truth is anti belief
Debate Rounds (2)
Firstly I'll start from first principles, below are the definitions of the words you used part by part.
the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms:veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness; More
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms:the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; More
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
synonyms:fact, verity, certainty, certitude; law, principle
third person singular present of be.
opposed to; against.
"I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes"
"the local councils are anti"
a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
"the threat to field sports from the antis is a serious one"
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms:faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; optimism, hopefulness, hope
"I have no real belief in the power of reason"
Now that we know the definitions of the words, which I hope you accept as such, otherwise this debate is complete semantics and not a debate as such.
By way of example, consider the moons of Jupiter. I can testify that last time I checked, Jupiter had moons. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the major moons have been there for millions of years. All the available evidence indicates that in 1610, at the time Galileo first said Jupiter had moons, it did in fact have moons.
In this sense, we can define a notion of truth. This is meant to be an objective (not subjective) notion of truth. To me, the term "fact" is more-or-less synonymous with "truth".
We must evaluate separately the truth of each proposition, such as the narrow question of whether Jupiter has moons. In contrast, we do not pretend to know the whole truth about a complex situation.
Lets then take belief
Galileo had trouble persuading "The Powers That Be" to believe that Jupiter had moons. They didn"t want Jupiter to have moons, and some people have a powerful ability to not see what they don"t want to see.
Here belief denotes more-or-less the same thing as knowledge, but by connotation it calls attention to the fact that people are often willing to believe things that cannot possibly be true.
Sometimes people believe the truth, but all-too-often they believe things that cannot possibly be true. According to some measures, more people in the US believe in astrology than believe in evolution. Wacky beliefs are reflected in people"s actions, not just in what they say they believe. In the US, people spend W64;10 billion dollars per year on homeopathic medicines, magnetic "therapy" bracelets, and similarly wacky forms of "alternative" medicine.
In some simple cases, knowledge is sufficiently well established that it can pass for absolute truth (in some narrow domain). As I like to say, we don"t know everything there is to know about the moon, and we don"t know everything there is to know about green cheese, but we know enough to be quite sure that the moon is not made of green cheese. A similar thought is expressed by the saying that you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Generally, though, issues are more complex, and those who claim to possess infallible inerrant "truth" are cranks, unaware of their own limitations, monumentally immodest and arrogant.
It is particularly comical to observe how different cranks hold wildly incompatible beliefs. They each claim to possess infallible inerrant "truth", but really they have no idea what truth is.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they"re not entitled to their own facts".
But I'll finish my opening with this, since there is no such thing as truth in it fullest philosophical sense, but due to the limitations of observation and measurement, one can never fully measure anything to determine that anything is a truth in the first place.
But on the other hand one can believe that something through observation and justification is true.
Thus I argue that truth is belief.
And that truth would not exist without belief.
Thus truth is not anti-belief.
so because facts can not not be fact science has no facts, becasue science can be wrong, because i dont know that they are right
you can believe anything.. clearly belief is not truth
you cant think without having the ability to believe
You then go on to say that "so because facts can not not be fact science has no facts, becasue science can be wrong, because dont know that they are right"
Using a word twice in a row is kind of always a no-no, as there"s always a more elegant way to revise a sentence in which you might initially be inclined to repeat a word immediately.
Below I draw your attention to the word fact;
plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms:reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More
information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
"even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
synonyms:detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet; More
used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
noun: the fact that
"despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive"
Take a thing know to be a fact, a thing known to be true as per the definition. This is because of a belief in the truth, thus making it reinforce the idea of belief of the fact being truth.
Thus again, providing my argument ground that belief is truth and not truth is anti-belief.
I agree that you can believe anything, but that doesn't sway anybody of the ability to believe in a truth, thus making the statement that "truth is anti-belief" true. Because that it is possible to believe in a non-truth it is also possible to believe in a truth, thus making that statement incorrect.
You then go on to say " you can think without having the ability to believe" ,
Notice that the states of belief under discussion have clearly been caused by perception and are semantically evaluable; and beliefs are acquired perceptually and generally given a truth signal, so their semantic evaluability shouldn't"t be in doubt. Oddly enough, even though this account divorces belief from assertion in many ways, the account can still give rise to Moore"s paradox: one cannot assert "p, but I don"t believe p" for whatever proposition one entertains one's beliefs and one has to entertain any state that one asserts.
Truth is belief and falsehood is anti-belief.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.