Can we know the truth ?

[Aryan]

We can debate about it.
We might reach an answer, but thats only a compromise among us.
Can we really know the truth ?
I believe we can have as many thoeries we like to explain a single phenomenon.
But they will all remain instruments, we cannot not for sure which one is true and explains reality.

These doubts are really disturbing becuase I think we can know the truth forsure becoz our basis of belief rests upon axioms and observations which we have to believe anyhow.
And after I read Karl Popper these doubts really took more shape.

Well keeping Popper out of it, the main question remains
: will mankind ever know for sure that something is true or there will be only theories ?

[Boozer]

I think reality is too large for us to every truly comprehend. We will never know the complete truth, but I don't view that as a bad thing. The moment you know everything, you lose the capacity to learn and grow and evolve. I'll admit I'd love to the know Truth with a capital T, but I like getting there even more. That probably answers the question of do you want to know the truth more, but I guess I feel like whenever we say we know the Truth, we are usually proven wrong by the next day.

[Johnny]

"Truth" is a game in the simplest terms. Wanna play? Then go for it and enjoy. Want the real deal instead? Just open your eyes... :sombrero:

[jimkopelli]

I'm pretty sure I had eggs for breakfast... and that's as true as I know.

[Boozer]

The truth is... sombreros rule!

:sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:

:D

[cloakable]

I'll support that truth!

[Ckyzxr]

What's that thing about something "...sets you free"?

If you are never truly free then...

[Johnny]

The sombrero, my friends, is self evident... :sombrero:

:lol:

[Google Monster]

was it a chicken egg?

[Star Cannon]

We obviously won't if we don't try, Aryan.

[Avengardh]

Truth is what you make of it.

[purple13]

To know the truth, you must not believe yourself, nor believe others. What is not true will not survive this criteria, and what is left is the truth.

[jimkopelli]

Nah, it was an elephant egg. The truth? Probably not. But then... how many of us net addicts have actually seen a chicken lay an egg? How do we really know where they come from?

[CosmicDust]

The closest we can get to truth is something stable across human perception - both that of individual humans over time and through different situations, and that of multiple humans. Some matters have no absolute truth and, by that token, no falsehood.

[EternalCynic]

To put it simply: No.

[s]

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide

[Claverhouse]

You can only have faith that 'Truth', either as an actual reality or even as a concept, exists at all outside of our own delusion, or our own self-induced desire for it to exist.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Universal]

TRUTH?!? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[Boozer]

TRUTH?!? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I'll give universal one thing, he does keep it lively...

:rofl:

[jimkopelli]

And dumb. It's like tv...

[Claverhouse]

Stop the group bullying. He's Norwegian; like the Scots, they're different.

( Actually, Norwegians & Scots have much in common: not surprising when you think of the links they had, and the similarity of their countries ).



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

But that doesn't excuse him from being a troll...

[Claverhouse]

That reminds me, how Skarp-Hedin provoked the fights by forthrightly pointing out that the chap making peace with Njal's family was in fact the mistress of a famous troll, and wore sky-blue or plaid trousers to attract the said Svinafel troll, and be ridden by the troll like a mare.

I would imagine that this is the only reason anyone would wear such things. I liked Skarp-Hedin, he was a great guy. Great loss.

Funny how you suddenly remember things.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[candela]

Take the blue pill?

Isn't that the one for the truth?

Anyway, you can't ever know the truth because how could you be an authority figure on the truth and certify the truth if you are the one who is wondering what the truth is. Before even trying to explain phenomenon, the fact that we can't even be sure that we exist, unless that's what you mean by phenomenon, makes it pointless to find out if our explanations are "true".

[Johnny]

...we can't even be sure that we exist...

Huh?

[Claverhouse]

...we can't even be sure that we exist...

Huh?

Actually, that's right. Another aspect of faith being everything.

When I posted those Red Dwarf MP3s (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=729) I did think of adding an exegesis on that series being an meditation on solipsism, but thought better. Just as well. Still imagine that you are the only living creature in the universe. Now prove you're not.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

It's Cold Outside, No Kind of Atmosphere,
All Alone, More Or Less...

[Hazy]

Anyway, you can't ever know the truth because how could you be an authority figure on the truth and certify the truth if you are the one who is wondering what the truth is. Before even trying to explain phenomenon, the fact that we can't even be sure that we exist, unless that's what you mean by phenomenon, makes it pointless to find out if our explanations are "true".

Is this true? The absolute truth that we can't find absolute truth?

*blinks*

:blink:

[Hazy]

What about saying the absolute truth that we can't find absolute truth is absolutely true?

That would be another absolute truth. In which case it's false.

As well as the absolute truth that the absolute truth that the absolute truth that we can't find absolute truth is absolutely true would also be absolutely true...

My head hurts...

[jimkopelli]

What about things that are partially true? Are they fair game?

[Johnny]

...we can't even be sure that we exist...

Huh?

Actually, that's right. Another aspect of faith being everything.


The inability to rationalize our existence is only a problem, not evidence of our possible non-existence. We exist, and it is unproductive to surmise that we do not. Just ask Universal... :lol:

[Utopmk]

:rofl:

[Claverhouse]

...we can't even be sure that we exist...

Huh?

Actually, that's right. Another aspect of faith being everything.


The inability to rationalize our existence is only a problem, not evidence of our possible non-existence. We exist, and it is unproductive to surmise that we do not. Just ask Universal... :lol:

How can you prove I am not a delusive product of your mind, along with everything else you think you perceive or conceive ? And equally, you may be a construct of my mind to help me while away eternity. Or we may both be invented by someone else...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Johnny]

My head hurts...

To say something is true in logic means to say that it can be traced infallably back to the premises. Your problem is just highlighting an aspect of deductive logic, Hazy. We must start out with premises when we begin a deduction, and they don't have to be derived from anything.

The earth continues to revolve around the sun and the stars still come out at night...well, maybe for some of us who are not bathed in the city lights as consolation...

[Johnny]

How can you prove I am not a delusive product of your mind, along with everything else you think you perceive or conceive ? And equally, you may be a construct of my mind to help me while away eternity. Or we may both be invented by someone else...

I don't need to. Our existence must be noted regardless of its state.

[Dunearhp]

The only thing I know is that my conciousness exists. Everything else I take on in the belief that my senses are not lying.

[Hazy]

My head hurts...

To say something is true in logic means to say that it can be traced infallably back to the premises. Your problem is just highlighting an aspect of deductive logic, Hazy. We must start out with premises when we begin a deduction, and they don't have to be derived from anything.


So by your definition of truth, an absolute truth would be something that can always be traced infallably back to the premises, in all worlds, in any possible conditions.

In which case, there is an absolute truth; truth is something that can be traced infallably back to the premises.

It's never going to be falsified...

[Johnny]

So by your definition of truth, an absolute truth would be something that can always be traced infallably back to the premises, in all worlds, in any possible conditions.

In which case, there is an absolute truth; truth is something that can be traced infallably back to the premises.

It's never going to be falsified...

Yes, 1+1=2 under all worlds and in all circumstances. So what? :lol:

[INTrPosr]

Truth is subjective and viewed from one's perspective, based on their past experiences. Although we may be capble of viewing and agreeing with other's truths, we essentially can see it from our own perspective. At that point we will find like minded people to strengthen that truth. However, we also outgrow truths, especially as NTPs, thus a new truth will develop based on new information. On the other hand, NTJs will determine the truth and fight any new information which does not fit comfortably into their existing truth. I think that SJs would do this more than any type. Thus, truth is illusive once it is shared with others.

[Aryan]

So you say truth is Psychological ?

[jimkopelli]

Psychology has less truth than about anything else. It's just really good guesses... we hope.

[antireconciler]

For people actually interested, try "Connecting with our Spiritual Intelligence" by Zohar and Marshal. These two try to look at this very objectively and scientifically. It's a joy to read, however you think "truth" exists.

[Laeskis]

Depends on what type of Truth we're trying to know.
1+1 = 2. Truth.
I am a male. Truth.
Animals Breathe Oxygen. Truth.
Is there a Heaven. Unknowable...subjective.
Is there a soul. Unknowable...subjective

The unfortunate part, is that the subjective, unknowable Truths are the ones we're always trying to know. Damned paradoxical.

[Johnny]

Depends on what type of Truth we're trying to know.
1+1 = 2. Truth.
I am a male. Truth.
Animals Breathe Oxygen. Truth.
Is there a Heaven. Unknowable...subjective.
Is there a soul. Unknowable...subjective

The unfortunate part, is that the subjective, unknowable Truths are the ones we're always trying to know. Damned paradoxical.

These "truths" you display must be applied subjectively to the world as well...unless you have evidence for 1 in the world to offer and are holding out on us. Same goes for "male", "animals" and "oxygen". We created those definitions, we apply them, we scratch our heads when "oxygen" gets boring and we have to call it O2, find out that we breathe more nitrogen than oxygen, that pure oxygen will ignite us, and on, and on...

[Laeskis]

These "truths" you display must be applied subjectively to the world as well...unless you have evidence for 1 in the world to offer and are holding out on us. Same goes for "male", "animals" and "oxygen". We created those definitions, we apply them, we scratch our heads when "oxygen" gets boring and we have to call it O2, find out that we breathe more nitrogen than oxygen, that pure oxygen will ignite us, and on, and on...

The definition doesn't matter. If I choose to call the number 1 "peanut" and the number 2 'turtle' then peanut + peanut=turtle. It's still Truth. No matter the definition, and no matter where you're doing the addition. 1quantity + 1quantity always equals 2 quantities.

[Johnny]

These "truths" you display must be applied subjectively to the world as well...unless you have evidence for 1 in the world to offer and are holding out on us. Same goes for "male", "animals" and "oxygen". We created those definitions, we apply them, we scratch our heads when "oxygen" gets boring and we have to call it O2, find out that we breathe more nitrogen than oxygen, that pure oxygen will ignite us, and on, and on...

The definition doesn't matter. If I choose to call the number 1 "peanut" and the number 2 'turtle' then peanut + peanut=turtle. It's still Truth. No matter the definition, and no matter where you're doing the addition. 1quantity + 1quantity always equals 2 quantities.

Oh, I thought you were trying to answer my question. My bad. :lol:

[indczn]

Its all a matter of certainty.
You are extremely certain your a male (you could be wrong), but unlikely.
1 water drop + 1 water drop = 1 water drop. :P

[jimkopelli]

Your units are too large.
1 water molecule + 1 water molecule = 2 water molecules.

[Laeskis]

These "truths" you display must be applied subjectively to the world as well...unless you have evidence for 1 in the world to offer and are holding out on us. Same goes for "male", "animals" and "oxygen". We created those definitions, we apply them, we scratch our heads when "oxygen" gets boring and we have to call it O2, find out that we breathe more nitrogen than oxygen, that pure oxygen will ignite us, and on, and on...



Oh, I thought you were trying to answer my question. My bad. :lol:

Looks like a statement to me...where's the question?
Evidence for 1? :huh:

[Laeskis]

Its all a matter of certainty.
You are extremely certain your a male (you could be wrong), but unlikely.
1 water drop + 1 water drop = 1 water drop. :P

heh, that's cool. :D
It's always preferable to be a smartass instead of a dumbass.

[Johnny]

Looks like a statement to me...where's the question?
Evidence for 1? :huh:

Yeah. We concieve the number 1. My question was, "So what?"

Just in case the question's nature isn't immediately apparent, it was meant to lead into a discussion on epistemological theories and what knowledge is. I don't know much about epistemology beyond Hume and Kant...and even there I'm still grappling with their issues...

What is the matter of certainty? And how is indczn really cheating here by using a drop of rain rather than a molecule of water to turn "+" on its head? Isn't math supposed to offer us value in the world too, or is it only an invention to make, say, Monopoly a little more interesting than just rolling dice and moving game pieces?

:sombrero:

[Laeskis]

Yeah. We concieve the number 1. My question was, "So what?"

Just in case the question's nature isn't immediately apparent, it was meant to lead into a discussion on epistemological theories and what knowledge is. I don't know much about epistemology beyond Hume and Kant...and even there I'm still grappling with their issues...


This part I'll have to think about.




What is the matter of certainty? And how is indczn really cheating here by using a drop of rain rather than a molecule of water to turn "+" on its head? Isn't math supposed to offer us value in the world too, or is it only an invention to make, say, Monopoly a little more interesting than just rolling dice and moving game pieces?

:sombrero:

It's a definite cheat. We are talking of the addition of two quantities defined by a quantitative measurement. Raindrops are of no definite size. Drops of rain are not really bound by quantities and unless you break them down we end up doing some odd sort of qualitative addition.

[EternalCynic]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

[Johnny]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

Consensus? :lol:

I'm still confused as to how to apply the general no...can you be more explicit?

[Dengarm]

We can only interact with reality through our senses. Sinse our sences are
a) inaccurate (we can't sense many things, such as high frequency sounds)
b) delayed
c) filtered by our brain
we only really exist in a 'model' of reality created by our minds.

Just a thought at 1 am

(It's kinda like the matrix without the ominous and the ass kicking)




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

Expanded - 2am sorry if I ramble but I'm just thinking aloud

Things are either
- True (can be proven absolutly positive. ex. This book has 324 pages)
- False (can be proven absolutly negitive. ex. I have large feathery wings sprouting from my back)
- Maybe (Not currently testable. ex. There are particals smaller than whatever is currently the smallest thing, quasar or something)
- Meaningless (Forever untestable. ex. God loves everybody except those who like Avril Lavigne)

So most things are maybe until they are proven true or false. Like saying a coin will land on tails. While it is being flipped it is a maybe untill it lands (even if it is a double headed coin). We assume true or false too soon sometimes like when you see some guy on the street and you think it's Joe but when you tap him on the shoulder and say 'hey Joe' and he turns around and it's some guy whose not Joe, but he's really cute and you'd like to get to know him later but now he thinks you're a freak 'cause you called him Joe and he's probly at the courthouse right now getting a restraining order on you. You assume it's true when it's really a maybe until you prove he's actually Joe and not the cute guy, or, for that matter, Joe's evil twin bent on destroying his life and subsequently ruleing the world with an iron fist and watching for loyalty constantly and torturing all that oppose him and making everybody call you 'Baby Fetus' even though it's redundant and stupid and you hate that nickname and the bitch who gave it to you.

[Almaviva]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

Hmm, can I know the truth? I guess I can safely tell people the answer is "no" now. "Why not?" "Because there was a IRC meeting and they decided that was the answer."

[Claverhouse]

So most things are maybe until they are proven true or false. Like saying a coin will land on tails. While it is being flipped it is a maybe untill it lands (even if it is a double headed coin). We assume true or false too soon sometimes like when you see some guy on the street and you think it's Joe but when you tap him on the shoulder and say 'hey Joe' and he turns around and it's some guy whose not Joe, but he's really cute and you'd like to get to know him later but now he thinks you're a freak 'cause you called him Joe and he's probly at the courthouse right now getting a restraining order on you. You assume it's true when it's really a maybe until you prove he's actually Joe and not the cute guy, or, for that matter, Joe's evil twin bent on destroying his life and subsequently ruleing the world with an iron fist and watching for loyalty constantly and torturing all that oppose him and making everybody call you 'Baby Fetus' even though it's redundant and stupid and you hate that nickname and the bitch who gave it to you.

This bit is based on personal experience, right ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dengarm]

So most things are maybe until they are proven true or false. Like saying a coin will land on tails. While it is being flipped it is a maybe untill it lands (even if it is a double headed coin). We assume true or false too soon sometimes like when you see some guy on the street and you think it's Joe but when you tap him on the shoulder and say 'hey Joe' and he turns around and it's some guy whose not Joe, but he's really cute and you'd like to get to know him later but now he thinks you're a freak 'cause you called him Joe and he's probly at the courthouse right now getting a restraining order on you. You assume it's true when it's really a maybe until you prove he's actually Joe and not the cute guy, or, for that matter, Joe's evil twin bent on destroying his life and subsequently ruleing the world with an iron fist and watching for loyalty constantly and torturing all that oppose him and making everybody call you 'Baby Fetus' even though it's redundant and stupid and you hate that nickname and the bitch who gave it to you.

This bit is based on personal experience, right ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Um . . . no?
:blush:

I was really wiped out last night. Sorry.

[booyalab]

Truth is eternal. Knowledge is Changeable. It is disastrous to confuse them.
-Madeleine L'Engle

[Claverhouse]

Um . . . no?
:blush:

I was really wiped out last night. Sorry.


:D :D :D


Claverhouse :ph34r:


:rofl:

[Boozer]

God loves everybody except those who like Avril Lavigne

The truth has finally revealed itself. All Avril fans, repent! Your very souls are at stake!

[Boozer]

Can we know the truth? No.

But all the fun is in trying to get there.

[EternalCynic]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

Consensus? :lol:

I'm still confused as to how to apply the general no...can you be more explicit?

No we can't know the truth.. but obviously everyone has their own take on it =P

[EternalCynic]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

Hmm, can I know the truth? I guess I can safely tell people the answer is "no" now. "Why not?" "Because there was a IRC meeting and they decided that was the answer."

Well (unfortunately) we haven't got final say on all Universal facts and rules. <_< *grumbles*

[Johnny]

The IRC Consensus seems to be a General No, and different variations of such respectively :).

Hmm, can I know the truth? I guess I can safely tell people the answer is "no" now. "Why not?" "Because there was a IRC meeting and they decided that was the answer."

Well (unfortunately) we haven't got final say on all Universal facts and rules. <_< *grumbles*

That, or we've finally shut out the Universe entirely from having a say in the matter... :lol:

[Sackanaka]

The thing I always think about that reminds me that truth is never entirely absolute is that: 1) I really thought ninja turtles were the coolest thing that would ever be shown on tv, but then dragon ball came around. (truth changes over time and experience). 2) When I try to explain things to others, some don't understand what I'm saying or reject it because it conflicts with what they "know" to be true.
Like druggies who stammer about things we don't see; I don't think they're putting on a show for us, they really do see damn gremlins stealing their shrooms. (truth varies from perception to perception).
I'm gonna say it again: ZatAoMM.

[Claverhouse]

The thing I always think about that reminds me that truth is never entirely absolute is that: 1) I really thought ninja turtles were the coolest thing that would ever be shown on tv, but then dragon ball came around. (truth changes over time and experience).

This is not so much about truth as about opinion. You would have to define a/ Truth b/ Absolute c/ Cool d/ Experience e/ Ninja Turtles




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Sackanaka]

This is not so much about truth as about opinion. You would have to define a/ Truth b/ Absolute c/ Cool d/ Experience e/ Ninja Turtles

Exactly. Has anyone truly succeeded in establishing an absolute truth? No matter what, people are going to find a reason to disprove that truth with reason that may evade everyone but themselves, but to that person it is the truth. So we can go on and on about discussing truth being relative, but I'd agree with

Can we know the truth? No.

But all the fun is in trying to get there.

Since realizing this (tentative) nature of truth, I find it fun to work with but fulfilling to utilize it to help others in need of advice.

An argument that a friend of mine pointed out went like this: "Well if you claim that there is no absolute truth, isn't that a contradiction in itself?"

I retorted with "We tend to emphasize the use of language and scientific knowledge too much when reasoning things out." I assume that's the difference between T and F types, the way we extract reason to act upon. When T types think of truth I assume we like to think in terms of facts and evidence, but I think in doing so we miss the real goal of defining what's true; for me, that's "whatever keeps me satisfied with this world." Speaking on very broad terms of course, as all specifics intertwine and develop this pretty ugly (oxymoron!) web of truths. ("oxymoron!" added to enforce that the meaning/intention of the words contradict their physical counterparts, the word themselves)
So that I am not called a thought nazi, I tend to remind myself that I may think I know the truth, but it is more likely that I am wrong. Besides, closing off my world, especially in front of others, closes me off from more input to develop my truths and from the useful connections available from being on good terms with people.

[mgb]

Hi,

I'm new and this forum looks fun.

I think there can be truth but you have to realize that whatever truth is come to be known is not static.

For instance, the 1+1=2 anology.

If we change that to 1-1=0 its about the same. But the idea of 0 is pretty new. 0 hasn't always existed so that would not have been true as we understand it.

Also, why does 1+1 not = 3 There is really no reason that it doesn't equal 3. You have to be ready for it to equal 3 one day or understand that it may have equalled 3 in the past.

I guess my point is that in the grand scheme of things there really is no truth. We can create truths that suit our purposes right now but they only really exist in this time or place.

Also for a truth to be true there has to be universal agreement. With humans they way they are that seems impossible. In essense because of this there are no truths.

[jimkopelli]

Numbers are just agreed-upon symbols... 1+1=2 because we know that the quantity of (agreed upon symbol:one) of something and another (agreed upon symbol:one) comes to (agreed upon symbol:two). It could be (agreed upon symbol:flibbard) plus (agreed upon symbol:flibbard) equals (agreed upon symbol:dingus).
I don't think there has to universal agreement, it just has to be fact. Mr. Dude was shot in the head: fact. It is true that he was shot. Mr. Dude is now dead. He has no pulse or vital signs. fact. It is true that he has deceased.

[mgb]

Here is where universal agreement comes in. Some would say that Mr. Dude isn't dead because his soul went to heaven. He might be physically dead but part of him remains alive on another plane.

Also, one day, the might have a "cure" for massive headwounds and so if they freeze Mr. Dude fast enough he might be able to recover in the future, hopefully with an apptitude for dodging bullets.

To the people who froze Mr. Dude he wouldn't be dead, just in stasis until he gets cured.

[Johnny]

Numbers are just agreed-upon symbols... 1+1=2 because we know that the quantity of (agreed upon symbol:one) of something and another (agreed upon symbol:one) comes to (agreed upon symbol:two). It could be (agreed upon symbol:flibbard) plus (agreed upon symbol:flibbard) equals (agreed upon symbol:dingus).
I don't think there has to universal agreement, it just has to be fact. Mr. Dude was shot in the head: fact. It is true that he was shot. Mr. Dude is now dead. He has no pulse or vital signs. fact. It is true that he has deceased.

Isn't death an agreed-upon symbol too? I don't remember Mr. Dude's dead body waiting on us to continue changing...

[Hazy]

I think there can be truth but you have to realize that whatever truth is come to be known is not static.

I guess my point is that in the grand scheme of things there really is no truth. We can create truths that suit our purposes right now but they only really exist in this time or place.

Also for a truth to be true there has to be universal agreement. With humans they way they are that seems impossible. In essense because of this there are no truths.

Are these statements about the nature of truth true?

[mgb]

I guess we'll never know :)

[SheepDog]

Let's say that "Truth" is too big to know in it's intirety. Can you know part of truth? I'm inclined to say, no, and point out that the problem with trying to prove little truths is that they must occur in some context or other. This is like discounting part of Truth to try to prove some smaller truth. Discounting Truth doesn't lead to knowing it, or part of it.

[Almaviva]

1. It is impossible to know absolute truth.
2. Therefore, every idea is as good as any other.

Now, philosophy can be fun, and it can be fun to think about what we can and can't know, and what are sources of doubt in what we consider to be "fact".

But #2 is clear and total b.s. Too many wishy-washy philosopher types cross the line towards #2 way too far. Yes, I get very "J" when talking about science.

For instance, we may not know absolute truth, but not walking in the middle of major highways is a better strategy for survival than not doing so. (You could still get killed by a meteor taking the sidewalk, so it's not absolute.) It's fact that this is so.

[Hazy]

1. It is impossible to know absolute truth.


Is this always applicable to reality aka absolutely true? If so, how do you know this?

(Couldn't resist)

[Xenophon]

As Girban wrote: Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."

[mgb]

1. It is impossible to know absolute truth.

Is that a truth about not knowing the truth?

I guess that's the problem with the truth and/or the lack of the truth.

[SheepDog]

This is what I was talking about. All truths are part of Truth, and happen in the context of Truth. That makes it impossible to know a truth without knowing Truth, because you must discount (or set aside) part of Truth. This means your knowledge of the truth is compromised by discounting the context.

Everything (EVERYTHING) happens in context, and context changes everything. Walking down the middle of a freeway that is closed for construction, on a holiday when no workers are present may present no hazards at all, for example.

I get very P-like when I talk about stuff like this. I personally believe that Truth lies beyond knowledge, perception, and logic. These things impede, not add to knowledge of Truth. These things help us function in the world, but that is a totally different thing than knowing the Truth.

[mgb]

I personally believe that Truth lies beyond knowledge, perception, and logic. These things impede, not add to knowledge of Truth.

Could Truth not be a product of these things (knowledge perception logic) rather than let's say either seperate from them or if you want to get religious, the cause?

[SheepDog]

I think not. Perception and Logic are inherently flawed. Knowledge, as I am considering it, requires Perception and Logic, and is therefore flawed. But I don't think that any of these preclude the existence of a Truth beyond that which they can address.

I acknowledge that it's pretty unsettling to suggest that everything we think we know, perceive, or can reason is not necessarily true.

[Almaviva]

I acknowledge that it's pretty unsettling to suggest that everything we think we know, perceive, or can reason is not necessarily true.

I see it being more like not knowing whether a ruler is 30.01 cm instead of exactly 30. Okay, but I know it's not a meter long, and I also know it's not an elephant.

This seems to me exactly what people are doing with subjects like evolution. The exact details, the 0.001 of precision, is not known, but people want to use the fact that there is *some* uncertainty to fudge this being indication that any idea is as good as any other.

[jimkopelli]

I think most things are good enough for now, good enough for public useage. Having a 30.001 centimeter ruler hasn't killed anyone that I know... Do people really need to know the truth? Granted, people might need to know some of the truth... but not all the truth... they wouldn' be able to handle it... it probably depends.

[Aryan]

I think most things are good enough for now, good enough for public useage. Having a 30.001 centimeter ruler hasn't killed anyone that I know... Do people really need to know the truth? Granted, people might need to know some of the truth... but not all the truth... they wouldn' be able to handle it... it probably depends.

u r talking INTJ bro

But some people really need to know the truth, aren't those ppl INTPs (pioneers of civilization: Keirsey)

[SheepDog]

u r talking INTJ bro

But some people really need to know the truth, aren't those ppl INTPs (pioneers of civilization: Keirsey)
Aha! Knowing "facts" and knowing "Truth" are, indeed, different things.

[xiombarg]

Show me person whos Perceptions are immidiate and never wrong (prolly all of you have had falce perceptions (hallucinations etc) strong intuitive thinker here makes obvious remark about perception after all is not perfect thus one cannot receive 100% reliable and absolute information through it...

we dont even notice our all faults by thinking alone.
but our concept might chance on fly and you just keep claiming you have always tought like that even your friend knows you week ago claimed opposite but your explanation is now simple "You misunderstood me back then" or something in lines like that... when actually its you who chanced concepts of truth :)

[Zephyrus055]

Would you please not revive dead threads?

[xiombarg]

either forum a) sucks b) somebody did post to this thread and it was top of my list when i pressed button to reply and later it was removed?
c) considering above all and attitude of reply i dont really care