What Is Truth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(08-01-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  The bolded part is, I believe, largely your bias.
That's not my bias, that's my theoretical sensitivity (see Strauss & Corbin) and sociological imagination (See C. Wright Mills). Cool
Also, I found the contemporary skepticism much different from the original ancient Greek skepticism. Greek skepticism was refusal to make choice, ever searching and considering equally all possibilities, because at least one might be true, only we can't know which one. (you see, much in common with agnosticism) Today's skepticism seems to me more like conservatism or at worst, nihilism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 08:51 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(08-01-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You misunderstand what post-modernism is. Post-modernism rejects the truth of science; science is just a 'narrative' to them, without any more validity that any other narrative.
What? Shocking Are you serious? Or rather, are they serious? Blink Even creationists are trying to use science to prove creation. Even totally stupid people can give some grudging admiration to science for producing computers, rockets and weapons.

The post-modernism I know is a view of the modernity in which no value is supreme, all social values have been violated and rejected, the idea of progress too. It's a great disillusion from modern civilization that is crippling us, instead of motivating us into the future. I think these people mostly believe in money.

This is a good example of what you generally do: talk at length about things you are clueless about. What do you have a degree in? It isn't in the physical or biological sciences and I can't imagine a humanities or social science graduate not knowing what postmodernism is.

Chas is correct. One of the key ideas behind postmodernism is that so-called "Grand Narratives" (e.g. Marxism, the Enlightenment, Christianity) are dead and that there is no privileged determinant of truth, that there is no such thing as "The Truth" and that all knowledge is just a "narrative", i.e. a story we tell ourselves and each other. Postmodernists claim there are a plurality of "truths".

Here is Jean-Francois Lyotard--a leading figure in postmodern thought--on the subject.

No, Creationists are not "trying to use science to prove creation". They are trying to demonstrate that their scripture is not incosistent with the data by working backwards from the data to the scripture. No Creationist has ever done a scientific experiment and AFAIK Creationism is unable to yield testable hypotheses.

Quote:I also think there is a subtle influence in science that means an inherent distrust in all things human and more trust in dead, mechanical things.

What you think on this matter doesn't really matter, what is important is what you can demonstrate to others to be true.

Quote:I'm not sure if that's something post-modern, or if it's an old Protestant ethos of human sinfulness that lost the godly undertone, trust in science replacing God in the subconscious.

It looks to me to be just another of your unsubstantied claims.

Also, there is no such thing as "the subsconscious [mind]".

Quote:When I listen to philosophers, they are absolutely sure of human ability to know reality accurately and to derive basic human rights from it, even things like the necessity of human existence in the universe. (and they provide compelling arguments, only I forget them, I have to buy the damn book and look them up again)

This is entirely untrue. There is still no good argument for objective human rights. With the dismissal of religion and of the idea that man has a teleology (in postmodern jargon "Grand Narratives") there is nothing left to base objective human rights upon. We have human rights only because most of us agree that we want them and consequently they have been codified in law. We justify human rights on popular emotivist and pragmatic terms, i.e. we want them and they produce generally happier and more stable societies. That is all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
09-01-2014, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2014 06:38 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  This is a good example of what you generally do: talk at length about things you are clueless about. What do you have a degree in? It isn't in the physical or biological sciences and I can't imagine a humanities or social science graduate not knowing what postmodernism is.
My degree is in public administration, law and economy, with all the tasty "soft subjects" around, such as history, sociology, philosophy, psychology... I did my best to get to a purely sociological study program at another university. I had problems finding my right life course, so I lost a lot of time studying this or that. So I'm still learning, I'm learning a lot and according to a curriculum, post-modernism doesn't go first. We start from history.

(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Chas is correct. One of the key ideas behind postmodernism is that so-called "Grand Narratives" (e.g. Marxism, the Enlightenment, Christianity) are dead and that there is no privileged determinant of truth, that there is no such thing as "The Truth" and that all knowledge is just a "narrative", i.e. a story we tell ourselves and each other. Postmodernists claim there are a plurality of "truths".

Here is Jean-Francois Lyotard--a leading figure in postmodern thought--on the subject.
Ah, grand narratives. That. Yeah, there's Lyotard further up in my notes which I'm studying right now. Thanks for the tip. I'm populating my mind with dead guys right now and each needs to know their lines.

I'll read that article, because it would not occur to me. All they needed to say was that Marxism and Christianity are not scientific and well, Enlightenment was scientific, but the society isn't (Beck). So science can save the day by eliminating the human or social element from truth-searching. That way post-modernists could refuse grand narratives and keep science - but then they'd be called Positivists, I suppose.

(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No, Creationists are not "trying to use science to prove creation". They are trying to demonstrate that their scripture is not incosistent with the data by working backwards from the data to the scripture. No Creationist has ever done a scientific experiment and AFAIK Creationism is unable to yield testable hypotheses.
Sociologically speaking, aren't they at least recognizing the value of science by putting on white coats and staring into microscopes at real samples? Christians won't know the difference. According to the Tomas Theorem, if people believe something is real, it will have real consequences. So if people believe that real science is used, they should value it, right?
Or do you think that people value science lowly and so they believe in the boring stuff they don't care about, but disbelieve in what contradicts their religion?

(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  What you think on this matter doesn't really matter, what is important is what you can demonstrate to others to be true.
Sure thing. At least I can count on you to not believe in me blindly and so I can voice my half-finished thoughts safely without the fear of hooking any followers of my personal cult.

(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It looks to me to be just another of your unsubstantied claims.

Also, there is no such thing as "the subsconscious [mind]".

Well, the first one who inspired me to it was doctor Ron Miller several years ago and his book "What are schools for?" He pointed out the Protestant strictness and distrust to human being in American classroom. Which is significant, because USA didn't have empress Mary Theresa to arrange things this way, yet they ended up this way. Something of it probably carried over to universities and scientific community.

(08-01-2014 08:51 PM)Chippy Wrote:  This is entirely untrue. There is still no good argument for objective human rights. With the dismissal of religion and of the idea that man has a teleology (in postmodern jargon "Grand Narratives") there is nothing left to base objective human rights upon. We have human rights only because most of us agree that we want them and consequently they have been codified in law. We justify human rights on popular emotivist and pragmatic terms, i.e. we want them and they produce generally happier and more stable societies. That is all.
We'll see. When I have more time, I'll look up my ol' teacher's argument for objective human morality and we'll have a look at it. It's a video from lecture, not in English, so it's not readily accessible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(08-01-2014 05:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  The bolded part is, I believe, largely your bias.
That's not my bias, that's my theoretical sensitivity (see Strauss & Corbin) and sociological imagination (See C. Wright Mills). Cool
Also, I found the contemporary skepticism much different from the original ancient Greek skepticism. Greek skepticism was refusal to make choice, ever searching and considering equally all possibilities, because at least one might be true, only we can't know which one. (you see, much in common with agnosticism) Today's skepticism seems to me more like conservatism or at worst, nihilism.

Modern skepticism is simply waiting for evidence.
Again, your bias.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-01-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(09-01-2014 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Modern skepticism is simply waiting for evidence.
Again, your bias.
Modern skepticism I have met is more like asserting non-existence until evidence is provided. Skeptics distinguish atheism and anti-theism, so why don't they distinguish skepticism and go-fuck-yourself-ism? Wink
I don't mean they're wrong, I just mean they get carried away. This assertion of mine is not authoritative, but it may serve as a research question to be confirmed or rejected. And I don't mean definitions of concepts here, I mean how skeptics, real people, actually behave in a situation. Do they use empirical evidence as a justification to behave... assertively? Are they hurting themselves in the long run? From a social point of view, do they completely fuck up the debate by turning the public against them?

Righteous anger feels pretty good. But it makes other people behave badly. It excites their simian brain or even reptile brain, while we need them all nice, relaxed and using the neocortex to get across any kind of complex idea.

My current opinion is, the hardcore skeptics like James Randi was will be seen as dinosaurs, because they'll be unable to come up or keep up with new theories and theories will get more nebulous, inter-connected, inter-disciplinary and non-mechanistic with time. Our knowledge of reality will get weirder and crazier and less conforming with their Cartesian mindset.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 06:27 PM by DLJ.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 07:16 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 06:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am an inventor of new ways of thinking...

...

Quote:I don't deserve any credit, nothing of what I say is new or original...

Self-contradiction in the same post.

JESUS said, "I am the way, the TRUTH and the life. NO man comes to the father except by me." Now that is a truth you can bank on!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:33 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 06:40 PM by DLJ.)
RE: What Is Truth?
Welcome to the forum, Moganza.

I edited your post to move your comment to the bottom as you had placed it within Chippy's [quote] [/quote] marks.

Those who know Lumi and remember Chippy will be amused that in your very first post you chose to come between these two.

I hope you stick around.

It should be fun Wink


Also, thanks, I have a meeting with the bank later, I'll try that line of reasoning / line of credit.

"God's name is not considered good at the banks." -- LK Washburn (1911)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:24 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(22-08-2014 05:22 PM)Morganza Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 07:16 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...


Self-contradiction in the same post.

JESUS said, "I am the way, the TRUTH and the life. NO man comes to the father except by me." Now that is a truth you can bank on!

That's what I've been saying. Thumbsup




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: What Is Truth?



There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
Truth is reality, reality is testable, what is testable must also be observable, when it is observed it is confirmed as truth.

There for, it is not a matter of opinion or an individuals perception of what reality may or may not be, nor is it a matter of what we want it to be or wish it would be based on some kind of faith. It is a matter of what we can see, smell,hear, taste, and feel combined with our ability to test it and not only repeat that, but have others who can confirm it as being the same.

Once that happens, truth is discovered.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: