Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 10:51am PT
|
As someone extolling the virtues of logic and rational thought do you realize the absurdity and irrelevance of that statement?
Do you realize the absurdity of calling the bible a source of 'truth' as opposed to a source of a few men's opinion of what the truth should be.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
Facts are different than truths. -Jan
Not in the basic sciences.
It's a shame the word "truth" has been adulterated by usage and history and pop culture. Eg, from the dialects of the liberal arts and certain social sciences and humanities.
.....
"Believing in science as a cure all for human and social ails is just another religion." -Strawman #17
And has anyone ever met this believer? lol
No. Therefore the existence of this "religion" is highly doubted.
Certain societies work better than others. That is a fact.
Nice to see you're on board with this though.
Couldn't agree more.
It's been fun.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 11:19am PT
|
Haha, I knew somebody would respond to that statement with a comeback. (I was actually going to add Taylor Swift too.) Truth is, however, times are changing, science and science edu are changing, pop culture is changing and truth re nuances of "truth" are being worked out and refined. So keep the faith, communications are improving.
Science type? Or clearly a certain character-personality type, yes.
.....
"Do you know who you are, and are you being that person? Or are you giving your power away to others? Is your personal truth distorted? Are others controlling how you feel about yourself?" -Dr. Phil
"Decide what your personal truth is. Every single one of us has one - something we believe about ourselves when nobody else is watching. Our personal truth is what we really say to ourselves when our social mask is off. Once you decide what your personal truth is, then you'll be less vulnerable to what others say." -Dr. Phil
truth: (a) hey, it's what you tell yourself (b) hey, it's what you believe (c) hey, it's whatever you perceive as truth; (d) hey, it's whatever works for you
NOTES 1. Don't call it "perceived truth". Just call it truth. And personal truth. 2 Don't call it life principle or life strategy or life wisdom. Just call it truth. 3 Don't call it religion. Just call it truth.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 11:31am PT
|
Do you realize the absurdity of calling the bible a source of 'truth' as opposed to a source of a few men's opinion of what the truth should be.
An opinion can't be true? Really?
The truths found in the book of Job or in Ecclesiastes are opinions and more. They are wise as in:
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."
Words to live by try reading them.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 11:36am PT
|
"Words to live by..."
truth: life principles or life strategies or life wisdom
Is that it?
"Cut their heads off!"
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 11:37am PT
|
Facts are different than truths. -Jan
Not in the basic sciences. - fructose
Doesn't it depend on just how basic you're talking about? Freshman level maybe?
Otherwise, what were all our discussions about quantum mechanics, relativity, cosmology, and the unknown nature of gravity all about?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 11:49am PT
|
(Esp) In the (life) science community, Jan, the term "basic sciences" refers to physics, chemistry and biology. It also refers to basic research as opposed to applied sciences.
.....
Multiverse speculation, eg., is not yet fact or truth. (But I've got my fingers crossed, we'll just have to wait and see.)
.....
If we recognize there is such a thing as a mathematical falsehood without too much trouble then we should be able to recognize just as easily there is such a thing as a mathematical truth.
Same in science.
.....
what were all our discussions about...
Largely speculations.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 12:33pm PT
|
"Cut their heads off!"
Good grief. There are bad/nasty things in the Old Testament? Sure. Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? No, because you'd be throwing out the true and the good as well. Has science resulted in bad things? Yes. Does that mean we throw out the scientific method? No, it has produced so much that's good.
The problem here is to strike a balance between those understandings gained through the humanities and those gained through science. I wouldn't diminish either as there is, and I'm sure you would agree, great value in both.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 12:49pm PT
|
"The problem here is to strike a balance between those understandings gained through the humanities and those gained through science. I wouldn't diminish either as there is, and I'm sure you would agree, great value in both."
Couldn't agree more.
Another problem here is perhaps to recognize science and the humanities are different domains (different magisteria, ha! ref: NOMA); and as such each has its own definitions of "truth" (after all at base it is just a word-symbol); and therefore as one moves from one to the other, between the two, he needs to take this change in definition into acct and adjust (accomodate) accordingly.
"Can't we all just get along?"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
|
truth vs falsehood
If we recognize there is such a thing as a historical falsehood without too much trouble (Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor in 1942) then we should be able to recognize just as easily there is such a thing as a historical truth.
Same in science.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 01:45pm PT
|
OK. This one is for fructose, written by a student of mine in response to the discussion question of why evolution is still controversial in the U.S. This student's wife comes from the Azore Islands by the way.
"Honestly, I am tired of the debate. I remember it was an issue 40 years ago when I was in school. That it is still an issue today just amazes and scares me. My wife, born and raised on an island that didn't have television until the mid 70's, that took 45 days for mail to arrive, that had no personal cameras except those bought from the Americans on the black market, that is still today dominated by the Catholic religion – was taught evolution in school. Her 70 year old father, who worked on a farm and only had one pair of shoes, that he only wore to school and church, was taught evolution.
When my son was born, my wife was considering his education and maybe we would move to America. Then she encountered the uproar over evolution and put her foot down. It was very strange to have a “good Catholic girl” tell me that our son would not be raised in such ignorance! Of course I didn't help matters by pointing out that by teaching me evolution and by literature classes on Greek and Roman mythology, I developed the ability to look at all religions and determined myself to be Atheist.
However, I think I see the failure of the system and a solution to appease the masses. The failure is two-fold. First in sciences use of terminology; theory sounds like guess, and second scientific theory is not taught first so that when someone uses the term theory, they understand it as a basic truth. Sure, kids have science classes where they are taught all kinds of fun things, but kids are not proven that scientific theory works. They are taught to use it in their lessons, but the fact that they are using it is lost between lighting the Bunsen Burner and carving up the frog.
The solution is to add a required class. Continue to teach evolution in science class as appropriate, but add a requirement for a Theology course line. In my vision, I would start by teaching the basis of religion and move into extinct religions (such as Greek, Roman, Viking, etc.). Then I would change course and teach tolerance, before moving on to modern (sic) religions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I would also include non/anti religion (Atheism) as many of those cling to it as if it were a religion of its own! Finally, I would finish with covering the quasi-dead and fringe religions such as Polynesian, American Indian, Pagan, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, etc.
What is preventing such a course of action is the US Governments failure to understand it's own defining document – the Constitution. The Establishment Clause states that the government cannot interfere in religious affairs and cannot promote one religion over another. However, it has translated that to mean the government will have no religion associated with it. It can't teach Christian Science without teaching Islam for fear of offending someone. Then of course, you have to give equal time to those that worship Satan...or Baal...or the lost tribes of Israel. The government has assumed the policy of we just won't teach anything. It is missing an opportunity to educate and teach tolerance of different cultures.
Alas, religion grows stronger with each generation of poorly educated and ignorant savages as we prove evolution by de-evolving back into monkeys. Maybe the world will finally be a better place.
Nah."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 01:46pm PT
|
Wisdom comes with age? Not on an internet forum "discussion".
What comes with age is decrepitude. In my experience wisdom doesn't necessarily follow age.
As far as these "discussions" or this thread goes, I've learned much here. I think a discussion like this is not only entertaining, it's enlightening as well. It's certainly caused me to rethink my position or understanding in a number of areas and I appreciate everyone's input, especially those I find myself in disagreement with. What other venue besides a thread on the internet gives such a fast and candid response to a presented idea?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 01:56pm PT
|
Amen to that Paul.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 02:42pm PT
|
Humans love to deal in absolutes.
There aren't any.
Hmmmmm...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 03:04pm PT
|
Humans love to deal in absolutes.
There aren't any.
jstan just made an absolute and said there aren't any.
and fruitcake melts down ......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 04:08pm PT
|
Social truth = the observed human condition
Mathematicians don't use the word "truth" very much, they speak of theory and theorems that are provisionally accurate in specified systems, but changing the rules of a system, like changing or introducing hypotheses, leads possibly to different results.
Is it true that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen? I would say so, in the context of everyday reality.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 04:37pm PT
|
Is it true that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen?
But which isotopes of these elements?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 04:40pm PT
|
Mathematicians don't use the word "truth"
Of course not.
They don't have any.
This is why they are so bewildered.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 27, 2015 - 05:33pm PT
|
Just got back from 16 days in the Valley. Like hitting the reset button. Had another Zen guy up there with me, Jeff Jackson, of Rock and Ice mag and we sat early and late and bombed (on our bikes) the steep roads into the Valley and down from Glacier Point reaching dangerous speeds and having a blast. And filmed a bunch of great stuff. Shall I never grow up...
Anyhow, all of this talk about "truth" makes us wonder. My approach is to first get a handle on what it is we are dealing with upon which we ascribe names and designations like, "the truth." It means vastly different things to different people depending on our depth of understanding.
As mentioned, our brain, our sense organs and our awareness play a critical role in what we perceive as "reality," particular in reference to the notion of an "objective" world of fixed or definite objects "out there," entirely separate from subjective influence.
To shed a little light on this topic, so to speak, consider the following statement I heard last week in the Adidas House up in Yosemite West:
"Johnny has two different colored eyes and he sees blue differently then the rest of us."
Our sense organs and awareness and minds etc. encourage us to believe that "blue" is an objective quality "out there" which we perceive. For example, the sky was "blue" long before humans existed and if we all died tomorrow of a sudden plague, the sky would still be blue for another billion or so years. The blueness would remain the same. But none of this is true in any literal, objective sense.
Johnny with different colored eyes did not see a different blue "out there" because no such thing exists - "out there." All you have out there are a mixture of light waves of different wavelengths, none of which are inherently "blue."
Tha is - "blue" does not exist or become real till those light waves penetrate an eyeball, excite a brainpan, and appear in our field of awareness as the experience known as "blue." Without eyes, a brain, and awareness, those light waves are never reified as "blue," which is entirely a human perception.
In terms of human perception, blue is entirely real. But objectively, minus our subjective influence, blue is merely light in a particular wavelength. Sure, we can objectify and designate a wavelength as "blue," but without a human's perceptual apparatus, blue does not exist. An Alien with different visual equipment might come here and to him or her or it, our "blue" might be his "pink" because color itself is a subjective experience, not an objective thing out there.
If you are fishing for what is ultimately real, or true, one way is to fish around "out there" for measurable objects. But upon close inspection, ultimately, those objects are almost certainly NOT solid stuff, and what actually constitutes a thing or object is not some immutable material or stuff, but simply a collection of qualities like luminosity and attraction and charge and so forth. Science is mostly concerned with objects and measurable phenomenon sourced directly from objects or from "fields." What sourced that in the first instance is a big question, made terrific by the idea that it was never created at all in the normal sense of the word, that just maybe, beginning and end are subjective concepts.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2015 - 06:09pm PT
|
Science is mostly concerned with objects and measurable phenomenon sourced directly from objects or from "fields."
Science is concerned with relations among objects, finding patterns in those relations, and discovering unexpected commonalities in those patterns which knit the threads observed into a larger fabric.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!