# What in truth is truth?



## Bob Hubbard

What in truth is truth?

People swear to tell the truth. They swear on holy books, they swear to god, they swear period.
But, is the swearing the truth, or is there truth in swearing?

People point fingers and say "he is not telling the truth, I am."
Everyone has a truth. But is their truth, true?
Where is the true truth in todays truth?
Too often, there is little true in what is sworn to be true, and believed to be true.

Reality truth is the truth that just is. You can not change it, no matter how hard you may wish for it to be different.

What is true for you, may in fact and in reality not true.

Fingers are pointed, and "he is a fraud" proclaimed. But is that your truth, or true truth?

In the 1800's the black man was seen as inferior. That was "Truth".
George Washington Carver however lived under a different truth, one that did not say "inferior".
In the 1900's the black man was seen as second class. That was "Truth".
Martin Luthor King Jr however saw a different truth.
In 1940 the German Government saw the Jew as inferior, as less than human, as useless.
Reality truth however was quite different.

Today is no different. We each believe what we believe because we believe it to be so.
That is our truth.
My truth is different from your truth. 
Just because you believe it to be so, does not make it so in reality.
That is not truth.
That is fantasy, an Illusion.

Reality truth is a truth we cannot escape, no matter how deep we bury our head in the sand, stick fingers in ear and sing.

Reality Truth is pure truth. Our own truths are rarely pure truth, rarely full reality truth.

In the end, which truth is truly true truth?


----------



## terryl965

I need  a shot of whiskey with thirty beers to understand what Bob is saying My head hurts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

From my years in security, particularly the hospital with the mental health and detox unit I have come to the conclusion that there are generally 3 sides to every story. The truth from person 1 that is the truth from their perspective. The truth from person 2 that is also the truth from their perspective and the actual truth that is somewhere in between. 

And then of course their is Kierkegaard and Truth is subjective


----------



## cstanley

Pontius Pilate asked the same question once. It is a query worthy of college sophomores in philosophy. After that, it becomes just cynical relativism.


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> Pontius Pilate asked the same question once. It is a query worthy of college sophomores in philosophy. After that, it becomes just cynical relativism.



I have the same kind of sense... truth may be difficult to get at; there may be aspects of it that one person's point of views places at the center which someone else sees as peripheral, and so on. But if we can no longer agree that there is a fact of the matter, that some things happened and others didn't, then we're well on the road to a world in which the existence Auschwitz, slavery and torture are merely matters of opinion. The vast observed regularities of nature, operating at enormous scales and offering multiple clues that independent lines of evidence converge on (think of all the ways, for example, in which general relativity has been confirmed in every observational test that can be devised for it, from the advancing perihelion of Mercury to the existence of black holes to gravitational lensing) entail properties of the universe which necessarily existed before there were any human beings to be conscious of them. If so, it's hard to see how the fact that matter causes space to curve in certain specific ways can be dependent on human consciousness (since it's only as a result of the byproducts of that curvature that we got a planet Earth to lead, several billions of years later, to the formation of human intelligences capable of unravelling what happened...). And if you grant that, then there has to be something external to our own consciousnesses which yields the things we observe. In which case, you are pretty much committed to there being a certain Way That Things Are, even though it may be exceedingly difficult to figure them out as time goes on...


----------



## Blindside

For earlier examples try reading the writings of Socrates on the relativistic viewpoints of Protagoras.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Here ya go Bob 

Many Myths are based on truth.

Is truth not truth for all? 

You say you are lying. But if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth. You cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie, you tell the truth ... but you cannot, for you lie.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Ahh.  The Liars Paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

:asian:


----------



## jks9199

The truth is that which is not false; that which did happen.

Anything that is false is, therefore, not truth, and did not happen.

And, of course, a dog is wise, for it knows what is good and what is bad, and who is a good and who is bad.

But, putting all the silly games aside, there is truth.  There are things that are verifiable and true.  I'm not sure that there is <cue the dramatic, deep voice> *TRUTH*... though I believe there is an ultimate Truth.  But that's getting into religion.


----------



## elder999

Well, I dunno. As a scientist, I know that there's a difference between "fact" (or reality?) and "truth." I use what's called the "68 degree rule" to demonstrate this.

My wife likes it cool, while I like it warm. Our house is at 68 degrees fahrenheit. I say,"It's *cold*," and turn up the thermostat; she says, "It's *hot*," and turns it back down. I point at my goose-bumps, she points to her sweat, and I get to go out to the shop, and keep it as warm as I like!

Fact: the temperature is 68 degrees.
Truth:I'm cold.
Truth: She's hot.

One fact, two truths-neither less or more true than the other...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ahh. The Liars Paradox.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
> 
> :asian:


 
I, Mudd


----------



## cstanley

What kind of "truth?" There is a priori mathematical truth, as in: 2+2=4.

There is logical truth: If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

Truths of Physics: A and B as distinct entities cannot occupy the exact same space at the same time.

Then, there are all kinds of a posteriori truths.  

Religious truths are based upon revealed knowledge and are not subject to scientific testing.

Historical truth depends upon witnesses but is attestable by the subsequent historical developments.

There are many scientific theories that are accepted as "truth" which are not actually true "a priori." 2+2=4 in any conceivable universe. The sun may not come up tomorrow, however.


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> What kind of "truth?" There is a priori mathematical truth, as in: 2+2=4.
> 
> There is logical truth: If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
> 
> Truths of Physics: A and B as distinct entities cannot occupy the exact same space at the same time.
> 
> Then, there are all kinds of a posteriori truths.
> 
> Religious truths are based upon revealed knowledge and are not subject to scientific testing.
> 
> Historical truth depends upon witnesses but is attestable by the subsequent historical developments.
> 
> There are many scientific theories that are accepted as "truth" which are not actually true "a priori." 2+2=4 in any conceivable universe. The sun may not come up tomorrow, however.



That's why logicians always define truth with respect to a model, usually some algebraic structure (assumed to be in correspondence with the world in a particular way) such that if the logical formula in question yields a 1 under the operations corresponding to the way the formula is assembled, the result is true, and if it's 0, the result is false. Makes it _much_ easier to talk about truth, both of the necessary and the contingent kind,  when you do things that way!


----------



## cstanley

exile said:


> That's why logicians always define truth with respect to a model, usually some algebraic structure (assumed to be in correspondence with the world in a particular way) such that if the logical formula in question yields a 1 under the operations corresponding to the way the formula is assembled, the result is true, and if it's 0, the result is false. Makes it _much_ easier to talk about truth, both of the necessary and the contingent kind, when you do things that way!


 
There is a great anecdote regarding the British Pragmatist G. E. Moore. A student once asked him, with respect to the Resurrection of Christ, "But, Sir, what if you had been standing there and had seen the stone roll away and Jesus walk out?"
Moore replied, "I would have taken out my pad and pen, made careful notes, then waited to see if it happened again.":lfao:


----------



## terryl965

Truth to me is like Love once you cross that line, everything is the truth.


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> There is a great anecdote regarding the British Pragmatist G. E. Moore. A student once asked him, with respect to the Resurrection of Christ, "But, Sir, what if you had been standing there and had seen the stone roll away and Jesus walk out?"
> Moore replied, "I would have taken out my pad and pen, made careful notes, then waited to see if it happened again.":lfao:



:roflmao:

That is so Moore!


----------



## Xue Sheng

And I said gentlemen, and I use that world loosely
I will testify for you, Im a gun for hire,Im a saint, Im a liar
*Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated
*I can get you any result you like
Whats it worth to you? 
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning

And that is so Don Henley


----------



## cstanley

Xue Sheng said:


> And I said gentlemen, and I use that world loosely
> I will testify for you, Im a gun for hire,Im a saint, Im a liar
> *Because there are no facts, there is no truth*
> *Just data to be manipulated*
> I can get you any result you like
> Whats it worth to you?
> Because there is no wrong, there is no right
> And I sleep very well at night
> No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution
> Just people selling t-shirts
> Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
> And winning, winning, winning
> 
> And that is so Don Henley


 
Sounds like a lot of self-indulgent nonsense to me.


----------



## Kacey

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."  John Keats

OK, now that I've gotten _that_ out of the way... truth - especially truth in anything even the _slightest_ bit subjective (although there are some interesting sticking points in math and science as well) is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

For example - to *me*, my dog is the most handsome, cuddly, happy and all around best dog  in the world.  That is _my_ truth.  Others, who own (or are owned by) different dogs will have a different truth.  Other issues have, likewise, multiple truths, depending on the experiences of the person stating them.


----------



## punisher73

I have read through alot of the posts and there are many that seem to be saying "my truth".  Not to single out or pick on Kacey, but that was the last post.

Kacey wrote:


> For example - to *me*, my dog is the most handsome, cuddly, happy and all around best dog in the world. That is _my_ truth. Others, who own (or are owned by) different dogs will have a different truth. Other issues have, likewise, multiple truths, depending on the experiences of the person stating them.


 
I would not call that "truth", I would call that perception.  Many people PERCIEVE things which they believe are correct, but I would not call them "truth".

It's like people "witnessing" a crime or an accident.  You talk to five different people and they will all give their version and swear that it is correct.  And they are all "right" based on their perception of the event.  But, that does not change the "what is" of the even, that being what REALLY happened outside of human notions and perceptions.

Even in science, math, etc.  We evaluate those things and call them correct, but it is still based on our understanding of how things work, and as our "tools of perception" get better we may change our understanding of the events looked at.  But, that does not change the event itself.

So I don't think that we can truly "KNOW" the "TRUTH", but that does not mean we do not know it exists or that we can't see glimpses of it.


----------



## Fiendlover

wow i actually understand what ur saying.  im impressed with myself.........lol

:highfive:


----------



## Xue Sheng

cstanley said:


> Sounds like a lot of self-indulgent nonsense to me.


 
Actually it is lyrics from a song "The Garden Of Allah" by "Don Henley" And the person or thing that is supposed to be saying this is Satan, so HELL yeah it is self-indulgent.... as are many discussions about truth

But to be completely honest I was not really being serious when I posted it.

Sorry I should have added a bunch of these


----------



## thardey

> *When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes*




Provided, of course, that you start with _all_ possible options to begin with.


----------



## jks9199

punisher73 said:


> I would not call that "truth", I would call that perception.  Many people PERCIEVE things which they believe are correct, but I would not call them "truth".
> 
> It's like people "witnessing" a crime or an accident.  You talk to five different people and they will all give their version and swear that it is correct.  And they are all "right" based on their perception of the event.  But, that does not change the "what is" of the even, that being what REALLY happened outside of human notions and perceptions.
> 
> Even in science, math, etc.  We evaluate those things and call them correct, but it is still based on our understanding of how things work, and as our "tools of perception" get better we may change our understanding of the events looked at.  But, that does not change the event itself.
> 
> So I don't think that we can truly "KNOW" the "TRUTH", but that does not mean we do not know it exists or that we can't see glimpses of it.



I definitely don't agree with how you've said this -- though I don't think we disagree completely about the subject.

Multiple people can honestly present their own perception or account of an incident; it will almost certainly not be the "true" account of what happened.  The truth will be somewhere in the middle.  Let me continue to use an accident.  I'm a trained crash investigator.  Lots of times, I've had witnesses at the scene relate what they saw.  Sometimes, it's the classic "I saw it all; I heard a crash, and then I saw that car do this..."  Other times, they did see it -- but didn't perceive all of the factors.  But, when I take the physical evidence, and put it together -- I can often KNOW what had to happen.  That's the truth; no matter what someone tells me, if the physical evidence doesn't match up -- it couldn't have happened that way.  Each person is honestly (or sometimes not...) telling me what they think happened -- but the laws of physics tell me what DID happen.

Now, moving beyond demonstrable events into the moral/theological/philosophical question of truth...  That's harder.  I, for myself, do believe in a Supreme Being, the experience of whom is TRUTH, in it's most extreme form.  But -- I can't make you perceive that Truth, any more than an atheist could make me deny that truth.


----------



## Archangel M

If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it? 

-Dogen


----------



## cstanley

Truth is like a bell, it isn't always told. (Hold your applause...thank you, thank you:high5


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> Truth is like a bell, it isn't always told. (Hold your applause...thank you, thank you:high5



... you really did say that, _didn't_ you!...


----------



## cstanley

exile said:


> ... you really did say that, _didn't_ you!...


 
It must have been the scotch...


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> It must have been the scotch...



_In spiritus veritas..._ Works for me!...

Actually, that suggests another answer to Bob's OP question:

_What is truth? That which is in wine._


----------



## cstanley

There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth." If by truth, you mean "absolute truth," meaning a statement that would be true in any conceivable universe, then a priori mathematical truths are the only truth.

"Truths" such as the laws of physics are true in our universe as far as we know (assuming, as we do, the homogeneity of the universe). However, it is possible to conceive of a universe in which these laws would be altered. Even at the quantum level, many long accepted "truths" cannot be assured. So, they are not "absolute" truths.


----------



## punisher73

jks9199 said:


> I definitely don't agree with how you've said this -- though I don't think we disagree completely about the subject.
> 
> Multiple people can honestly present their own perception or account of an incident; it will almost certainly not be the "true" account of what happened. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. Let me continue to use an accident. I'm a trained crash investigator. Lots of times, I've had witnesses at the scene relate what they saw. Sometimes, it's the classic "I saw it all; I heard a crash, and then I saw that car do this..." Other times, they did see it -- but didn't perceive all of the factors. But, when I take the physical evidence, and put it together -- I can often KNOW what had to happen. That's the truth; no matter what someone tells me, if the physical evidence doesn't match up -- it couldn't have happened that way. Each person is honestly (or sometimes not...) telling me what they think happened -- but the laws of physics tell me what DID happen.
> 
> Now, moving beyond demonstrable events into the moral/theological/philosophical question of truth... That's harder. I, for myself, do believe in a Supreme Being, the experience of whom is TRUTH, in it's most extreme form. But -- I can't make you perceive that Truth, any more than an atheist could make me deny that truth.


 
I think we are saying the same thing, you just used the accident analogy better.  The evidence in my opinion is the "what is" of the event and is outside of human perceptions.  You, as an accident reconstructionalist, are "outside" of their perceptions.  Not that you can't look at the evidence and use the science/math/physics to reconstruct what happened. I just mean that the method used is not based on what was seen by witnesses, and using the physical evidence behind you could reconstruct it without talking to a single witness. Our department's expert has had to do that on numerous occassions when it is a single car fatality (way off topic, but do you use the animation program that will visually show you what the accident looked like after you enter the data?  That thing is REALLY neat to watch).  

That is what I meant by "perception" vs. "truth".  The "truth" or "the what is" is exactly that whether my perception was that or not.  My perception using scientific methods will get as close to the "What is" as humanly possible.  To use another traffic example.  There is a single car fatality on a back country road striking a tree.  From the marks, debris, etc. you can tell that the car swerved and lost control hitting the tree head-on.  You know that the driver was not wearing the seatbelt and the injuries sustained from impact are what killed the driver. All of that is based on the evidence and is backed by the physics of how a car reacts, etc.  BUT, why did the driver swerve?  If there are animal footprints right next to the first tire marks we might conclude that the driver swerved to miss a deer and lost control.  But, what if the driver was EXTREMLY allergic to bees and had a phobia of them and had one in the car and the driver panicked and while trying to swat the bee lost control, we don't ever REALLY know the "truth" of the matter behind the accident in this case.


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth." If by truth, you mean "absolute truth," meaning a statement that would be true in any conceivable universe, then a priori mathematical truths are the only truth.
> 
> "Truths" such as the laws of physics are true in our universe as far as we know (assuming, as we do, the homogeneity of the universe). However, it is possible to conceive of a universe in which these laws would be altered. Even at the quantum level, many long accepted "truths" cannot be assured. So, they are not "absolute" truths.



This is the contingent vs. necessary truth dilemma, and it raises a lot of very dicey problems for the philosophy of language. For example, one of the conundrums that logicians in the late 19th century worried about was the fact that both Hesperus and Phosphorus were names applied to the same object during the Middle Ages&#8212;the planet Venus&#8212;by astronomers and astrologists, not realizing that the sole difference was when the planet was being viewed; 'the Morning Star' and 'the Evening Star' is another example of the exactl the same thing. The problem is that 

_Hesperus is Phosphorus_

is actually informative, i.e., not a tautology, whereas

_Hesperus is Hesperus_

_is_ a tautology&#8212;yet, if you look at what it is that the names denote, their actual referents, there is no difference betwen them. So Frege introduced this distinction between 'sense' and 'reference', where reference refers to the 'thing named', and sense identifies a function from possible worlds to things. The reference of both Hesperus and Phosporus is the same, but they have a different sense, because there is at least one possible world in which Phosporus denotes a different thing from Hesperus; and it is the sense of sentences, not their reference, that determines their truth status; so it is necessarily the case that the referents of ]I]Hesperus[/I] and _Phosporus_ are the same, but not that their senses are the same, and we evaluate truth with respect to the latter assertion, not the former. And on the latter, the assertion _Hesperus is Phosphorus_ is not a tautology&#8212;it could be wrong in some other possible world. This kind of possible-worlds semantics is what Frege is probably best known for, but it has a great big hole in it: necessary truths. In all possible worlds, _the square root of nine is three_ and _All equilateral triangles are equilangular triangles and vice versa_ are both true. In Frege's system, this means that they are the same function (supply a possible world and the answer will always be the same for both of them) and therefore are synonyms. Which they obviously aren't. 

The non-synonymy of necessary/analytic/mathematical truths is probably the biggest hole in the boat carrying truth-conditional theories of meaning. The whole sense/reference distinction gets you nowhere here, without considerable further refinement, and with that, you lose the nice clean intuitive distinction that Frege introduced. Once again, a beautiful idea that didn't quite work out... and one we still don't know how to replace with something better... sound familiar, all you _Trouble with Physics_ists?? :wink1:


----------



## Monadnock

> What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.


 
My appologies for quoting from a sci-fi movie, but Morpheus is onto something there.

I think we all have our own truths/view of reality. I think it would take a special person to point us to the "real" truth.


----------



## exile

Monadnock said:


> My appologies for quoting from a sci-fi movie, but Morpheus is onto something there.
> 
> I think we all have our own truths/view of reality. I think it would take a special person to point us to the "real" truth.



No, I don't think that follows, and down that slope lies the pit where no atrocity ever 'really' happened. No one's child was killed by a drunken driver, no one's relatives died in a concentration camp, no one was ever enslaved, or persecuted, or convicted unjustly... or _anything_. 

There is a critical distinction between the truth, and our perception-mechanisms for detecting the properties of the world in which the truth holds. They aren't the same thing. There is a Fact of the Matter; it cannot be true that we live in a universe where the constants of nature prevent the organization of matter in ways which allow life, consciousness and intelligence to emerge, because to assert that (sincerely) is also to assert that this discussion is not taking place. And the moment you try to reply to my last sentence, you've just contradicted that last assertion. So there _are_ properties of the world which do not depend on what we think, or detect, or believe.

This is what I think of as the _Rashomon_ fallacy: the belief that multiple views of an event means there was no single event that actually happened. The characters in the play Rashomon tell three very different tales of a killing, and you can't decide which, if any of them, is the true story based on what they say. But the point is, three well-placed video cameras set at the scene of the action would have told you essentially all you needed to know to decide. The play, as I read it, isn't about reality but about the conditions that constrain our _knowing_ that realitythe true story. The view that nothing is in itself true is the source of the pernicious relativism which currently infects the humanities, and is one reason why people are so (justly) suspicious of the ideological element in much contemporary scholarship. If we're going to give in to that kind of intellectual nihilism, we might as well all pack it in and go home...


----------



## Xue Sheng

The words of truth are always paradoxical. 
- Lao Tzu

and only the most alert and observant person can get the truth using spies
Sun Tzu

The object of the superior man is truth. 
- Confucius 

You must neither strive for truth nor seek to lose your illusions.
- The Shodoka 

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
- John F. Kennedy

You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.
- G. K. Chesterton

Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think.
- Buddha

If any man thinks he slays, and if another thinks he is slain, neither knows the ways of truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die.
- Bhagavad Gita

And this one about covers it for me

Truth knocks at our door and we say "Go'way! I'm looking for the truth!", and the truth goes away - Puzzled.
- Robert Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence

And finally the truth is I am done with discussions of truth


----------



## Archangel M

> What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.



Yet we call all (minus some genetic/medical defect) agree what "red" looks like or tell the difference between vanilla and chocolate. I dont think the difference is so much in the perception as it is in how we process and use the data. We may agree on the difference between chololate and vanilla but I may like chocolate while you like vanilla.


----------



## Blindside

Monadnock said:


> I think we all have our own truths/view of reality. I think it would take a special person to point us to the "real" truth.




Let address this just in terms of vision.

If you are color blind you perceive reality different than a person with full color sight.  But full color isn't reality either, humans can't see into either the ultra-violet or infra-red wavelengths, we perceive a flower differently than a bumblebee does.  

Our perspectives are necessarily formed by the limitations of what we can perceive, but those perspectives aren't truths, they are essentially just opinions of the truth.


----------



## Archangel M

Yes but the the flower still exists as its own entity or "truth". Just because I and a bee see it differently and experience it differently doesnt change its "flowerness".

A blind man and a sighted one may fight over a knife, and their perceptions of it are different, but it will still kill either one regardless. Thats the "truth of the knife".

Relativism is the road to hell.


----------



## Blindside

Archangel M said:


> Yes but the the flower still exists as its own entity or "truth". Just because I and a bee see it differently and experience it differently doesnt change its "flowerness".
> 
> A blind man and a sighted one may fight over a knife, and their perceptions of it are different, but it will still kill either one regardless. Thats the "truth of the knife".
> 
> Relativism is the road to hell.


 
I completely agree.


----------



## thardey

cstanley said:


> There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth." If by truth, you mean "absolute truth," meaning a statement that would be true in any conceivable universe, then a priori mathematical truths are the only truth.



But if by "absolute truth" you mean "all truth," as in "The answer" (42!) then mathematics are relegated to fact and logic. Mathematics can't solve most of the problems in my life, which are relational.



> "Truths" such as the laws of physics are true in our universe as far as we know (assuming, as we do, the homogeneity of the universe). However, it is possible to conceive of a universe in which these laws would be altered. Even at the quantum level, many long accepted "truths" cannot be assured. So, they are not "absolute" truths.



"Truth" is not within the scope of science. Either partial or absolute. By definition, science is limited to "fact." Science can only answer _how_, and in fact, modern science is _purposefully_ limited to "how." To get "Truth," you will also need to answer "Why?" To date, no one system has been agreed upon to answer "Why?"

Truth is about "Why?" Facts are about "Who, What, When, Where, and How?"


----------



## Kacey

thardey said:


> But if by "absolute truth" you mean "all truth," as in "The answer" (42!) then mathematics are relegated to fact and logic. Mathematics can't solve most of the problems in my life, which are relational.



 This is the point I was fumblingly trying to make in my earlier post.  Once one leaves the realm of numbers - even for science - truth will vary based on the person who is determining it.



thardey said:


> "Truth" is not within the scope of science. Either partial or absolute. By definition, science is limited to "fact." Science can only answer _how_, and in fact, modern science is _purposefully_ limited to "how." To get "Truth," you will also need to answer "Why?" To date, no one system has been agreed upon to answer "Why?"
> 
> Truth is about "Why?" Facts are about "Who, What, When, Where, and How?"



Indeed.  And even facts can vary based on the perception of the people perceiving them.


----------



## exile

thardey said:


> But if by "absolute truth" you mean "all truth," as in "The answer" (42!) then mathematics are relegated to fact and logic. Mathematics can't solve most of the problems in my life, which are relational.



I don't believe that cs meant what you seem to think he meant. I think what he was saying was that the only truths which are _necessary_ are those of mathematics and logic. No matter what the world is like, 2+2 = 4 simply by virtue of how 2, 4 and the [+] operation are defined. All other truths are contingent in the sense that they could in principle be different in other worlds.



thardey said:


> "Truth" is not within the scope of science. Either partial or absolute. By definition, science is limited to "fact." Science can only answer _how_, and in fact, modern science is _purposefully_ limited to "how." To get "Truth," you will also need to answer "Why?" To date, no one system has been agreed upon to answer "Why?"
> 
> Truth is about "Why?" Facts are about "Who, What, When, Where, and How?"



Again, I think this isn't correct. Science explains 'why' something is by virtue of showing that the interaction of fundamental physical laws yields that something as a consequence (there's a terrific explanation of this idea, and how it answers the question that  _why_ is answered by understanding the fundamental principles of nature, in the New York Review of Books, by the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, he of the electroweak unification; see here.) You are construing _why_ to be about human motivations. There is no necessary connection between the notion of truth, on the one hand, and human motivations on the other. Truth simply is the way things are, as opposed to the way they are not, independent of our needs, desires, and beliefs. _Why_ is simply the question we ask when we seek to know the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to happen. Looking for meaning or motivation just reflects our temptation to believe that the universe works the way we do. Science makes no such assumptions&#8212;since there is no particularly good reason to believe it does&#8212;and has done very well indeed...


----------



## thardey

exile said:


> I don't believe that cs meant what you seem to think he meant. I think what he was saying was that the only truths which are _necessary_ are those of mathematics and logic. No matter what the world is like, 2+2 = 4 simply by virtue of how 2, 4 and the [+] operation are defined. All other truths are contingent in the sense that they could in principle be different in other worlds.



You're right, that's not what he meant by "ablosute truth" I was just playing more with semantics, actually to support his point. 





> Originally Posted by *cstanley*
> 
> 
> There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth."


Even the idea of "absolute truth" involves a lot of semantics.




> Again, I think this isn't correct. Science explains 'why' something is by virtue of showing that the interaction of fundamental physical laws yields that something as a consequence (there's a terrific explanation of this idea, and how it answers the question that  _why_ is answered by understanding the fundamental principles of nature, in the New York Review of Books, by the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, he of the electroweak unification; see here.) *You are construing why to be about human motivations.* There is no necessary connection between the notion of truth, on the one hand, and human motivations.


More or less, I construe _why_ to be about motivations and intent. It's not limited to humans. Dogs, cats, and horses can also have "why." So can God.



> [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*The American Heritage® Dictionary:*[/SIZE][/FONT]
> *[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]why [/SIZE][/FONT]*
> 
> [SIZE=-1]   *ADVERB:* [/SIZE]
> For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive: _       Why is the door shut? Why do birds sing?_[SIZE=-1]
> 
> *NOUN:* [/SIZE]
> _pl._ *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]whys[/SIZE][/FONT] *
> The cause or intention underlying a given action or situation: _       studying the whys of antisocial behavior.     _
> A difficult problem or question.





> *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]     how [/SIZE][/FONT]*
> 
> [SIZE=-1]   *ADVERB:* [/SIZE]
> In what manner or way; by what means: _       How does this machine work?     _
> In what state or condition: _       How is she today?     _
> To what extent, amount, or degree: _       How bad was it?     _
> For what reason or purpose; why: _       How is it that he left early?     _
> With what meaning: _       How should I take that remark?     _
> By what name: _       How is she called?     _
> By what measure; in what units: _       How do you sell this corn?     _
> What. Usually used in requesting that something be said again: _       How's that again?     _
> Used as an intensive: _       How we laughed!     _
> [SIZE=-1]   *CONJUNCTION:* [/SIZE]
> The manner or way in which: _       forgot how it was done.     _
> That.
> In whatever way or manner; however: _       Cook it how you please.     _
> [SIZE=-1]   *NOUN:* [/SIZE]
> A manner or method of doing something: _       "The how of research is generated by the why of the world"     _ _       (Frederick Turner).     _


In general conversaton, "How" and "Why" are often used synonymously. In this kind of conversation, I strongly believe that they are _not_ synonymous, and should be carefully defined, or confusion is inevitable. 

"Pure" Science is strictly limited to "how," (often sloppily addressed as "why" since it's meaning is understood.) Mathematics (What I would consider the "purest" science) has no place for why. 

Ex: Q: "Why is 2+2=4?" A: "Because it is!"
Or

Q: "How does 2+2= 4?" A: Because if you start with two (1+1) and add two more (1+1) then you end up with a total of four! (1+1+1+1). Who cares why? Are you trying to get four? (Intent).

"Applied Science" on the other hand, does include _intent_, usually on the part of the scientist or engineer attempting to harness the "pure science." This is where a lot of confusion comes in.

That's where questions about the intent of horses, for instance, come into play. "Why did the horse chase off the other horse?" "Because it wanted to establish dominance." Pure science regarding horses would be along the lines of how it digests food, uses it's eyes, coordinates its muscles, etc. Or, to use the above illustration, "_How_ did it chase off the other horse?" Different question, different field of study.




> Truth *simply is the way things are, as opposed to the way they are not, independent of our needs, desires, and beliefs.* _Why_ is simply the question we ask when we seek to know the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to happen. Looking for meaning or motivation just reflects our temptation to believe that the universe works the way we do. Science makes no such assumptionssince there is no particularly good reason to believe it doesand has done very well indeed...


Personally, I would define the bolded part above as "Fact." The "_necessary and sufficient conditions_" is the question of "how." Therefore, science has done very well to address these questions.



> *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]     fact [/SIZE][/FONT]*
> 
> [SIZE=-1]   *NOUN:* [/SIZE]
> Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: _       an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.     _
> 
> Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: _           Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.         _
> A real occurrence; an event: _           had to prove the facts of the case.         _
> Something believed to be true or real: _           a document laced with mistaken facts.         _
> 
> A thing that has been done, especially a crime: _       an accessory before the fact.     _
> _Law_   The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: _       The jury made a finding of fact.     _





> *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]     truth [/SIZE][/FONT]*
> 
> [SIZE=-1]   *NOUN:* [/SIZE]
> _pl._ *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]truths[/SIZE][/FONT] *
> 
> Conformity to fact or actuality.
> A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
> Sincerity; integrity.
> Fidelity to an original or standard.
> 
> Reality; actuality.
> often  *           [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Truth[/SIZE][/FONT]         * That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.


Truth conforms to fact, but includes more than fact. One way to put it is that truth is the sum of several facts, and how those facts relate to each other, sometimes in tangible ways, sometime esoteric.

Of course, this is THE question of Methodology. How do we define truth, and what method do we use to determine it?

However, Science itself cannot tell us how to determine the method to finding truth. Science _is_ a method that was determined by outside factors: logic, experience, and faith are some of the obvious ones. (Since religious beliefs prevented the proper study of the solar system, "Science" should follow a method that does not allow religion to affect the outcome, for instance.)



> _*1*_. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step _*2*_._*
> 
> 2*_. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook._*
> 
> 3*_. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume _*2*_ is true, what consequences follow?_*
> 
> 4*_. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove _*2*_. It is a logical error to seek _*3*_ directly as proof of _*2*_. This error is called affirming the consequent.


Where did the above system (the backbone of "pure science") come from? It couldn't have been from science, since that would make a circular argument. It had to have come from something else, that "something else" is where truth is separated from fact.

If your methodology is "Rationalism," then it's likely that "fact" is synonymous with "truth," "how" is synonymous with "why", and science is a source of truth.

If your methodology is "Fideism" then "Fact" and "Truth" are only tenuously related. 

If it is "Experientialism" then "Truth" is a matter of "Facts" interpreted through your own experiences.

I am familiar with seven different forms of formal Methodologies, and several informal ones. My own is a form of the quote I left from Sherlock Holmes, above. Each one has a different use of "Fact" in the method of finding "Truth."

Personally, "Facts" act as a filter. If you could start with every option (practically, or theoretically), then filter out those options which don't fit the facts, what you are left with is truth. (But that's just me!)

I suppose that would be the methodology of _deduction._


----------



## Monadnock

exile said:


> No, I don't think that follows, and down that slope lies the pit where no atrocity ever 'really' happened. No one's child was killed by a drunken driver, no one's relatives died in a concentration camp, no one was ever enslaved, or persecuted, or convicted unjustly... or _anything_.


 
I think that's stretching it a bit.

Different perceptions of the same event each do not point to the 100% truth. That is not to say that the event never happened. That's a bit far fetched.


----------



## exile

Monadnock said:


> I think that's stretching it a bit.
> 
> Different perceptions of the same event each do not point to the 100% truth. That is not to say that the event never happened. That's a bit far fetched.



Well, obviously, I agree.  But if the event _happened_, thenregardless of our own _views_there is a domain of reality that exists independent of our perceptions and attitudes. 

And if that's so, M., then it's not just atrocities that belong to it: events in general do. Which is my point: there are our perceptions, attitudes, views, preconceptions, and so on... and then there is that domain of _what actually happened and what actually is._ And the goal of science and reason is to enable us to form a picture, an analogy in our own minds that encodes the essential features of what we can tell about that domain.

Modern science is the acid test and best proof of this. There is no way we can make sense of quantum theory; it is simply not compatible with the way we experience the world. Yet we devised the theory _and it has never failed when confronted with measurements of the world_. If we were guided merely by our own views of things, how we picture the world, we would never know about molecules, atoms, or the distortion of empty space by masses that causes light to bend.

The point is that once you accept the existence of a domain of the universe outside our own subjectivities, the argument is essentially overthe existence of that distinction is what's at issue, and you basically have to accept that while we have our own vision of things and beliefs, the truth is something fundamentally different from those things.


----------



## Monadnock

Yep -- agreed


----------



## Dagney Taggert

Truth is that which can be proven.


----------



## elder999

Dagney Taggert said:


> Truth is that which can be proven.


 

I dunno...I got a mathematical proof that the moon isn't there when no one is looking at it...is that true?


----------



## Dagney Taggert

How would you prove that "no one" is looking at the moon?


----------



## elder999

Dagney Taggert said:


> How would you prove that "no one" is looking at the moon?


 

Clearly, the converse must be true: no one is looking at the moon when _ it's not there._ :lol:

 Is the moon there when nobody is looking?


----------



## diamondbar1971

If you believe in God and believe that God can do anything, then can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up...In The world of theory, either an answer of yes or an answer of no would disprove God... But yet, is this truth.


----------



## Gyakuto

As Pontius Pilot said, “Quid est veritas?””


----------

