I see the idea of Truth slightly differently, though perhaps the difference is only one of semantics.
1. objectively and demonstrably true
2. opinion (modal logic can be useful here)
3. objectively and demonstrably not true
Problems arise when the second 2 become wedded and present themselves as the first. And the real trick is determining if the purveyor is doing it in bad faith - ego, narcissism, nihilism, financial incentives, etc.
We are all capable of erring, thus Nullius in Verba.
Very much enjoyed reading this. Truth from one vantage point can be seen as black or white, with no gradations of gray. That's objective truth. Opposite to that, truth is nothing but gray. That's subjective truth, or opinion. The in-between, where objective truth merges with or allows for subjective truth, is consensus truth. There is room for all three, but when subjective truth is the only truth allowed, chaos follows. At least, from my personal experience, when I've allowed subjective truth to inform my actions, chaos takes over.
Yes, that's a good way of describing what happens when I fail to suppress my ego, which of course wants what I want when I want it without regard to anything else, leading me to heedlessly voice or act on whatever ill-thought words, or beliefs that follow. Objective truth is the conservative in the room. Consensus truth is the libertarian in the room. Subjective truth is the progressive in the room.
I like this breakdown of truth between objective, subjective, and consensus. It makes it much easier to discuss.
The humility of ignorance is probably even more important. We should all recognize that we are limited by human abilities of perception, and that perhaps we have no idea what's really going on.
I like to think of objective truth that which can be proved mathematically. For example, we can easily prove that for any triangle in a plane, its interior angles add up to 180 degrees (or pi radians if you prefer). But that, and any mathematical proof, relies on certain "facts" that we assume to be true without proof, axioms. So if our axioms are false, the proof falls (false) apart.
In contrast we have physics and other sciences, which rely on empirical evidence. So, for example, the theory of evolution is a really good theory, and there is plenty of evidence to support that theory. But in the end, it can never be proven in the sense that a mathematical statement ("theorem") can be proven. The best we can do is to mathematically describe the world around us. So any "truth" that is not purely mathematical is necessarily consensus truth, or merely opinion. However, in our limited experience of reality, those truths operate pretty well to help us to manage our existence and avoid harm, like the truths of electricity and explosive materials. And so we accept such truths as objective truths, necessarily making the distinction between objective, subjective and consensus truth difficult to nail down with certainty.
Acknowledging all this ignorance and uncertainty leads to the conclusion that any attitude of certainty regarding any possible truth cannot ever justify, in a moral or ethical sense, the initiation of force or fraud to impose that truth on another. And Mathias Desmet makes clear that true believers cross that line when they become victims of mass formation. The mass acceptance of beliefs based in fear cause people to justify to themselves the use of violence in furtherance of what is seen as self-defense. So I suppose that it is the arrogance of certainty that can lead to all sorts of problems.
When you take into consideration theories of dark matter and dark energy, collectively we know "about" only 4% of what exists, and of that 4% we know almost nothing.
I really enjoyed reading this. I loved his challenge to approach questioning with “why would a kind and intelligent person think this”. This will my “swing thought” the next time I engage my kind and intelligent brother when we discuss our differences in Covid truths.
Well said.
I see the idea of Truth slightly differently, though perhaps the difference is only one of semantics.
1. objectively and demonstrably true
2. opinion (modal logic can be useful here)
3. objectively and demonstrably not true
Problems arise when the second 2 become wedded and present themselves as the first. And the real trick is determining if the purveyor is doing it in bad faith - ego, narcissism, nihilism, financial incentives, etc.
We are all capable of erring, thus Nullius in Verba.
As Richard Feynman said, “I would rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.”
Very much enjoyed reading this. Truth from one vantage point can be seen as black or white, with no gradations of gray. That's objective truth. Opposite to that, truth is nothing but gray. That's subjective truth, or opinion. The in-between, where objective truth merges with or allows for subjective truth, is consensus truth. There is room for all three, but when subjective truth is the only truth allowed, chaos follows. At least, from my personal experience, when I've allowed subjective truth to inform my actions, chaos takes over.
Yes, that's a good way of describing what happens when I fail to suppress my ego, which of course wants what I want when I want it without regard to anything else, leading me to heedlessly voice or act on whatever ill-thought words, or beliefs that follow. Objective truth is the conservative in the room. Consensus truth is the libertarian in the room. Subjective truth is the progressive in the room.
I like this breakdown of truth between objective, subjective, and consensus. It makes it much easier to discuss.
The humility of ignorance is probably even more important. We should all recognize that we are limited by human abilities of perception, and that perhaps we have no idea what's really going on.
I like to think of objective truth that which can be proved mathematically. For example, we can easily prove that for any triangle in a plane, its interior angles add up to 180 degrees (or pi radians if you prefer). But that, and any mathematical proof, relies on certain "facts" that we assume to be true without proof, axioms. So if our axioms are false, the proof falls (false) apart.
In contrast we have physics and other sciences, which rely on empirical evidence. So, for example, the theory of evolution is a really good theory, and there is plenty of evidence to support that theory. But in the end, it can never be proven in the sense that a mathematical statement ("theorem") can be proven. The best we can do is to mathematically describe the world around us. So any "truth" that is not purely mathematical is necessarily consensus truth, or merely opinion. However, in our limited experience of reality, those truths operate pretty well to help us to manage our existence and avoid harm, like the truths of electricity and explosive materials. And so we accept such truths as objective truths, necessarily making the distinction between objective, subjective and consensus truth difficult to nail down with certainty.
Acknowledging all this ignorance and uncertainty leads to the conclusion that any attitude of certainty regarding any possible truth cannot ever justify, in a moral or ethical sense, the initiation of force or fraud to impose that truth on another. And Mathias Desmet makes clear that true believers cross that line when they become victims of mass formation. The mass acceptance of beliefs based in fear cause people to justify to themselves the use of violence in furtherance of what is seen as self-defense. So I suppose that it is the arrogance of certainty that can lead to all sorts of problems.
And, of course, that is absolute truth! ;-)
When you take into consideration theories of dark matter and dark energy, collectively we know "about" only 4% of what exists, and of that 4% we know almost nothing.
I really enjoyed reading this. I loved his challenge to approach questioning with “why would a kind and intelligent person think this”. This will my “swing thought” the next time I engage my kind and intelligent brother when we discuss our differences in Covid truths.