What is “Inductive Truth?”
Posted: 10 March 2016 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10

There is no such thing as “truth,’ just “point of view grounded in bias.” For example, when Republicans and Democrats debate in politics, one side is not “right” while the other is “wrong,” one side just has a “Republican bias,” while the other side has a “Democratic bias.” One side will win because they get the most votes, but that doesn’t make their position the “true one.” Or, take the example of the Supreme court: Late judge Antonin Scalia didn’t rule as he did because his positions were true, he ruled as he did because his rulings agreed with his “Conservative, originalist bias.” There can’t be one “truth” when there are “conservative” and “liberal” Supreme court justices. Recalcitrant evidence can disconfirm a point of view, but agreeing evidence can only support, never “prove,” a bias driven point of view. Every point of view is biased because they always carry along with them uncritically accepted assumptions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2016 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10

But perhaps there is a higher kind of truth (aletheia).  Plato says about the essence of truth, that we have our guiding perspective, and we follow the implications of that perspective down the path which it leads, until we reach a block in the road (aporia), and experience wonder (thaumazein) that our guiding perspective has lead us to contrariety, and must hence rethink our guiding perspective.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2016 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10
john76 - 10 March 2016 01:42 PM

But perhaps there is a higher kind of truth (aletheia).  Plato says about the essence of truth, that we have our guiding perspective, and we follow the implications of that perspective down the path which it leads, until we reach a block in the road (aporia), and experience wonder (thaumazein) that our guiding perspective has lead us to contrariety, and must hence rethink our guiding perspective.

For Plato, this wonder (thaumazein) is experienced by encountering something that is beyond being, the idea of the good (idea tou agathou).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2016 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
john76 - 10 March 2016 02:34 PM

For Plato, this wonder (thaumazein) is experienced by encountering something that is beyond being, the idea of the good (idea tou agathou).

So, hate to interrupt, the three of you seemed to be getting along pretty well, but, um, “beyond”? We’ve gone back 13.7 billion years and found nothing except simpler forms of “being”. We get to a point where time as we know it didn’t exist, where there is no cause and effect. We don’t find something there that was beyond anything. Increasing our understanding about that point is proving difficult, and we’re pretty sure there is something outside of the physical universe, the one that we can map, the one that contains us, but it’s not “beyond”, anymore than Utah is beyond the Rockies if you are traveling West, but if you are already there, it’s not “beyond”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10
Lausten - 10 March 2016 05:57 PM
john76 - 10 March 2016 02:34 PM

For Plato, this wonder (thaumazein) is experienced by encountering something that is beyond being, the idea of the good (idea tou agathou).

So, hate to interrupt, the three of you seemed to be getting along pretty well, but, um, “beyond”? We’ve gone back 13.7 billion years and found nothing except simpler forms of “being”. We get to a point where time as we know it didn’t exist, where there is no cause and effect. We don’t find something there that was beyond anything. Increasing our understanding about that point is proving difficult, and we’re pretty sure there is something outside of the physical universe, the one that we can map, the one that contains us, but it’s not “beyond”, anymore than Utah is beyond the Rockies if you are traveling West, but if you are already there, it’s not “beyond”.

  “epekeina tes ousias,” “Beyond Being,” is a phrase from Plato’s Republic 509b.  The idea is that what starts out as “real” for us is the guiding perspective that we have (on whatever issue). We explore the implications of that perspective until it leads us into contrariety (Plato repeatedly shows how it happens in the early Socratic dialogues).  Plato says the philosopher experiences wonder (thaumazein) when he or she realizes his or her guiding perspective, when followed, leads into contrariety which the guiding perspective can’t resolve.  As a result, the guiding perspective must be rethought.  For example, it would be like a religious person examining their religious theology to the point they become an atheist.  The “beyond being” is the surplus that overthrows the guiding perspective.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01

Truth is a view on knowledge.
 
Knowledge is nothing more than comparing one item or subject to another.
 
As we daily increase our items and subject matters, we gain knowledge.
 
As we gain knowledge our views have the option for change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
john76 - 11 March 2016 08:39 AM

“epekeina tes ousias,” “Beyond Being,” is a phrase from Plato’s Republic 509b.  The idea is that what starts out as “real” for us is the guiding perspective that we have (on whatever issue). We explore the implications of that perspective until it leads us into contrariety (Plato repeatedly shows how it happens in the early Socratic dialogues).  Plato says the philosopher experiences wonder (thaumazein) when he or she realizes his or her guiding perspective, when followed, leads into contrariety which the guiding perspective can’t resolve.  As a result, the guiding perspective must be rethought.  For example, it would be like a religious person examining their religious theology to the point they become an atheist.  The “beyond being” is the surplus that overthrows the guiding perspective.

Yeah, you kinda said that. It’s like you’re not a real person or something.

So, you are just using a definition from 3,000 years ago as if it’s relevant. What you mean is, “changing your mind”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10
Lausten - 11 March 2016 02:11 PM
john76 - 11 March 2016 08:39 AM

“epekeina tes ousias,” “Beyond Being,” is a phrase from Plato’s Republic 509b.  The idea is that what starts out as “real” for us is the guiding perspective that we have (on whatever issue). We explore the implications of that perspective until it leads us into contrariety (Plato repeatedly shows how it happens in the early Socratic dialogues).  Plato says the philosopher experiences wonder (thaumazein) when he or she realizes his or her guiding perspective, when followed, leads into contrariety which the guiding perspective can’t resolve.  As a result, the guiding perspective must be rethought.  For example, it would be like a religious person examining their religious theology to the point they become an atheist.  The “beyond being” is the surplus that overthrows the guiding perspective.

Yeah, you kinda said that. It’s like you’re not a real person or something.

So, you are just using a definition from 3,000 years ago as if it’s relevant. What you mean is, “changing your mind”.

Ehrman said “But I’d say that it is true that Obama is the President, even if it can’t be established as true or false if he’s a *good* president.” This is a good illustration of what I was talking about. If you ask the Republican presidential candidates (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich), Obama was a terrible president. If you ask the Democratic presidential candidates (Clinton, Sanders), Obama was a wonderful president. These are all judgements grounded in bias. It is not objectively “true” Obama was a “good” president, but rather it is “true” from a “liberal point of view.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 11 March 2016 12:02 PM

Truth is a view on knowledge.
 
Knowledge is nothing more than comparing one item or subject to another.
 
As we daily increase our items and subject matters, we gain knowledge.
 
As we gain knowledge our views have the option for change.

Mike, I think that you have grown in your ability to make a cogent point concisely.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
john76 - 10 March 2016 10:37 AM

There is no such thing as “truth,’ just “point of view grounded in bias.” For example, when Republicans and Democrats debate in politics, one side is not “right” while the other is “wrong,” one side just has a “Republican bias,” while the other side has a “Democratic bias.” One side will win because they get the most votes, but that doesn’t make their position the “true one.” Or, take the example of the Supreme court: Late judge Antonin Scalia didn’t rule as he did because his positions were true, he ruled as he did because his rulings agreed with his “Conservative, originalist bias.” There can’t be one “truth” when there are “conservative” and “liberal” Supreme court justices. Recalcitrant evidence can disconfirm a point of view, but agreeing evidence can only support, never “prove,” a bias driven point of view. Every point of view is biased because they always carry along with them uncritically accepted assumptions.

An uncritically accepted (and IMO faulty) assumption in the point of view that there is never a “true” side, can be that some perspectives are never more closely representative of reality than other perspectives.

Recognizing biases (including personal ones) is good.  Questioning assumptions is good.  Seeking to view issues from multiple, including opposing, perspectives is good. Establishing objective metrics and objective methods for analysis is good.  Some people do all of those things better than others.  I think that those people are likely to be closer to what is “true” and “right”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile