Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tazz10m · 07-09-2003, 11:08 PM

Tristan, it is true that the dictionary is considered an authority, but should we consider it an absolute authority? I think not. Ask yourself, how often are "the authorities" found to be wrong?

I think the key to understanding my last post was where i wrote:

Quote:

"So, in consideration of that, it can be reasonably argued that "accepted as true" should be left out of the definition."

...the keys being "in consideration of that" ("that" being the majority of the dictionary definitions themselves) and "it can be reasonably argued".

Personally, i don't consider myself to be an expert or authority, but i do have my opinions.

Do i think "accepted as true" should be left out? Maybe. I'm still thinking about it.

07-10-2003, 03:35 AM

Should �accepted as true� be left out? I cannot help smile at that one. The only way it will subsequently get left out is if people campaign to leave it out, or some authority removes it. Either that or an oversight that nobody cares about because nobody agrees to use that definition any more. But surely this thread has shown that some people do care about it and some authorities recognise its validity?

Our modern accelerating media consuming western culture is a very shaky cultural foundation for finding an authoritative definition of truth. The days of scholars and institutions and priests discovering and teaching the populace have gone. Nowadays any producer can put together a programme on any subject and tart it up with a celebrity, computer graphics, sex, gossip and downright lies and misinformation. What stimulates and sells is what counts now. The Internet for example I am sure is �misinforming� people as much as it is informing them. This is because the media is a completely different type of authority to the old top down hierarchies. We all question authority now, and we all have much more confidence in ourselves. We choose what we want to believe and I think this will continue unless there is some kind of economic or political catastrophe.

What is the truth underneath all this? Well I cannot see one. How would you get underneath? You can join your own little clique and all agree with each other as to what the absolute truths are. But that isn�t getting away from capitalist democracy it is to participate in it! Capilatist democracy is the most diverse culture that has ever existed. You can believe almost anything you want, print a t-shirt and wait for the tv crews to come round one day and interview you about it. There is a market for all beliefs including oddities. Everyone is potentially a capitalist authority. Ie a performer. And every creed forms a potential target audience.

sophie · 07-10-2003, 06:01 AM

Tristan Scott says a fact is a fact and always can be proven with empirical evidence.

My question to Tristan Scott is how does one ascertain the truth of emperical evidence?

What is the vehicle for designating truth to emperical evidence?

07-10-2003, 06:58 AM

Hi Sophie

"What is the vehicle for designating truth to emperical evidence?"

the empirical relationship to reality surely? You know, reliable physical detection by an ammeter say, within the context of an experiment and placing the explanation in relationship to the scientific world view of the day.

Many people describe phenomena that can be reliably detected by a scientific instrument as a fact. Not everyone of course, but nowadays we are generally happy with that special label being used for that kind of truth revealed by that kind of relationship to reality. Science still holds some authority within capitalism, even though it is also subject to the truths of commercialisation. (ie. where many people agree that something is stimulating or not.) This is because science plays such a crucial role in the development of technology that is so intrinsic to health, wealth, and fun. Having said that most people most of the time find empiricism and deep rationality very dull and irrelevant to their lives. Its more a kind of lip service, like when the common use of the word fact means an emotional commitment.

Like when in an arguement someone shouts that such and such is a fact, full stop. Pointing out that truth is relative ain't gonna help.

Like pointing out the different world views of Newtons cosmology, Relativity and Quantum mechanics to a commited rationalist. It just annoys most people to have it pointed out that their facts are up for discussion, rejection or evolution. Facts are very important because they are intrinsic to personal identity which relies on our own culture to help define and express it.

Tristan Scott · 07-10-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tazz10m
Tristan, it is true that the dictionary is considered an authority, but should we consider it an absolute authority? I think not. Ask yourself, how often are "the authorities" found to be wrong?

I think the key to understanding my last post was where i wrote:

...the keys being "in consideration of that" ("that" being the majority of the dictionary definitions themselves) and "it can be reasonably argued".

Personally, i don't consider myself to be an expert or authority, but i do have my opinions.

Do i think "accepted as true" should be left out? Maybe. I'm still thinking about it.

I think it is your underwear that is showing now.

Earlier in the thread you posted:

Quote:

What really gets silly is when people argue when they are really saying the same thing in different ways but don't know it because of semantical issues.

What is religion to one, is philosophy to another, which is belief to another, which is truth to another, and is science to another, and understanding to another, fact to another, reality to another........etc., etc., etc.

WHICH... is why a good dictionary, and care enough to use it, is so important... and then there is semantics.

Education, baby! Education.

Now, when you are shown that the dictionary, when used properly, doesen't always support your point, you change your tune.

Tristan Scott · 07-10-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
Tristan Scott says a fact is a fact and always can be proven with empirical evidence.

My question to Tristan Scott is how does one ascertain the truth of emperical evidence?

What is the vehicle for designating truth to emperical evidence?

First of all, Sophie, I think you should try to understand that this is a philosophy thread on a philosophy board.

It is my philosophy that while truth and fact can be the same, that they are not always the same. When THE TRUTH is used in a religious context it is not always the same as fact. So truth can be proven with empirical evidence, but only when dealing with the physical world.

Plato believed that poetry was the ultimate truth. I can empathize with that, but am not sure I can go along with it because I am not sure I have found what I can consider the ultimate truth yet.

07-10-2003, 08:35 AM

Tristan Scott

i am a relativist as you have probably gathered and i am interested in all kinds of philosophical positions. You wrote...

"It is my philosophy that while truth and fact can be the same, that they are not always the same. "

do you mean that sometimes a fact isn't necessarily true?

Or do you mean a truth isn't necessarily a fact? but a fact is necessarily a truth?

Or is a fact not even a statement like a truth is?

what about the following.....

If culture A did not recognise what culture B called a fact as even true, do you believe that at least one (and maybe both) of the 2 cultures has necessarily made a mistake? And if so, a mistake as deemed by what criterion?

i open this question up to everyone else too.

John Page · 07-10-2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Then allow me to state categorically that this is an absolute fact: your opinion is obviously dead wrong, because it is self-contradictory.

And yours isn't?

Here we go round the mulberry bush....

John Page · 07-10-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
Yes, but it is the authority on defining words.

I would prefer to say that it contains definitions of words that may be regarded as authoritative for the purposes of inter-subjective discussion.

Dictionaries are like religions - which one do you choose when they differ, and didn;t they emanate from the minds of humans anyway?

Cheers, John

yguy · 07-10-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
And yours isn't?

Here we go round the mulberry bush....

If you can find anything I've said that is self-contradictory, kindly point it out. Betcha can't.

07-10-2003, 06:01 AM	#163
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	truth in evidence Tristan Scott says a fact is a fact and always can be proven with empirical evidence. My question to Tristan Scott is how does one ascertain the truth of emperical evidence? What is the vehicle for designating truth to emperical evidence?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2003, 03:35 AM	#162
leyline Guest Posts: n/a	Should �accepted as true� be left out? I cannot help smile at that one. The only way it will subsequently get left out is if people campaign to leave it out, or some authority removes it. Either that or an oversight that nobody cares about because nobody agrees to use that definition any more. But surely this thread has shown that some people do care about it and some authorities recognise its validity? Our modern accelerating media consuming western culture is a very shaky cultural foundation for finding an authoritative definition of truth. The days of scholars and institutions and priests discovering and teaching the populace have gone. Nowadays any producer can put together a programme on any subject and tart it up with a celebrity, computer graphics, sex, gossip and downright lies and misinformation. What stimulates and sells is what counts now. The Internet for example I am sure is �misinforming� people as much as it is informing them. This is because the media is a completely different type of authority to the old top down hierarchies. We all question authority now, and we all have much more confidence in ourselves. We choose what we want to believe and I think this will continue unless there is some kind of economic or political catastrophe. What is the truth underneath all this? Well I cannot see one. How would you get underneath? You can join your own little clique and all agree with each other as to what the absolute truths are. But that isn�t getting away from capitalist democracy it is to participate in it! Capilatist democracy is the most diverse culture that has ever existed. You can believe almost anything you want, print a t-shirt and wait for the tv crews to come round one day and interview you about it. There is a market for all beliefs including oddities. Everyone is potentially a capitalist authority. Ie a performer. And every creed forms a potential target audience.

07-10-2003, 06:58 AM	#164
leyline Guest Posts: n/a	Hi Sophie "What is the vehicle for designating truth to emperical evidence?" the empirical relationship to reality surely? You know, reliable physical detection by an ammeter say, within the context of an experiment and placing the explanation in relationship to the scientific world view of the day. Many people describe phenomena that can be reliably detected by a scientific instrument as a fact. Not everyone of course, but nowadays we are generally happy with that special label being used for that kind of truth revealed by that kind of relationship to reality. Science still holds some authority within capitalism, even though it is also subject to the truths of commercialisation. (ie. where many people agree that something is stimulating or not.) This is because science plays such a crucial role in the development of technology that is so intrinsic to health, wealth, and fun. Having said that most people most of the time find empiricism and deep rationality very dull and irrelevant to their lives. Its more a kind of lip service, like when the common use of the word fact means an emotional commitment. Like when in an arguement someone shouts that such and such is a fact, full stop. Pointing out that truth is relative ain't gonna help. Like pointing out the different world views of Newtons cosmology, Relativity and Quantum mechanics to a commited rationalist. It just annoys most people to have it pointed out that their facts are up for discussion, rejection or evolution. Facts are very important because they are intrinsic to personal identity which relies on our own culture to help define and express it.

07-10-2003, 08:35 AM	#167
leyline Guest Posts: n/a	Tristan Scott i am a relativist as you have probably gathered and i am interested in all kinds of philosophical positions. You wrote... "It is my philosophy that while truth and fact can be the same, that they are not always the same. " do you mean that sometimes a fact isn't necessarily true? Or do you mean a truth isn't necessarily a fact? but a fact is necessarily a truth? Or is a fact not even a statement like a truth is? what about the following..... If culture A did not recognise what culture B called a fact as even true, do you believe that at least one (and maybe both) of the 2 cultures has necessarily made a mistake? And if so, a mistake as deemed by what criterion? i open this question up to everyone else too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.