Truth, facts, and sour grapes.

Post #29,408 by marlowe 2/22/02 2:04:55 PM Reply	Truth, facts, and sour grapes. Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. Having done so, they then adapt their opinions to this Truth. And having done this, it is a simple matter to back up one's opinions with facts and reason, having already come up with the facts prior to forming the opinion. Other people have opinions that they loudly proclaim, but who know where they come from. These people will be shown up in any debate with those of the first type. Having been shown up, do they reconsider their views? No. Instead they whine about how arrogant it is for the first groups to think that their opinions have anything to do with truth, because after all, we all have opinions, and who's to say? The Truth is, all opinions are not equal, because they don't all come into being in the same way. Some people believe what they wish to be true. Most people believe what they're told as children, and then wish it to be true in order not to see themselves as fools. A precious few of us first look at the real world, then derive our opinions thence, and then periodically check our opinions against new evidence, making minor alterations as needed. Our opinions are an ever improving approximation of Truth. They converge upon Truth. If they're not quite Truth, they're a damn sight closer to it than opinions formed in any other manner. Close enough to be useful in dealing with the real world. And that makes them better. And if you don't like it, that's your problem. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,419 by Brandioch 2/22/02 3:08:32 PM Reply	And that's your "Truth"? The Truth is, all opinions are not equal, because they don't all come into being in the same way. That's your "Truth"? A precious few of us first look at the real world, then derive our opinions thence, and then periodically check our opinions against new evidence, making minor alterations as needed. Dude, you're abusing the word "us" in that statement.No way is that what you do. Our opinions are an ever improving approximation of Truth. They converge upon Truth. So, your opinion is an approximation of the "Truth". Well, you know what's even CLOSER to the "Truth" than your opinion? >MY< opinion, that's what. So, admit that you're wrong and get over it. Instead they whine about how arrogant it is for the first groups to think that their opinions have anything to do with truth, because after all, we all have opinions, and who's to say? Sooooooooo.................. Your >OPINIONS< are closer to the "Truth" than someone else's >OPINIONS< and if they point out that your >OPINIONS< are just your >OPINIONS< and NOT revealed "Truth" then they're whining about how arrogant you are? Maybe they are. Personally, I'm laughing my ass off at your feeble attempts to portray your >OPINIONS< as revealed "Truth" using only the FACT that they are your >OPINIONS< to support that claim. I'll also use this space to refer to your other claims about the nature of "The Truth". #1. It can change over time. #2. Whatever works is a test for "The Truth". It's strange, but to me, you seem to be defining what an "opinion" is. A person's opinion is based upon what s/he perceives as the "facts" of a situation and his/her opinion can change over time and his/her opinion "works" for the "facts" that s/he perceives. Now, all that is left is your claim that your >OPINION< is somehow related to "The Truth". Good choice on forums to post this in. You see, that is a good working definition for "God" and "God" belongs in the "Religion" forum.
Post #29,421 by Brandioch 2/22/02 3:29:04 PM Reply	For those who need to think in concrete terms. I have a monitor here. I have three items around it. #1. A water bottle. #2. A coffee mug. #3. A box of Keenex (r) brand tissues. Can anyone tell me which item is CLOSEST to my monitor? That's right. Without knowing where my monitor is, you cannot tell which item is closer to it. The same goes for opinions and "The Truth". You cannot tell if someone's opinion is closer to "The Truth" than someone else's without knowing what "The Truth" is. And, if someone knows what "The Truth" is, then he doesn't have an "opinion". He has "The Truth".
Post #29,424 by marlowe 2/22/02 3:42:35 PM Reply	Planet of the Whiners. Gosh, they sure are touchy on planet Brandioch. It used to be your wounded pride was amusing. Like teasing a cat or a Frenchman. But it got old fast. Trouble is, I'm not even trying to provoke you. I just speak plain sense, sometimes not even to you in particular, and you just throw a fit. Well, I'm not about to shut up for your benefit. You'll just have to get over it. Or not. It's all more or less the same to me. (Yes, folks, I do troll on purpose every once in a while. But nowhere near as frequently as it would appear from the reactions I get. I'm mostly an accidental troll.) [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,427 by Brandioch 2/22/02 4:13:02 PM Reply	Reply to my other post, then. "For those who need to think in concrete terms." Go ahead. You claim to be closer to "The Truth" with your opinions. That requires that you know what "The Truth" is. I just speak plain sense, sometimes not even to you in particular, and you just throw a fit. :) I guess that asking you to share "The Truth" is "throw(ing) a fit" to you. I understand that. I've seen that same behaviour in most religiously obsessed people. One must NEVER question the revealed Truth of the prophet. You're having a problem because you can't tell the difference between your opinion and "The Truth". Or, more correctly, you know there is a difference, but you think you're closer to "The Truth" than I am. Which, effectively, means the same thing. How very Clintonesq of you.
Post #29,458 by nking 2/22/02 10:20:57 PM Reply	Whiners and the truth usually the whiners are the ones that are spilling out the truth left and right. They are the ones hurt by the lies and the wrongs that have been done. Face facts, if everyone always did the right thing, it would be a perfect world. But because not everyone does the right thing, and people do sin, we need religion to forgive ourselves. That is why Jesus came to forgive people, because everyone has sinned in some way. Because of this, nobody is really 100% innocent unless they were just born, or are divine in some way (like Jesus, his mother Mary, etc) because they were born without sin. I do what I think is right, not everyone will agree with me that what I do is right. Like complaining on public forums about how bad my life is. I just felt it was the right thing to do, and seek the opinions of others to see just what are my options, what I can do about it, and also this is how a document things in case I do die and someone wants to know why and what happened to my last days? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #29,444 by Brandioch 2/22/02 6:17:43 PM Reply	To illustrate it with math. There was a simple "guess the number" game on one of my old calculators. Essentially, you entered the upper and lower limits of the game and the calculator would guess a number and you would tell it if it's guess was correct or whether the number was greater than or less than its guess. Of course, the program simply took the upper and lower limits, divided by 2 and guessed that number. If you said it was lower, the calculator took the lower limit plus its guess and divided by 2 and guessed that number. Now, suppose you flipped a coin (heads = higher, tails = lower) for the input instead of thinking of an actual number. Let's start with 32 The guess is 16, the coin is tails. The guess is 8, the coin is tails. The guess is 4, the coin is heads. The guess is 6, the coin is tails. The guess is 5, the coin is tails. The guess is 4.5, the coin is tails. The guess is 4.25................. As you can see, the app is giving more and more "accurate" resolutions for something that does not exist. What does this have to do with the current discussion? Just something to illustrate that it is possible to "approximate" something that doesn't exist. Particularly when you start out with a flawed premise and try to view random events (or unrelated events) as related. And the approximations can seem to be very, very accurate.
Post #29,475 by marlowe 2/23/02 8:38:40 AM Reply	It's not a coin toss for all of us. It's not just that you don't get it. You don't want to get it. Those who can, do. Those who can't, ridicule bitterly the very notion of being able to do. In real life, inferring from data works, far more often than not. It yields results that in turn yield results, that in turn get things done. It's not a coin toss. This is the fact that, in your weird neurosis, you are so desperate to avoid. Maybe for you everything is a coin toss. But for me, progress happens. I build things and they work. (And it's not just me saying they work. If their working is an illusion, it's a shared illusion. Delusion of crowds, if you're desperate to believe I'm wrong.) I refine them and they work even better. Ever more responsive, more flexible, more stable in extreme conditions. Problems get fixed shortly after appearing. And the problems get fewer and more minor after a while. Demos go well. Shipping dates get met. Units hold up well in field tests. Customers are satisfied, and place orders. Bosses are happy. You don't get all that tossing coins. Maybe for you things are different. Maybe for you it's all a coin toss. But the problem isn't reality, or Truth. The problem is you. With this atttude, you're unlikely to learn anything useful. I wonder how you manage to hold a job. Are you a PHB or an academic or something? Surely you're not someone who gets things done, except perhaps on planet Brandioch. Why, I wouldn't trust you to change a light bulb. You'd probably flip a coin a dozen times to determine if it needs changing, and then decide the light bulb doesn't exist. Reality isn't going to leave you alone just because you can't stand it. You really should try to come to terms. Well, I'm off for a few days to get some stuff done away from my computers. Then I'll come back to get more stuff done with computers. I expect when I get back you and the usual gang of idiots will still be posting your usual childish nonsense. (Only you can prove me wrong on that.) And because I'm so efficient at getting stuff done, I'll have time to taunt you all during long firmware downloads. Hey, even us efficacious types have to have fun on occasion. See, you're good for something after all. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,476 by Another Scott 2/23/02 9:32:44 AM Reply	Before you go... If I may... Hi, I think that Brandioch is trying, in his rather direct way, to get to an important point - a point that you don't seem to see. He's not arguing that reality doesn't exist, nor that all of life is a coin toss. His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. A simple bisection search won't find the answer if the ground rules are that random chance determines whether you answer "high" or "low" (because there are an infinite number of numbers in any finite interval). If we can't agree on the ground rules, the definitions of words, etc., then we can't reach consensus on what the "truth" is or even if it's a meaningful term in a particular discussion. I think "truth" is intrinsically related to human filtering of reality. It's not the same as reality. I think it's arrived at from what people perceive to be logical, or at least reasonable, conclusions. But the thought process isn't boolean - there are shades of gray, as you said. How can you fit a grayscale object into a 0 or 1 box? We all agree, I think, that the scientific method is our best tool for finding out the reality of the physical world. Brandioch isn't disputing that. What he's trying to bring out is that value judgements about the results of experiments color our findings and color what we see as the "truth". This becomes startlingly clear if you consider how people with autism, perfect pitch, and other rather uncommon brains perceive the world. There are reports of people like Tesla who remembered sounds as colors, etc. What we perceive as reality is tremendously filtered by our brains. And that in turn affects what we view as "truth". As does our experiences, our education, etc. This is an interesting topic. I hope you'll return to it and that both you and Brandioch can continue the debate with little of the jabbing which seems, unfortunately, to usually enter these discussions. Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,479 by Brandioch 2/23/02 12:36:03 PM Reply	Don't forget the initial assumptions. His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. That is correct. But don't forget to include your starting assumptions. Such as whether "God" exists and takes an active part. Or whether there is a secret cabal that controls the governments and banks. Or whether there is an objective "Truth" that can be found. Suppose there are 6 Billion people on the planet. You're looking for the "Truth" about people. Person #1 comes up with the "Truth" that has 5,999,999,999 different special cases. Person #2 believes there is no "Truth". Who is correct? Which was one of my reasons for asking Marlowe to provide the "Truth" that he's found. You starting assumptions will determine at what point you claim to have found "The Truth". Well, that would be true EXCEPT where there was a demonstratable, objective "Truth". Note the use of the word "objective". Like gravity is "objective".
Post #29,843 by marlowe 2/26/02 2:54:06 PM Reply	If that's really his point... 1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes 2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before. Anyone can be cute, with pseudophilosphy about subjectivity of truth. I have no respect for mere cuteness. I have respect for what works in real life. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. Shame on you for buying the humbug. You really ought to be smarter than that. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,865 by Brandioch 2/26/02 3:47:55 PM Reply	Reality just doesn't exist for you, does it? 1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes Okay, yet this does seem to be at odds with your earlier statements about you being closer to "The Truth" because your method "works". Allow me to re-fresh your memory of what Scott said: His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. So, because you've already determined what the ground rules are (ie. what "works" for you) you've already established what "Truth" you'll find. 2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before. That's strange. I would say that it has EVERYTHING to do with what "went before". Because >YOU< were the one making statements about the "Truth". I illustrated how you don't have any idea what the "Truth" is. All you know is what your >OPINION< is. Then you went off about how your opinion is closer to "The Truth" because your opinion "works". In other words, you've established the ground rules for yourself for the search for "The Truth" and those ground rules will result in a certain "Truth" being found (whether that "Truth" is actually "The Truth" or not). Now, how can you say that it has nothing to do with the discussion? I'll say it again, your >OPINION< is nothing more than your >OPINION< and the ONLY reason you think it has any relation to "The Truth" is that it is your >OPINION<. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. So, Marlowe starts a discussion about what colour the tooth fairey's house is. I say there isn't a tooth fairey. Marlowe says I'm not bringing any "facts" to the discussion? And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. I think I have made my point. There is NO tooth fairey. That means there is no tooth fairey's house. So arguing about what colour it is or saying that someone else is thinking of the wrong colour is idiotic. But you'll keep doing it. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. My point was that what you say is "The Truth" is nothing more than your >OPINION<. Also that the search for "The Truth" will always be meaningless because you will ALWAYS be constrained by your pre-conceptions and opinions. Just like in my math example. You can get ever closer to "The Truth" and actually think you're accomplishing something when you're just stringing unrelated incidents together. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. If I recall correctly, >YOU< were the one that tried to introduce this metaphysical "Truth" shit into the Politics discussions. And you want to lecture me about "intellectual incomptence"? And I will continue to note that you're "Truth" definition is so meaningless as to grant "Truth" to Clinton (whom you obviously hate). Seems the flaws are all your's.
Post #29,478 by nking 2/23/02 12:31:35 PM Reply	No random chance here you either do or do not. Sometimes we get set up to fail no matter what we do. Just look at the Sunday Dilbert strip for this week. The PHB tells Dilbert to upgrade all servers by Tuesday, Dilbert says he needs at least a month to do the upgrades, so the PHB summons Kronos for Time Management who knocks out the PHB and then says that he will wake up and think that Dilbert is a weasle and the PHB will ask for status reports. Sometimes you just cannot win because your superiors have no clue what it takes to get the fcking job done. They want it done in days, not months. Upgrade from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, upgrade from SQL Server 6.5 to SQL Server 2000, upgrade from IIS 3.0 to IIS 5.0 and convert all the ASP pages by hand that won't work on the new version, upgrade all the custom VB programs to use the new server technology because they are going to break anyway. There just isn't a "magic button" we can press to get it done in a few days. No coin to flip either to tell us that we can do it. The same with upgrading all the VB programs I have worked on in the past four years to work with Windows 2000 and Office 2000. Can't be done in days, takes months. But the PHBs don't know that, they think all I have to do is just recompile. They have no idea that the Word object changed from Office 97 to Office 2000, and that I'll have to research it on msdn.microsoft.com and make some changes to it to get it to work. That issues will pop up like Word 2000 hanging after I enter a lot of data into bookmarks, print out the template, and then close out a template, that Microsoft is aware of the issue and is working to fix it on the next service pack, whenever it comes out. Everything I tried to get around the problem had failed. But they still want me to fix it! If I disable the closing of the template, and just let the user close it, then nothing locks up. If I don't close it and leave it open, then nothing locks up. What apparently locks up is the Word menu, and if the user minimized and maximized, the menu is restored to normal operations. This issue was not there in Word 97 on 95/NT. If they only knew the walls I had to face, the things I had to do to get around them, and the lack of help that was there from my coworkers to get around those walls, they would have understood why it took so long to get the stupid program to work. Still I got it working before the Windows 2000/ Office 2000 migration was done by the rest of IT. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."*
Post #29,481 by Brandioch 2/23/02 12:40:16 PM Reply	You still don't want to see the facts. In real life, inferring from data works, far more often than not. Really? So Clinton was right and had "The Truth"? Ah, once again, you fall into the trap of assuming that your opinions are as valid data points as reproducable experiments. Sorry, your mind is no where near stable enough to make that claim. It yields results that in turn yield results, that in turn get things done. That depends upon what your "data" is. I notice you are unable to answer my question as to whether Clinton had "The Truth". He seemed to meet all your criteria, yet you don't seem to like the guy. Wouldn't that make you opposed to "The Truth"? Why can't you answer the question? Maybe for you everything is a coin toss. And this is one of the reasons why I keep pointing out that your "Truth" is nothing more than your opinions. You can't even tell an analogy from the real thing. If you have that much trouble with simple analogies, I can only imagine the trouble you'll have with real life. Which is probably why you can't answer my question about Clinton. With this atttude, you're unlikely to learn anything useful. I wonder how you manage to hold a job. Are you a PHB or an academic or something? Surely you're not someone who gets things done, except perhaps on planet Brandioch. Why, I wouldn't trust you to change a light bulb. You'd probably flip a coin a dozen times to determine if it needs changing, and then decide the light bulb doesn't exist. Like I said. It was an analogy and you aren't capable of telling the difference. Well, I'm off for a few days to get some stuff done away from my computers. Translation: "I'm running and hiding so I won't have to answer your questions and I hope this topic will scroll."
Post #29,499 by nking 2/23/02 6:20:05 PM Reply	Some people have to lie to get to the truth or in Clinton's case, his own version of the truth. Apparently he didn't consider a BJ as sexual relations. His wife wasn't that upset about it. It doesn't make it right, but it kind of gets into that grey area of truth. not really a lie, and not the truth either. Sort of a half-truth? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #29,663 by mhuber 2/25/02 5:31:05 PM Reply	One more time... The guy is a liar and I'm not defending him. However, the definition of sex story was rather heavily spun. He was in a courtroom. They handed him a slip of paper with a definition of sex and asked if he accepted it. The definition was rather broad and he declined and presented another definition. Both definitions had been used in various legal contexts. The Jay Leno version has him just making up new definitions of obvious words whenever he feels like it. The actual events were that he was doing a standard lawyer thing, arguing which of the available definitions should apply in this case. The guy's a lawyer. Put him in a courtroom and he's going to act like one. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #29,898 by drewk 2/26/02 5:38:29 PM Reply	That wasn't the big one They handed him a slip of paper with a definition of sex and asked if he accepted it. The quote that everyone got hung up on was, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." It's hard not to see that as twisting the language. If, as some have argued, that's "just what lawyers do," I don't see that as mitigating what Clinton did but as a condemnation of what lawers do. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #29,908 by mhuber 2/26/02 6:30:54 PM Reply	I see that as a condemnation of people who elect lawyers as leaders on a regular basis. I don't hate lawyers. I'd feel the same way if firefighters were elected as often as lawyers are. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #29,497 by Ashton 2/23/02 6:00:19 PM Reply	Once.. such hubris might have been entertaining But that was before techno made it possible for the late-night Tee Vee bigots and fanatics of other ilk to proliferate. Now such practitioners of personal-Certainty are a common pestilence. Alas your insouciance and thus hubris knows no bounds - that it is insouciance, is demonstrated by your stark failure to notice that, what you are claiming for yourself is nothing short of - wisdom. As I said, in these times of raving loonies attempting to impose Their Certain 'One Truth' upon everyone else: you are about as amusing as a case of Ebola selling hotdogs at the Super Bowl. Your ego must thus be of that massive sort which has eluded for too many years - a proper application of that clue-by-four whose result is.. a soup\ufffdon of humility, so that you might coexist in an imperfect world, and with normal people. When you are older - if they let you live long enough to reach that - you will come to understand why wisdom is a label which only someone else can affix to a one. Meanwhile - live that Boolean life smugly, which perhaps - you deserve. But keep it in the Puns forum, OK? Ashton
Post #29,864 by marlowe 2/26/02 3:46:44 PM Reply	How hubristic of you to presume you know better than I. Oh, have I wounded your pride by my overweening competence? Are you jealous that my systems result in satisfied users? Please forgive me for getting things done! And how dare I go and research my opinions while others politely refrain from knowing what they are talking about! We Americans are so arrogant, what with our digging the Panama Canal after the French decently screwed it up, what with putting a man on the moon when he had no business being there, what with saving Europe from the Nazis when we should have just minded our own business, what with going after these terrorists when all they did was kill some of us. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,867 by Brandioch 2/26/02 3:54:05 PM Reply	Marlowe defeated the Nazis? And worked on the Canal? And helped NASA? We Americans are so arrogant, what with our digging the Panama Canal after the French decently screwed it up, what with putting a man on the moon when he had no business being there, what with saving Europe from the Nazis when we should have just minded our own business, what with going after these terrorists when all they did was kill some of us. Ummmmm, forgive my ignorance, but what EXACTLY was >YOUR< role in those events?
Post #29,869 by Ashton 2/26/02 4:00:28 PM Reply	Ah.. there's the root/rub: John Dewey Pragmatism lives! Right - you can string some Boole together and get - a logical result. [Gosh - how Difficult] Ergo - life is a logical process and.. You gots George B and John D to help you debug it all! And that's.. all You need. Ok - clearer now. And you still! didn't follow my Rx for a restoration of some perspective in your tidy little 1/0 binary world: Watch Rashomon at least 3x in a row. Get back to us with your hat in hand, foot removed from mouth. Ashton
Post #29,873 by Brandioch 2/26/02 4:10:47 PM Reply	I'm still waiting for him to explain Clinton. Marlowe focuses on how he "gets things done". Well, Clinton obviously did MORE than Marlowe. So Clinton's got "The Truth". Or a better approximation than Marlowe has. Clinton got things done. From interns to perjury to campaign laundering. And he still walked out without a scratch. Sounds like that meets Marlowe's definition of "Truth".
Post #29,894 by Ashton 2/26/02 5:25:39 PM Reply	Attila got even More done.. I suppose it's some sort of Mercantile Theory of [Real] Enlightenment now reaching its zenith: symbolic logic as [Real] Enlightenment.. (Now ya can Prove.. Yup.. it's Real alright!) (One has to sprinkle in the [Real]s for reminding the rest of us: his deductions are Real-close to The Truth; close enough for government work anyway..) {sigh} Omnes animus post coitum triste. So.. Get Fucked! is really a plea to seek therapy.. Great Spirit! please protect me from the wrath of Those Who Know\ufffd
Post #29,935 by marlowe 2/27/02 12:00:13 AM Reply	Only on planet Brandioch. Here on Earth, Clinton's net contribution was negative. He damaged our military preparedness, and looted Social Security, both to create a bogus budget surplus. He sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder, and the victims at the WTC footed the bill. And then when us tech R&D types boosted the economy with our creativity, he hogged the credit. What a class act. But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the subtle distinction between hype and reality. In fact, it kind of figures you'd love such a blatant fraud as Clinton. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #29,963 by Brandioch 2/27/02 10:54:04 AM Reply	Thus proving my point. Here on Earth, Clinton's net contribution was negative. He damaged our military preparedness, and looted Social Security, both to create a bogus budget surplus. He sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder, and the victims at the WTC footed the bill. Which was that >YOU< determine what "works" based upon >YOUR< opinion. And then when us tech R&D types boosted the economy with our creativity, he hogged the credit. Oh my, this is getting downright pathological. "...us tech R&D....." So, you've accomplished more than Clinton did? Oh, you're looking at his "net contribution". That's what determines whether he has "The Truth" or not. Which, I guess, is something different than "what works", which, if you will recall, was your earlier definition of "The Truth". So, Clinton getting elected TWICE isn't evidence of "what works" or accomplishing something. Well, it is, but it's offset by what you claim he did in damage. Like I said before, your version of "The Truth" is nothing more than your opinion. And you will always find something in your opinion to support your opinion. Clinton accomplished MORE than you ever will. And he was RE-ELECTED. Again, evidence that what he was doing "worked". But now you have to find other aspects to counter the aspects that meet your prior criteria. Let me guess, you also believe in phrenology. Or, at least you base your definition of "The Truth" on a similar background.
Post #29,548 by Another Scott 2/24/02 12:38:53 PM Reply	Another illustration - The Placebo Effect. From the 2/23 issue of The Economist (on the web but you need to be a subscriber to read it there). p.83: According to Fabrizio Benedetti, a neuroscientist at the University of Turin, researchers now believe that the placebo effect results from the release in the brain of natural painkillers called endogenous opiates, which are produced when the brain anticipates relief. When people are dosed with a substance that counteracts the effects of these opiates, their respose to placebos evaporate. Moreover, the brain also contains a substance called cholecystokinin, which opposes the action of opiates. When patients are given a drug that degrades cholecystokinin, their opiate levels stay higher than normal and their responses to placebos become stronger. The placebo effect also holds true in reverse. When patients do not know they are receiving treatment, they do not respond to it. Dr. Benedetti showed the audience a remarkable video of a patient with Parkinson's disease, an ailment that causes muscle tics and trembling. These symptoms can be alleviated by electrical stimulation of the brain. The video showed that when the patient was unaware that stimulation was being applied, his twitching continued unabated. But as soon as he knew the electrodes had been switched on, his symptoms were reduced. [...] The research was reported at the AAAS meeting in Boston. The point? The brain is a complicated organic computing and sensing device with complicated filters. It doesn't measure objective reality directly. Its response depends upon many psychological factors - not just on objective things like the presence of drugs or voltages. Logic and measurments will only get us so far in knowing objective "Truth". One should be skeptical of those who claim to know "The Truth". Just as claims of supernatural events demand extraordinary evidence, similarly claims of knowledge of "The Truth" requires very strong evidence. (Why? Because life is filled with shades of gray. "The Truth" as it's being used in this thread, doesn't seem to allow shades of gray.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,554 by a6l6e6x 2/24/02 1:09:51 PM Reply	Re: "The Truth" according to the Rev. Ashcroft. Ashcroft came to the Buckle on the Bible Belt to, among other things, sing as well as expound on his views. [link\|http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/2734992.htm\|Charlotte Observer article.] A quote, I hope is sincere, is: Some people, he said, have told him they're afraid he'll impose his religion on others. "I have to carefully tell them that it's against my religion to impose my religion," he said. A quote amusing to me is: Ashcroft noted that he never attended seminary, and joked that as a result, "the things that I say may be totally wrong." "As a matter of fact, there is a substantial community of individuals who believe the things I say are totally wrong," he said, alluding to his many critics. "That hasn't stopped me from saying them before and it won't stop me from saying them again." Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #29,565 by Ashton 2/24/02 5:19:24 PM 2/24/02 5:21:40 PM Reply	Oops - blong under Alex, re Ashcroft He comes almost close-enough to having a sense of humor! ..but not quite. It's not clear if his brief quips represent wryness - or maybe he just listened to some cues from an aide, about "what some folks are saying". (It would help a lot though - if in fact he Has a sense of humor.. y'know?.. especially about Righteousness and stuff) A. Edited by Missing User 70 Feb. 24, 2002, 05:21:40 PM EST Expand All History
Post #29,566 by a6l6e6x 2/24/02 5:45:52 PM Reply	Yes, one can always hope for s sense of humor. Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #29,430 by ben_tilly 2/22/02 4:35:52 PM Reply	A relevant fact you should note A hell of a lot more people claim to have arrived at their positions after fully accepting the evidence than actually did. More than that, my experience is that people who claim to actually know what the "Truth" is generally arrive at said conviction by arriving at what they find a convenient stopping point, and then ceasing all useful thought. By contrast the people who I have consistently found have the most useful insights and information tend to not be the ones who claim to have any final answers. The two traits are connected - the fact that they continue to think and learn is tied to not locking themselves into any particular dogma. Cheers, Ben
Post #29,432 by Steve Lowe 2/22/02 4:47:23 PM Reply	Re: A relevant fact you should note my experience is that people who claim to actually know what the "Truth" is generally arrive at said conviction by arriving at what they find a convenient stopping point, and then ceasing all useful thought. No doubt. I think even moreso they arrive at a juncture which would require a CHANGE in their "map" of the world and do not think about it, or even acknowledge it for that matter. IOW they cease the useful thought because their worldview has been challenged and they are not willing to change it, no matter how compelling the evidence. I know I've been guilty of that before, and will most likely be again. I can be a pretty stubborn old fart. I've never trusted anyone who says he knows what the "Truth" is. I don't beleive it CAN be known, at least in this stage in our development. ----- Steve
Post #29,433 by marlowe 2/22/02 4:55:17 PM Reply	Duly noted. The fact remains, there are people who, when cornered, whine about how there is no absolute truth and who are we to think our opinions are better than theirs just because we can support ours and they can't. There's such a thing as reasonable disagreement. I can respect a reasonable disagreement, in the hope that it will get sorted out with enough sharing of data. But reasonable disagreement is not the norm in politics, philosophy or religion. And there's a difference between claiming to have a final answer and claiming to have a clue. By and large, I don't claim to have final answers. I claim to have a clue. But this fine distinction is lost on certain people. For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. Better an approximation of the truth than nonsense and whining. I can entertain a philosophical doubt without being paralyzed by it. I'm not forced to choose between an illusion of absolute certainty and an illusion of absolute uncertainty. And I really don't see the point of reveling in ignorance in the name of "open mindedness" like some do. If all you see is blurry shades of gray, adjust the focus already. If you can't plot the curve, then gather some more data points already. Angst is not something to be wallowed in. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,439 by Brandioch 2/22/02 5:29:09 PM Reply	Mrs. Scarlett, in the library, with the candlestick. And there's a difference between claiming to have a final answer and claiming to have a clue. Actually, there isn't. How do you know that your "clue" is correct? >YOU< "know" that it is because it fits your current world view. In otherwords, you >THINK< you have a clue because you >THINK< your >OPINION< has some proximity to "The Truth". Once again, circular logic. You have a clue because you are closest to being right and you're closest to being right because you have a clue. But this fine distinction is lost on certain people. The only thing I see being lost is you. You still don't understand that you're basing the validity of your opinion on the fact that it is >YOUR< opinion. #1. Your opinion is valid because you have a clue. #2. You have a clue because you evaluated the situation in the correct manner. #3. You can tell it is the correct manner because you have a clue. For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. Please try to use words that you understand. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. This assumes that you are capable of evaluating correct input from incorrect input. Which gets back to your opinion. I can entertain a philosophical doubt without being paralyzed by it. And the characteristics of paralyzation are........? So you are not paralyzed when you cannot answer my questions? Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. If all you see is blurry shades of gray, adjust the focus already. Chaos theory. If you can't plot the curve, then gather some more data points already. Chaos theory. The data you evaluate is screened through your preconcieved opinion of what is valid and relevent and what is not. By your definition, Clinton had the "Truth" for 8 years. How does this fit with your political ideology?
Post #29,647 by screamer 2/25/02 1:41:21 PM Reply	Since this is the Religion, Philosophy and Meta physics forum :-) You write: And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. Better an approximation of the truth than nonsense and whining. I can entertain a philosophical doubt without being paralyzed by it. I'm not forced to choose between an illusion of absolute certainty and an illusion of absolute uncertainty. And I really don't see the point of reveling in ignorance in the name of "open mindedness" like some do. If all you see is blurry shades of gray, adjust the focus already. If you can't plot the curve, then gather some more data points already. Angst is not something to be wallowed in. You are playing a little fast and loose with the "truth" now (capital or little "t"). You can have all the input and intellectual honesty you want, but if you do not have "scope or a valid reference point (things Brandioch was alluding to)", then it may not even be useful in "real life" situations. For example, who are you to decide that "better an approximation of the truth than nonsense and whining. Perhaps our whole existence as a species (our raison d'etre) is precisely to make nonsense and whine. I might add that "assumptions" before the scientific experiment can also skew any meaningful results... (Assuming that Newton's first law is actually correct... Assuming that all consumer's are rational... Assuming that we are an electron revolving around the sun (nucleus) of an organic molecule in something larger in an infinite universe...) For example, when you say 2 + 2 = 4, and this is a "fact", I might be inclined to agree. However; numbers are merely abstract abbreviations for reality. I might say that 2 (apples) + 2 (apples) = 4 (apples) . Does this mean that all 4 apples are identical? The same atomic weight? Same color? Equivalent in ever way? Equal to? This, my friend, is a problem. Math, scientific method, et al. are extremely useful tools in approximating reality, but not in "defining" it. Perhaps this is where your and Brandioch's dissonance lies. You are making it appear as if all apples are the same, both in the lab and on the tree. This gets especially messy when you start trying to apply this reasoning to politics, religion, and science. Just my $.02 Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,859 by marlowe 2/26/02 3:28:03 PM Reply	Real life is the reference point. Any other reference point is for idiots. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,932 by screamer 2/26/02 11:21:33 PM Reply	Real life? Who's real life? No wonder khasim has been reaming you so hard. Your "real life" is as meaningless to the other 5.9999 billion other folks as my "real life" is. Clue. Life is an illusion. Just because the sun appears to "rise" in the east every morning and has done so for quite a long time, doesn't mean that it's a "fact" that it will happen again tomorrow. It's probable, but no guaranteed. I don't know you personally, but if you are one that is prone to "dismiss the outlayers", watch out! Chaos exists and is waiting to blow away your childish notions about truth and facts... Some even suggest that the only truly meaningful observations are the outlayers (such as evolution - mutations). FWIW, I understand what you are trying to say, but you are not helping yourself by not admitting that you are just another poor dumb human being with all the handicaps that are associated with being a member of such a limited and ignorant life form... :-) Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,937 by marlowe 2/27/02 12:48:43 AM Reply	The sun'll come up tomorrow... Betch yer bottom dollar that tomorrow There'll be sun. Diurnal cycles are conspicuously indifferent to your desperate pedantry. I suppose you'd like us all to ignore Newtonian physics just because Einstein came along, and then ignore Einstein in exchange for some New Age beebling, because you're done with him now that he's helped you prove yourself more clever than Newton. There are a lot of well informed engineers who will tell you to go step off a cliff and accelerate toward the Earth's center at 9.8 meters per second squared, give or take a bit. Whether you plummet because of Newton or because of General Relativity will be all the same to them. But if you think you're gonna levitate buoyed by your superior intellect, you're in for a shock. The universe doesn't think you're so smart, and neither do I. Now as for me, I might just levitate because of my superior intellect. But only indirectly. The fact that I come to terms with gravity by mounting a hang glider would be the gating factor. And the great thing about this way of dealing with things is it works, regardless of whether you follow Einstein, Newton, or Ptolemy. Either you accept that reality is what works, or what doesn't work dominates your "reality." Things that don't work are for losers. You can keep them. And after you've chosen what doesn't work, don't expect me to pay homage. It ain't gonna happen. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #29,966 by screamer 2/27/02 10:59:03 AM Reply	When I think of a day that grey and lonely... I just pick up my chin and grin and say... Have a happy day... And by the way... I'm a loser... And you're a winner... You're the best... You have science... Just remember the flat earth, there, pup... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,934 by screamer 2/26/02 11:42:00 PM Reply	Oh, and by the way, did you even read my post? Because the answer you gave, "real life" is the reference point used to determine the "truth" is something that a primitive bot might post. I was alluding to the fact that our very notion of "reality" has been continually evolving - flat earth to Hubble... But Hubble only gives us a very limited and finite view of what lies beyond or beyond the beyond. We are an egotistical species but not real bright and scientific method can only go so far... We can't rightly reproduce something such as the "big bang" or a comet that killed the dinosaurs... Having said that, we approximate "facts" and "truth" from our limited understanding. This is an admission of my own limitations... Perhaps what you are getting in these fora is a taste of resentment for your not admiting your own limitations - the ones shared by every other poster here. Makes us worry that maybe we were shortchanged or something... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,947 by drewk 2/27/02 9:06:21 AM Reply	You realize you're agreeing with him? Having said that, we approximate "facts" and "truth" from our limited understanding. I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. Not that we can know it, but that it is possible to come to a closer approimation of it. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #29,957 by Brandioch 2/27/02 10:34:36 AM Reply	To quote Professor Jones. "Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Prof. Tyree's Philosophy course is right down the hall ... " You would be amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between "facts" and "truth". I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. I will note the fact that you're using a "t" in that "truth" instead of a "T". To illustrate this, tell me the "Truth" about people.
Post #29,964 by drewk 2/27/02 10:56:10 AM 2/27/02 10:57:53 AM Reply	Too easy "Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth." Tell that to a creationist looking at Carbon 14 dating results. (edit) Which, yes, proves your point about "fact" depending on your preconceptions. But remember, I already acknowledged that the best (I think) we can hope for is a ever-closer approximation of the truth. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores. Edited by drewk Feb. 27, 2002, 10:57:53 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,973 by Brandioch 2/27/02 11:29:02 AM Reply	Which brings us back to "The Truth" (please note the "T"'s) Tell that to a creationist looking at Carbon 14 dating results. I also believe that "Creationist" is spelled with a "C". Now, is there any Creationist that doesn't already know "The Truth"? So, the Creationist will accept or reject "facts" based upon how they fit with his/her preconceived notion of "The Truth". For example, any "facts" that cast doubt on C14 dating will be accepted. Any "facts" that validate C14 dating will be rejected. (or, at best, invalidated because of the "facts" mentioned in the previous line.) But remember, I already acknowledged that the best (I think) we can hope for is a ever-closer approximation of the truth. Hmmmm, I think the problem is that you don't understand that there is a difference between "truth" and "The Truth". "truth" == "facts" for sufficiently small facts and small truths. I have blond hair. That is a fact. That is the truth. Now, again, to illustrate this point, tell me "The Truth" about people. This is the SECOND time I've asked you to do this.
Post #29,978 by screamer 2/27/02 11:52:25 AM Reply	I'm affraid I can't give you that point entirely... The quote you posted is innocuous enough, but where I jumped in: For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. There is a blatant incongruity with the statement "truth is boolean" and "with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty" and we can "approach the truth"... "We can converge on certainty Moohaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... The assumption is that we have the ability to gather enough input and be intellectually honest to approximate truth or "the truth". I postulate that we do not have an adequate referent point to gather "enough input" on very fundamental physics, not to mention metaphysics. His pragmatic approach is fine - we have used fire for tens of thousands of years before we understood the mechanics of combustion, and I will give him that much. But I take exception to the notion (and terminology) that by applying scientific method and intellectual honesty we can approach CERTAINTY? Maybe I'm a tad skeptical but I feel that we're too biased to approach anything. Look at our (human beings) approach to the study of Biology or the study of "lower" life forms on Earth... Aren't we special? Our fables tell about how man is given "dominion" over the rest of the animals, etc"... Intellectual honesty? We are pompous assholes in the name of science. If I told you or Marlowe that we are simply a virus in something much larger in an infinite universe (from my own observations, using my own understanding of physics - which I actually believe, by the way), would your "intellectual honesty" allow you feel lower than the "lowest" forms of microbes in this dimension? And if you believed as such (like I do), where would that leave Marlowe's theories about "truth" and "facts" and "intellectual honesty"? What if I believe that the universe is actually finite? Prove me wrong using facts... Good luck, bucko... Can't be determined, don't have a reference point. Now, let's turn this to Politics :-), Republicans are good because they tell the truth. ? Prove me wrong... He is not even touching upon "t" truth, let alone "T" Truth... Of course, I could be wrong - which is intellectually honest. Something that is sorely lacking in these types of discussion. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,988 by drewk 2/27/02 12:26:46 PM Reply	Certainty != Truth But I take exception to the notion (and terminology) that by applying scientific method and intellectual honesty we can approach CERTAINTY? Why? Certainty just means that you have no doubt. It is unrelated to accuracy. Some pepople are "certain" that Elvis is alive. Read what Marlowe said carefully, and note when he says "true" and when he says "certain," when he says "prove" and when he says "believe." For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. How I read that is that he is asserting a belief that there is some absoulte truth, but that we can not know it. And that even with "enough input and intellectual honesty" we can still only "converge on certainty," not achieve it, nor prove that this certainty has any relation to "truth." To me (meaning IMO) this is just a description of pragmatism. Essentially spelling out why denying the evidence of our senses or the validity of our experience makes for frustrating, pointless debate. Moreover, these are his premises. Feel free to disagree with them, but any argument he makes will assume them, and he'll discount any argument that doesn't. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,000 by screamer 2/27/02 1:13:29 PM Reply	Shame on me... Semantics 101 Basically then, if I assume that certainty (definition I like is [link\|http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath372.htm\|here]) just is another word for what Marlowe thinks, then I'll be fine... I get it now. But Drew, I have to ask you, am I just slow or are you being serious? Maybe we need to define some ground rules like Brandioch says... From Merriam... Truth (Truth) (?), n.; pl. Truths (#). [OE. treuthe, trouthe, treowpe, AS. tre\\'a2w\ufffd. See True; cf. Troth, Betroth.] 1. The quality or being true; as: -- (a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been; or shall be. (b) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the like. "Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the ironwork." Mortimer. (c) Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness. "Alas! they had been friends in youth, But whispering tongues can poison truth." Coleridge. (d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from falsehood; veracity. "If this will not suffice, it must appear That malice bears down truth." Shak. 2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality. "Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor." Zech. viii. 16. "I long to know the truth here of at large." Shak. "The truth depends on, or is only arrived at by, a legitimate deduction from all the facts which are truly material." Coleridge. 3. A true thing; a verified fact; a true statement or proposition; an established principle, fixed law, or the like; as, the great truths of morals. "Even so our boasting . . . is found a truth." 2 Cor. vii. 14. 4. Righteousness; true religion. "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John i. 17. "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John xvii. 17. -- In truth, in reality; in fact. -- Of a truth, in reality; certainly. -- To do truth, to practice what God commands. "He that doeth truth cometh to the light." John iii. 21.Truth (Truth), v. t. To assert as true; to declare. [R.] "Had they [the ancients] dreamt this, they would have truthed it heaven." Ford. Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't see Marlowe as part of the definition. I edited my dictionary... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,005 by drewk 2/27/02 1:30:33 PM Reply	What I meant certain: assured in mind or action --synonym see SURE That's the fifth definition m-w.com. The first four all reference true in some way. Their definitions of "true" also seem to point to certain. They seem to be very similar. So to draw a distinction between them, as Marlowe did, is to focus on the nuances. The difference is that truth, and even moreso "Truth," is intended to refer to things which simply are. Can we know the Truth? That's the whole issue. So how is "certainty" different from this? It's a measure of the confidence people place in something. I can be certain that something is true. It would then be true that I am certain. And I could be wrong, but the fact of my certainty would still be true. BTW re: your link. Although certainty was mentioned in the title at the top, it isn't used anywhere else. That's confusing to me in an article that seems to seek to define terms. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,007 by Brandioch 2/27/02 1:39:04 PM Reply	It's good to see you finally joining me. So how is "certainty" different from this? It's a measure of the confidence people place in something. I can be certain that something is true. It would then be true that I am certain. And I could be wrong, but the fact of my certainty would still be true. Now, if you are certain something is "true" (shall we say "a fact"?) then how are you going to react to data points that seem to contradict your certainty? Will you even bother to look for such data points? If you do bother, where would you start looking? "true" == "fact" for sufficiently small values of "true" and "fact". I have blond hair. That is true. That is a fact. Now, Drew, tell me "The Truth" about people. Then we can discuss the "certainty" that there is a "Truth" in the first place. Can we know the Truth? That's the whole issue. Nope. The FIRST issue is whether there >IS< a Truth. Like I said before, you can argue all you want about how you >KNOW< what colour the tooth fairey's house is.... Or how you can come closer to knowing what that colour is through logical deductions and experimentation. Please refer back to my math example for an illustration on why this is a useless practice.
Post #30,028 by drewk 2/27/02 3:06:51 PM Reply	Gee, tough question Now, if you are certain something is "true" (shall we say "a fact"?) then how are you going to react to data points that seem to contradict your certainty? Since this whole discussion is about an idea Marlowe presented, let's see what he had to say about it way back in the very first post of this whole thread: Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. Having done so, they then adapt their opinions to this Truth. Hey, look at that. Two lines in and it seems the whole point was to explain his view of the difference between well-reasoned opinions and unexamined ones. Wait, let me make sure I have that right. And having done this, it is a simple matter to back up one's opinions with facts and reason, having already come up with the facts prior to forming the opinion. "But how do you know they're really 'facts'?" Back to pragmatism. If you want to continue denying the validity of "facts" I invite you again to step out in front of what I believe is a speeding truck. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,031 by Brandioch 2/27/02 3:24:57 PM Reply	Ah, another "proof" of my point. If you want to continue denying the validity of "facts" I invite you again to step out in front of what I believe is a speeding truck. Now, in another of my posts, I addressed this very issue. In fact, it was in a REPLY to one of YOUR posts. Shall I quote your post back at you? I guess I have to. On the sidewalk, he instructed them to walk out into the street without looking right or left. They said, "But we'll be killed by the traffic!" My reply was: #1. Your senses filter what you perceive. #2. You senses are limited in what they can perceive. Therefore............... there is no reason to believe that your senses are revealing ALL of "Reality" to you. Not that they are not revealing a filtered portion of "Reality". So, you've already used the car illustration and it has been effectively refuted BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO KEEP REPEATING IT aren't you? You see, despite what you may WANT me to be saying, I'm not saying that we can't perceive parts of Reality. What I'm asying is that we can't perceive ALL of Reality. That the parts we can perceive are filtered and subject to interpretation based upon our previously held beliefs. You are an excellent example of such behaviour. Rather than reading and understanding my posts, you will filter them through your beliefs and then >THINK< you're saying something relevent to them. That is >EXACTLY< the behaviour the will confuse your >OPINION< with "The Truth". How many times have I asked you to post "The Truth" about people? But you won't do that. Because you CAN NOT do that. But you won't consider that you can not do that. Instead, you'll filter my posts through your beliefs. Just like you'll filter the "facts" through your beliefs to support your version of "The Truth". That which does NOT support your beliefs will be skipped. Just as you keep skipping over my question as to "The Truth" about people. So, Drew, given that you are exhibiting EXACTLY the behaviours that I am saying you will exhibit, how do you imagine that you are intellectually capable of determining what "The Truth" is (or even whether it exists)?
Post #30,038 by drewk 2/27/02 3:50:34 PM Reply	Your point is rather dull What I'm asying is that we can't perceive ALL of Reality. That the parts we can perceive are filtered and subject to interpretation based upon our previously held beliefs. So? No really, what exactly does that have to do with what Marlowe first posted and with which I've agreed? His point was exactly that theories which can by their nature have absolutely nothing to do with observable reality aren't worth debating. I haven't said anything to dispute your premise -- and BTW it is an unsupported premise[1] -- that we can't perceive all of reality. But anything we can't perceive[2] isn't worth discussing because, well, we can't perceive it. Is there something you perceive that you think I don't? Fine. Explain it in a way that I can perceive. Not a conclusion, a basic observation, like the fact that objects tend to attract each other. "But we don't completely understand how/why gravity works, ha ha!" No, but we know that it works. So, there's the premise I've layed out. Any discussion of something that can not be perceived can never be more than an intelectual exercise. While I accept the premise that what we perceive may have nothing to do with any objective reality, I conclude that this has no bearing on the usefullness of the conclusions I draw. [1] The one advancing a hypothosis is responsible for proving it, unless you want to classify it as a premise. If it's a premise, then we're still at the point where I ask, "So what?" [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,043 by Brandioch 2/27/02 4:23:50 PM Reply	Re-read your posts. No really, what exactly does that have to do with what Marlowe first posted and with which I've agreed? Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that. So why have you posted it TWICE? And now you're asking >ME< what it has to do with the ORIGINAL topic? That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts". His point was exactly that theories which can by their nature have absolutely nothing to do with observable reality aren't worth debating. Really? Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this. Something about one political party lacking the "truth" and so on. He says that one political party doesn't have it and that it exists, but then you're agreeing with him that, since it is unverifiable, it doesn't matter. Again, another data point showing how your beliefs filter Reality. Now, I >REALLY< wish they would teach >THINKING< in schools now. You're just too easy to rip apart. I haven't said anything to dispute your premise -- and BTW it is an unsupported premise[1] -- that we can't perceive all of reality. Unsupported? Well, skip back 200 years and tell me about xrays. Okay? Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists. Wasn't there some quote by some patent admin about everything already being invented? Shall I put Drew's name up there, too? But anything we can't perceive[2] isn't worth discussing because, well, we can't perceive it. Cool. And following THAT "logic", we'd STILL not know anything about xrays or viruses. Is there something you perceive that you think I don't? Fine. Explain it in a way that I can perceive. And Drew requests that I hand him an xray. Or send him a pound of viruses. Ummmm, Drew...... you >DO< remember that you and Marlowe are the ones saying you can approximate "The Truth" and I'm the one saying that it doesn't exist, right? So why are you telling me >NOW< that it's the other way around? Ahhhhhhh, I get it. That bit about "The Truth" about people FINALLY sank in, right. But you can't admit that you were wrong. Don't worry. I won't mock you. So, there's the premise I've layed out. Any discussion of something that can not be perceived can never be more than an intelectual exercise. I will disagree with this as a general principle. See my above comments about xrays 200 years ago. On a more SPECIFIC topic, there is no "Truth". There is no tooth fairey. There is no tooth fairey's house. Telling me you can approximate the colour is stupid. [1] The one advancing a hypothosis is responsible for proving it, unless you want to classify it as a premise. If it's a premise, then we're still at the point where I ask, "So what?" Allow me to answer that with a quote from Marlowe. When Leftists ideologues say there is no real truth, the truth itself becomes politicized. But remember, truth was here first. So you can find it and check the context: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29298\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=29298] [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist? I can accept that my senses have limitiations ( I cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste xrays, but they exist) without thinking that things I see, hear, smell, feel and/or taste don't exist. Again, the classic refutation to your example. Because I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists. Again, another data point showing that "The Truth" will NEVER be understood by people. You continue to filter my posts through your beliefs. You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions.
Post #30,050 by drewk 2/27/02 4:52:13 PM Reply	No need Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that. That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device. That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts". No. I've just collected another data point that you will spew intentionally random pronouncements in an effort to derail someone's position. I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable. Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this. I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here. Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists. Do people get sick? Yes they do. Some people supposed this was the act of some malicious god. Some supposed that there might be some other mechanism at work. They developed ways to test for it. Sounds to me like they "perceived' something. [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist? You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it? Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it. You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions. For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty. And that this certainty is useful. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists ... I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists. Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice. See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived. That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived. And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,059 by Brandioch 2/27/02 5:22:43 PM Reply	Yes you do need to. That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device. Nope. I just don't have any problem with quoting the ORIGINAL statements in the discussion. Which you seem to have a problem accepting. Why? If the discussion threads from the ORIGINAL statement, then why do you have a problem bringing the discussion BACK to that statement? Presumably AFTER all the definitions and clarifications have been worked out? I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable. And, as has been pointed out in these threads "certainty" has NOTHING to do with "facts". You can be as "certain" as you like. I'll wait for the facts to present themselves. I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here. Well, I guess that makes you just a little bit un-informed, doesn't it? You see, Marlowe used those terms in the Political threads. To say something COMPLETELY different than what he is claiming now. That is why I quoted his post from Politics. Which is something you had a problem with. "Certainty" again. You >KNOW< you're right and no facts to the contrary will convince you otherwise. And the FACT is that Marlowe used "truth" in that thread which led to this thread. Do people get sick? Yep. Germs. There. Problem solved. No need to dig further. It doesn't have any real world application. They developed ways to test for it. Yep. Because they weren't satisfied with "no real world" applications. You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it? Well, since I gave an example of a deaf person SEEING a car, what would >YOU< think? Again, simply because I cannot "perceive" EVERYTHING does NOT mean that NOTHING exists. The classical refutation to your example (usually covered in phil101). Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it. Again, you display your inability to understand NEW CONCEPTS. Instead, you'll just attempt to fit it to your pre-existing opinion. Read back through these posts and you'll see that the ONLY things I've said DO NOT EXIST are: 1. The tooth fairey (and her house and the paint on her house) 2. "The Truth". >YOU< are the one going on and on and on about how being hit by a car. Yes, it was >YOU< that posted it the FIRST time. I refuted it then (and also pointed out that it had NOTHING to do with my position) BUT YOU KEEP BRINGING IT BACK. Why? I never said that TRAFFIC didn't exist. I NEVER said that cars and trucks don't exist. >YOU< are the one that went on about your "example". >YOU< are the one who is intellectually incapable of evaluating new concepts (#1. I didn't say that traffic didn't exist). Which is ANOTHER data point in how >YOU< are incapable of determining what is "Reality" or "Truth" or even "fact". Keep going on about it. You're just generating more data points. For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty. Great! But do you understand that this thread is borne from the previous thread? And that this certainty is useful. FOR WHAT?!? We've ALREADY established that such "certainty" is NOT based upon facts or evidence or ANYTHING! Elvis is ALIVE is a "certainty". Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice. No. I'm challenging >YOU< to explain your current position IN RESPECT TO MARLOWE'S ORIGINAL POST. I'm saying there IS NO "TRUTH". ("Truth" used as in "The Truth). Never has been, never will be. Now, how is it possible for you to think that is anything other than an absolute? How? See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived. And that is the FIRST intelligent thing you've posted in this thread. That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived. I hope that makes sense to you. It means nothing to me. And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about. And my answer to that is.................... 200 years ago xrays
Post #30,016 by screamer 2/27/02 2:05:42 PM Reply	Fair. And the link I threw out there was more to give folks like Marlowe the kind of flavor the rigor in which "facts" are treated in the Mathematics and Physics community. (It was a nice coincidence that he brought up Newton and Einstein, no?) It was not meant as a definition but more as an example... Sorry, I blew the links... More intellectual honest? ;-) For what it's worth, I generally sit these things out because they are futile semantic exercises. The problem here is that the type of "logic" being used by Marlowe is in fact the kind of thinking that brought us nuclear weapons and power plants, long before we really understood the risks or philosophical implications. It also now presents us with cloning (again, perhaps innocuous, but capable of designs on master races), the repercussions of 100 plus years of burning fossil fuels and the effect it might be having on the environment. I do not doubt that we are clever animals, I just fear that sometimes we don't anticipate consequences very well. In essence, I have nothing against Marlowe except for what his type of thinking represents. A brain without a consciences. I'm not paralyzed by doubts, but I sure as hell don't dismiss them either. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,091 by Ashton 2/27/02 10:19:12 PM Reply	What we clever animals are up to Might glance at my note in News Picks: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moves the Doomsday clock up 2 minutes, to "7 minutes before.." And why. So much for our inextirpable (! love that word - it's about "plucking") Hubris.. homo-Huris is closer to an apt species name (?) Ashton
Post #29,995 by Another Scott 2/27/02 12:49:15 PM Reply	Recall the full quote. Hi Drew, I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. Not that we can know it, but that it is possible to come to a closer approimation of it. I don't have a qualm with that. But that's not all of what he said. In the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29408\|first post] in this thread. Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. A person's view of "Truth" will nearly always be colored by their beliefs no matter how objective they try to be. IMHO. That's my objection to his sweeping statement. More in my comment at the bottom of the thread ([link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29946\|here]). Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,996 by drewk 2/27/02 12:59:23 PM Reply	I don't see the problem Again, he's saying that some people "infer a Truth." I can read that either that they infer that there is a Truth, or that they infer what (they believe) that Truth to be. Either way, it's an inferrence. And if, as the rest of the quote says, that inferrence is at odds with what they would like to believe, isn't that evidence of not being a slave to their preconceptions? I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #29,998 by Brandioch 2/27/02 1:08:11 PM Reply	So why can't you answer my question? What is "The Truth" about people? When you can answer that, you'll be able to see the flaw in your reasoning.
Post #29,447 by Ashton 2/22/02 7:04:24 PM Reply	Having read for comprehension, with all previous judgments left in cache, I find that I can add only one profound thought to this Magnum Opus. Alas words fail except for.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #29,528 by boxley 2/24/02 12:08:24 AM Reply	a couple of thoughts some people believe what they learned at momma's knees, without coherent thought. Well if momma was a bright girl they might be right more often than not. Getting an approximation of the truth by looking at evidence let me tell you a story, It wasnt until I was about 15 I actually read the words to the song silent night until that time it was an evedent truth as reported by my ears that "holy infantso" was a latin phrase. Was it the truth? Yes, according to all the available evidence at that time. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,860 by marlowe 2/26/02 3:36:19 PM Reply	Well, that's what you get for not doing a reality check. The printed lyrics were around and available long before you turned fifteen. Trust me on that. You weren't looking hard enough. This is why I get information from multiple sources, while others here scarcely bother with even one. And when those who scarcely bother with even one presume to lecture me on truth, naturally I put them in their place. Is there a problem with that? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,946 by Another Scott 2/27/02 8:17:09 AM Reply	But you can't. I think that's what Brandioch's been trying to say. And it's not just pablum to point that out. Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. The people who do this are not doing what they think they're doing. The process by which you make inferences is swayed by your knowledge, your experience and what you believe. The evidence you accept or reject is swayed by your knowledge, experiences and what you believe. These inferences aren't mathematical proofs. And they aren't necessarily improved by having greater knowledge. Beliefs, which might or might not be true, have a great impact on how we make inferences. Scientists have to fight this battle all the time. What data do you regard as outliers? Where do you search for your data? Now I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that people should apply logic and a certain amount of self-consistency to their search for a personal philosophy. And many people don't. That's fine. But to say that any person X can find a good approximation of Truth independent of what they wish to believe isn't a reasonable statement. If you need an example, consider the central American civilizations that practiced human sacrifice. For a while it apparently "worked" - their civilization thrived. Later on it apparently didn't. If a person was being lead up the pyramid early on, what would they regard as the Truth of the ceremony? What about a person later on? This isn't to show that Truth is relative - it's to show that opinions matter in a person's decisions about their views on "the right way to live" and "the way the universe works" or "the Truth". I hope this helps. Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,948 by drewk 2/27/02 9:10:14 AM Reply	You even quoted it These inferences aren't mathematical proofs. No. That's why they're called "inferences." I expect that's why he used that word. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.

Welcome to IWETHEY!