Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Truth is our preference of what is so.

  1. Nov 9, 2003 #1
    "Truth" is our preference of what is so.

    I was in a bit of a conundrum this week with some research I was doing. It happened to be on Vitamins. It could have been anything. I found two studies that said exactly the opposite about the same thing. So this of coarse lead me to the question of how we decide anything about anything. It can't be based on data because if you haven't found conflicting data you just haven't looked deep enough. So are our decisions based on length of research? No. So then I decided it must be our personnel experience. Posed this question to my son an he said matter of fact-ly "It is based on our experience or preference." Bless him...He is profound. So then I thought he was right and this must be so.
    But then I realized that we have experiences and what we take away from them is often not what is so...So I must conclude "Truth" is our preference of what is so.
    We therefore have the freewill to make Truth anything we choose.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2003 #2
    Yes, and if you look at who paid for those studies you read - you will see that the truth is what profited that particular person or group. But is that really "Truth".

    The truth is there and it can be found - some people just can't or at least don't want to know it, especially, if it is in conflict with their monetary gain.

  4. Nov 9, 2003 #3
    The truth may be different then what is believed. True that truth could be conformity to fact which is based on agreement with facts. But it also means conformity to actuality which can not be bent to what we see fit. We can "believe" it to be true but it does not necessarily mean its the truth.
  5. Nov 9, 2003 #4
    The truth seems like a moving target. Thats why I would like to suggest we use "What we believe" as the measure. When does what is so become the "truth" There are so many tests. Is it by the number of people believe it.(There goes that belief thing again) What do we do with the whole bell curve thing. I know when people are trying to prove a point they love to go right to the end of the curve for thier data. Hardly seems fare. If given a little time I could get the data from the other end of the curve. Maybe time lag is the truth.
    Great topic.
  6. Nov 9, 2003 #5
    When it is true we will know it to be so since it's true. Is it really true if it is a preferance to our selfs? then the truth of the testing would be our specific preferance result. A true test only has a true result if the hypothesis is true to the result and the result true to the hypothesis only then was the test true.
  7. Nov 10, 2003 #6
    Has it ever occured that the hypothesis and truth ever been equal only to find out later that they were not. If this were the case would this definition be the ultimate test.
  8. Nov 10, 2003 #7
    Welcome to the PFs, full-time-climb. :smile:

    I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned this one point, at least: one cannot pursue "truth" through the use of logic, belief, science, or any other branch of philosophy. In fact, one cannot even determine whether there is such a thing as truth through any branch of philosophy (including those I've already mentioned, and any I haven't).

    Logic finds validity, not truth.

    Science finds empirical validity; basically, it's Inductive Logic with practical use.

    Belief can be different for each person, and none of them can rightly be called "wrong" if "truth" isn't defined.
  9. Nov 10, 2003 #8
    Thank-you for the welcome. I really like your thoughts on this matter. I am suggesting that the exploration of "Truth" in this case did end up under "General Philosophy" Therefore it must be so... In this case.(Kidding).
    Understanding the complexity of "Truth" I find it so wonderful that we are asked in court to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Boy would I like to ask a judge just what we mean by that and how do we get there.
  10. Nov 10, 2003 #9
    This questions me to think then the test we were testing was untrue from the beginning. We need to have from the start a theory that enables the truth to be let through. By developing ideas and functions that make sense through reason or testing. By this I mean theres never only one right answer to a question so incorporate all the info you have at hand contridictions and all and call it your true result based on the true contridictory facts.
  11. Nov 10, 2003 #10
    You cut flesh it bleeds. Thats the the truth. Water is wet, Thats more truth. We can only believe in gods or matrix.
  12. Nov 11, 2003 #11
    These are truths. I wonder if they aren't relitive truths. Can we observe "what is" and not colour it with our preception. So when can we observe "what is"? I would expect we could do it if we were "out of our mind". As soon as our mind gets involved it preceives.
    So we could observe "what is" but would not be able to report it.
    I thought maybe when we are asleep we could observe what is by our concious not being involved. But then the origional observation had our concious mind preceiving the origional data.
    So would the process of meditation get us to a point where we could be concious and yet not concious?
    Are there any other ways to this place of being able to observe and not preceive "what is"?

  13. Nov 11, 2003 #12
    There's really no way we can be sure of anything enough to know that it's the truth. The standards and truths we live by today in society are considered to be more of "General Truths". That leaves open for a very small percentage of us being wrong. Hence maybe someday we cut flesh and it does not bleed.
  14. Nov 11, 2003 #13
    Just quote Pontius Pilate to him/her: "What is truth?"

    That should get you on the judge's good side. :wink:
  15. Nov 11, 2003 #14
    Those "truths" are no more than inductive validities, which are weaker than deductive validities, which are also not considered "true", merely valid.
  16. Nov 12, 2003 #15
    In terms of truth i meant to say we all live by general truths. For absolute truth is almost impossible.
  17. Nov 17, 2003 #16
    I personally like how Richard Rorty talks about truth. Since I am lazy, I'll quote a descent source on Rorty, Ghiraldelli:

    Endorsing use: We can use "true" as a term of endorsing or applause. When we approve something or someone, we can say "sure," "go ahead," "I believe," "yes, it is true," "right," and so on.

    Disquotational use: We can use "true" in disquotational situations. We use quotes to present a statement like this: "There is a good possibility of life on Mars." We use quotes because we want to express a theory, that is, an idea that we do not necessary endorse. But if we want to express the same idea without endorsing it, and we do not want use it as a citation, then we can "disquote" our sentence and use "true" or "truth." For example: "For many scientists it is true that there is a good possibility of life on Mars."

    Cautionary use: We can use "true" or "not true" to make our sentence our statement persuasive, but we can also use these terms to warn the listener to have doubt, take precaution, etc. For example: "Your claim that our President is a thief is justifiable, but it is not true." Or: "The justification of this claim is inadequate but the claim is true." And more: "It is completely justified, however, it is not true."

    But even Rorty, who is sometimes called "the philosopher who killed truth", knows that "truth" is an absolute concept in the following way: What is true does not depend on the belief of an individual or even the majority of individuals. I think that you are confusing justification and truth. Justification is different than truth - justification is a relative concept whereas truth is not. The statement "Ragesk8 typed this message on his laptop" is a true statement - it is not true because I believe it to be true. Sure, I may be mistaken, it may be a false statement (don't make me get into how this isn't really a doubt), but if it is a false statement it is not because of belief.
  18. Nov 18, 2003 #17
    But, then, it is neither a true or false statement (rather, it cannot be determined whether it is true or not), and belief would be the only thing we have to work with. IOW, truth still doesn't seem to exist at all, since all we ever have are logical validity (which would probably agree with your statement) and belief (which also agrees with your statement), but never truth.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook