Gurdur

Knowing the truth - knowing how things worked, even though it was all inconsequential and rather irrelevant to the "real world" ---was exactly why I embarked on a career in science, and the reason for many other people I know to love pure science.

seesaw

Quite right. Knowing the truth is also one reason why i'm studing science, and love science.

crocodile deathroll

I think this is the reason for the split between Billy Graham and John Templeton. Billy just preferred to stay ignorant

Buddrow_Wilson

I voted before reading any posts, and I was thinking the poll was asking whether you strive to reveal the truth in all situations, always weigh the consequences, or depends on the situation.
So I voted for depends because, like or not, I can be quite weasely at times.

As for the true intention of the poll, I would have chosen truth. If i didn't believe the truth was best in nearly all instances, I would probably have not rejected religion at an early age. So i want to know the truth, but i may have reason to withhold it from you.

pug846

But don’t you think this is partly because you, possibly at the subconscious level, believe (incorrectly) that the truth always equal “good.”

If you knew for certain that by studying science and learning what is true would make you slightly less happy, would you still want to study science?

I think part of the problem is that we can’t study something and want to learn what will make us feel better. I can’t ask, what will make me feel better in a job interview, knowing the truth or staying blissfully ignorant.

So I guess my question for those of you who picked, “truth always,” is why you would want to know the truth if it would make you worse off? (And please, don’t come back with I think the truth always makes you better off, because even if that IS the case, that’s not the question asked for this hypothetical.)

pilaar

I voted for truth.

--------------------
Gurdur:
But then Hugo Holbling's point suddenly becomes very acute when say, considering whether to vote for a Mormon or a Nazi as President.

Now both of the Mormon's and the Nazi's beliefs are whacko, but in this particular case so the hell what ?
What's important in this case are the consequences of their beliefs; I can live with a Mormon as President, but never with a Nazi, simply because of the consequences of their beliefs that would become apparent in practice.
----------------------
Depends on what you mean as truth in this case. For me, the truth in the case of having to vote for either a Mormon or a Nazi as President would be the fact that there are only two canditates to choose from. So, I'd consider the consenquences in this case and vote for Mormon.

-----------------
Gurdur:
Another case example is young schollchildren: several studies have shown that schoolchildren will often act as is expected of them by a teacher, including their scholastic results, even when that teacher's beliefs about the schoolchild are erroneous
(in the studies, the new teachers were informed that certain schoolchildren were good or bad learners, completely against the actual facts).
------------------

For me the truth in this case would be that childrens abilities were not accurately assesed and encouraged in a regular classroom situation. Another truth would be that children tend to fullfil the expectations of adults. Becasue if a child who normally is not a good learner, but becomes one with the new teacher then the truth is that he/she has the ability to be a good learner. The truth is that this particular childs ability is much better than what has been erroneously assesed in the regular classroom situation. Perhaps the child is not a good learner because of his/her regular teachers' negative assesment and expectations. If the potential to learn well was not there, then the child would not be able to become a good learner in this new situation.

-----------------------
pug846
I think in nearly every situation that the knowing what is actually “true” is what will be beneficial to me, even if it hurts me in the long run. One example that was given was knowing whether or not your wife is cheating on you. Even if your wife retains a “happy face,” more than likely the fact that she is cheating on you will mean that there are very real problems with your marriage. On the other hand, lets say your wife dies in a car crash. Why would you want to know the “truth” that she had cheated on you? Nothing positive would come from knowing “the truth” and in fact, you would probably be quite distraught, etc. Why would you want to know the truth for the sake of just knowing it? That seems like an incredibly odd position to take.
-----------------------

My experience has been that 'truth' has normally brought many benefits in the long run. I find it to be a very healthy thing to know especially in the cases you mentioned. If a husband was cheating on me I would want to know the truth. The problem with 'not knowing the truth' is that this is not normally correct. It is very hard not to 'know' when someone starts to cheat on you, because many things change in another person and the relationship. It may take a while to acknowledge the fact to oneself, but the insecurity and that 'something' that is eating away at you is always there. It does not make your relationship a happy one at all, because the relationship changes when the trust is shaky. Once you acknowledge and allow yourself the knowledge of it, you may experience a time of a huge turmoil, you have to proces the emotions of betrayal, anger etc etc. And these do not kill you. Then your head clears up and you have many options - you may choose to work with the other prerson so that relationship can continue and hopefully you become closer with your partner, you may choose not to say or change anything at all or you may choose to leave etc. And the biggest benefit is that you acknowledge and trust those parts of yourself which recognise when something is 'fishy', you don't deny them and you are in a much better position, because you have learned to either avoid people who you can not trust, because you recoginse the signs very quickly, or you may have to also work on yourself if you were a contributor to the problem in the first place. It has been my experience that people tend to get themselves into similar situations until they learn, change and move on. That is why I would want to know the truth even if my hypotetical husband had died.

Not sure what I would do in The Matrix scenario, I would have to know of both fantasy and the truth to be able to make an informed decision. Otherwise I guess I'd probably go for truth because the curiosity would get the best of me...hahaha.....

pilaar

pilaar

-------------------
seebs:
Which is more important to you in a belief: The truth of the belief, or the consequences of holding it?

This comes up all the time in various debates, ranging from Pascal's Wager to ideas like "people are basically nice".

So... Would you rather believe a false thing which is beneficial to you to believe, or a true thing which is harmful to you?
-------------------

I picked the truth seebs. For me the truth of the belief is more important than the consenquences. It is easier to live even with the negative consenquences when you stand up for your truth. I find it impossible to live with untruth for long periods of time and it is not a very pleasant existence either. It is unhealthy. I may have said the oposite if I lived in Afganistan for example. Then I would have to consider the consequences especially for those close to me. If living the truth would have negative consenquences, then I would have to consider acting as if I still held a false belief, but I would still believe the truth inside my head.

I think that once people know a certain truth, they can't continue to believe a false thing, they may continue to pretend to themselves and to others to believe it in order to not suffer the negative consenquences, in order to fit in.

pilaar

Clutch

pug, I don't know what the question is, then. In my view, the inferential fecundity of beliefs makes it too probable that a false belief will end up leading to unhappy consequences. If the question is, "Well suppose that this was not the case", then I'm unsure just what scenario is under consideration. One in which I don't draw inferences from my beliefs? I really don't know what I'd prefer under those conditions, though, nor even what it would be to have coherent preferences.

Buddrow_Wilson

This is only true if the relationship is truly honest and intimate from both sides originally. If one side is insincere and faking intimacy from the beginning (which isn't all that rare, and many people are good at this), you most likely will only find out about any cheating by finding "clues" (lipstick stains, slips of paper, etc) or by being confronted by someone else who knows about it (possibly the person with whom the partner is cheating).

So if I am 'blissfully' unaware of infedelities, would I still want to know about it. Yes, because it is a breech of the terms of the relationship and it is very likely that one will find out about it eventually anyway. The relationship, being that it is flawed, is destined for failure. I would rather end it sooner than later, potentially avoiding the wasting of the better part of a lifetime.

The majority of the time knowing the truth is certainly the most desireable option. But very few things in life are completely 'black and white'. There are many instances where knowing or not knowing the truth has little bearing on you personally, and in those cases i would say "what you don't know won't hurt you" applies.

An example would be: Your great uncle dies of a heart-attack while attempting to have sex with your great aunt. Your great aunt doesn't tell anyone the true nature of the heart-attack out of embarrassment and respect for her lost husband. What does it hurt for the family to not know the whole truth of this situation? I would think nothing.

Badfish

Depends on the circumstances of course.