I would like to thank everyone for their support of my blog, I was a bit hesitant at first but I feel this is a good thing for me to do now (even though its only the second day...)
Although I contemplated putting up the first write-up
I did, i feel it's be better if I stick to the schedule of once-a-week (in addition to the fact that much of what I had written was too radical and dare I say, mad, looking back on it) Despite this, I ask you this:
If I asked you to tell me what is truth, would you be able to answer fully? You may answer the truth is what you know to be right, the scientific approach. However, the 'true' atom 100 years ago was different from the true atom of today. Since proof is constantly in change and fluctuation, science cannot be the truth. You may also answer that the truth is what you believe to be right, the spiritual approach. However, if one's belief is based on one's opinion, and since everyone opinions differ (to some extent), it would be impossible to define one persons belief to be 'true' and another persons belief to be a 'lie'. In essence of this spiritualism and opinions cannot be the truth, since beliefs also change and conflict constantly. However if opinions are unable to certify what is true in his world, and science cannot certify what is true, would this mean that 'truth' and 'lies' are non-existent?
I apologise if this is poorly worded/explained, but it is just off the top of my head and is more of an introduction to the ideas I, and hopefully you guys, will be throwing around next week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although truth is very difficult to pin down, I would suggest that it can perhaps be defined to a fairly high extent by science. To use a similar example to yours, at one point in history it was considered the scientific truth that the world was flat. Obviously now the scientific truth is rather that the world is round. However it would be absurd to argue that simply because everyone thought the world was flat, the scientific truth at the time was that the world was flat. Simply because 100 years ago the consensus view of the atom was a certain thing does not make it the truth surely?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that simply because what is considered the 'true' atom has changed, doesn't mean that there is no truth. Simply that what was believed to be the truth 100 years ago was not actually the truth but that it was a misconception, that it was actually a lie. The same can apply with my example of the world being round. It is surely logical now to say that it is the truth that the world is round and that the view several hundered years ago that the world was flat was a lie and not truth. Using this argument is it not reasonable to define truth scientifically?
We can say with almost total surity that a piece of paper that we see as red; is indeed red; and surely it would be considered the truth to say that said piece of paper was red? Of course there is the possibility that everyone has the wrong idea and that red is in fact green, but it becomes irrelevant as our word for it is not truly important; we would still all grasp the essense of what colour the paper was.
Note that I am making the assumption that we can trust our senses and that we really are living the lives we think we are; if we are just brains hooked up to a computer to simulate life experiences then most arguments become irrelevant and it could be extremely difficult or impossible to define truth as we have no firm definite knowledge from which to draw truth.
Hard to say though, what do you think?
truth is "a fact that is not false" by normal definitions, although depending on what your talking about it may have different meanings (eg, in politics, europe is a continent, whereas in geographical terms, it is part of the eurasian continent).
ReplyDeletethis makes it hard to argue what is truth, however, science does not claim that what it says is truth. it says that here is a theory, it is the best we canthink of to match what we know, it is open to criticism.
the world was thought to be flat, because there was nothing to suggest otherwise.
also, in religious education, the first thing you are taught is that noones personal views on a matter are true, or false.
terry pratchett covers this in one of his books, and what he calls "lies-to-children", small lies that set them up for more learning. (eg, underthe ground it is magma [liquid rock] when it is a semisolid)
im happy now, the blog i used to argue on has shut down for a few months and this turned up literally a week later :D
Owen,
ReplyDeleteyou are correct in saying that the resultant opinions of others do not directly constitute scientific fact. However, due to this, does this not mean that today's consensus about the atom example will itself be inaccurate as a truth with further proof, becoming itself a 'lie'? (I'm glad you touched on this, since this is exactly what I will discuss next week) This will continue to happen again and again as science progresses, making fact, and certain truth, most likely unattainable to anyone (without considering omniscience)
I also like your idea of 'essence', a collective opinion, but as you have already pointed out, these theories rely on trust, a mere concept in itself. A person who looks at the paper sees it as red, however, everything in that man's life has first been filtered through perspective. Perspective results in the points of view everyone has, possibly being completely different, and as such may make it near impossible to pin down what the real world really is. Taking this into account, it is difficult to have trust with anything that can be put before us, and resultantly difficult to consider any truth, or an lie, as absolute.
Also, Alex:
ReplyDeleteTo me, I believe your point only reinforces my argument. Although Science and Religion are offically only view, the majority of people will take what they believe they know with utter faith, it becoming their own 'truth', so to speak.
Also you know I dislike it when you point out my arguments use words where they shouldn't, I'm using them to represent a concept in a way people can comprehend, not to explain them scientifically.
i had this thought but i can only 1/2 remember it. read th following statement;
ReplyDeletei believe,at the time i 1st wrote this, i am sitting in front of a computer.
you may dispute whether or not i am in front a computer, but i believe i am. assuming i am not being a liar, the statement is a truth, even if tomorrow i look back and realise i was, for some reason, not in front of a computer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete