounted)

Edited April 22, 2018 by Lasse

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Digitally one could say

In this context, all one can say is, there's an awful lot of grey and not a lot of black and white; so what's your obsession with the word digital? Which in this context is binary. 

[Lasse]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In this context, all one can say is, there's an awful lot of grey and not a lot of black and white; so what's your obsession with the word digital? Which in this context is binary. 

Yes, true.

Something true supposed to be physically and mathematically recognizable, and generally applied.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Lasse

[Lasse]

On 2018. 04. 21. at 9:51 AM, Gees said:

Truth is not an absolute

On this Gee I would disagree with you.

The truth, the scenario observed, has many factors but One presentation which can not be absolutely known by One i.e. one can not be absolutely aware of all the factors. Recognition itself is relative. (I.e related to the space and time of the recognition as well as to what One knows and senses)

Edited April 22, 2018 by Lasse

[universaltheory]

In as far as all those specifically different real truths are consistent and complete through the general real truth; why can't i celebrate?