Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

YYW on Truth

YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To me, one of the most fascinating phenomenons of human intellectual development is the means by which we produce truth. But before determining how truth is produced, it must be first established "that" truth is produced. Truth is delineated from falsehood on the basis of validity, where validity hinges on the ability of a recipient of some given piece of information to confirm the truth -that is to say, to validate- of a claim. It is this process of distinction, as a means of separation that "the truth" as it is known comes to be known as "the truth." The basis for truth is factual credibility, logical integrity, reasonable verifiability -which is to say that given some means of confirmation, that which is true can be distinguished from that which is false.

Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character. All of this, however, assumes the integrity of the verification itself. In the production of truth, however, the hallmark of intellectual bastardization is no more than the corruption of verification such that false "truth" may be verified and confirmed. To ensure that that this -the bastardization of the production of truth- is avoided requires the decentralization of the production of truth and the verification of truth, but to guarantee the possibility of the imposition of a regime of truth that lacks integrity, with its own capacity for production and verification, which exist in tandem with another, one must only centralize production and verification within a singular concentration of power or objective.

In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

While surely the danger of such a regime is implicit, its potential to manifest systemically, socioculturally and politically is silently staggering, and beckons as the incentives for the production of false "truth" increase on the basis of human ambition; this is the case because human ambition frames, shapes and orders human behavior. The adage to follow, simply stated then is: "If it is the case and to the extent that someone has an incentive for you to believe them, then they have an incentive to deceive you to the degree that deception is feasible and the ends towards which it is purposed are attainable." Such is the reason, the cause for the establishment of a means to verify false truth.

The mistake, however, is the risk of inculcated cognitive dissonance which is unavoidably realized among subjects of persuasion -it might be said that this transpires where "truth" and "reality" diverge, and where that divergence is noted. The notice of the divergence by subjects of persuasion causes the falsification of the produced "truth" with plain observation of that which is apparent. In the event that produced "truth" is falsified by apparent reality, the regime is inoculated of its truth producing capacity because of its product"s incongruence with that which is ostensibly objective and confirmable. The task, then, of any corrupt regime with a truth producing capacity is to hedge against reality"s propensity to invalidate its product by reframing reality itself. By making discourse itself a warfare of semantics, no truth even then has the characteristic of truth, because validity is indeterminable. He who has the greater force, then, may dictate in the storm of neither truth more falsehood, by force of dominance, that which is true and that which is false -that all who listen may take comfort only in the authority of the speaker.
Tsar of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:58:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM, YYW wrote:
To me, one of the most fascinating phenomenons of human intellectual development is the means by which we produce truth. But before determining how truth is produced, it must be first established "that" truth is produced. Truth is delineated from falsehood on the basis of validity, where validity hinges on the ability of a recipient of some given piece of information to confirm the truth -that is to say, to validate- of a claim. It is this process of distinction, as a means of separation that "the truth" as it is known comes to be known as "the truth." The basis for truth is factual credibility, logical integrity, reasonable verifiability -which is to say that given some means of confirmation, that which is true can be distinguished from that which is false.

Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character. All of this, however, assumes the integrity of the verification itself. In the production of truth, however, the hallmark of intellectual bastardization is no more than the corruption of verification such that false "truth" may be verified and confirmed. To ensure that that this -the bastardization of the production of truth- is avoided requires the decentralization of the production of truth and the verification of truth, but to guarantee the possibility of the imposition of a regime of truth that lacks integrity, with its own capacity for production and verification, which exist in tandem with another, one must only centralize production and verification within a singular concentration of power or objective.

In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

While surely the danger of such a regime is implicit, its potential to manifest systemically, socioculturally and politically is silently staggering, and beckons as the incentives for the production of false "truth" increase on the basis of human ambition; this is the case because human ambition frames, shapes and orders human behavior. The adage to follow, simply stated then is: "If it is the case and to the extent that someone has an incentive for you to believe them, then they have an incentive to deceive you to the degree that deception is feasible and the ends towards which it is purposed are attainable." Such is the reason, the cause for the establishment of a means to verify false truth.

The mistake, however, is the risk of inculcated cognitive dissonance which is unavoidably realized among subjects of persuasion -it might be said that this transpires where "truth" and "reality" diverge, and where that divergence is noted. The notice of the divergence by subjects of persuasion causes the falsification of the produced "truth" with plain observation of that which is apparent. In the event that produced "truth" is falsified by apparent reality, the regime is inoculated of its truth producing capacity because of its product"s incongruence with that which is ostensibly objective and confirmable. The task, then, of any corrupt regime with a truth producing capacity is to hedge against reality"s propensity to invalidate its product by reframing reality itself. By making discourse itself a warfare of semantics, no truth even then has the characteristic of truth, because validity is indeterminable. He who has the greater force, then, may dictate in the storm of neither truth more falsehood, by force of dominance, that which is true and that which is false -that all who listen may take comfort only in the authority of the speaker.

tl;dr: Liars use carefully-worded semantics and exploit people's ideology in order to spread their lies and prevent them from being debunked.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:11:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:58:03 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM, YYW wrote:
To me, one of the most fascinating phenomenons of human intellectual development is the means by which we produce truth. But before determining how truth is produced, it must be first established "that" truth is produced. Truth is delineated from falsehood on the basis of validity, where validity hinges on the ability of a recipient of some given piece of information to confirm the truth -that is to say, to validate- of a claim. It is this process of distinction, as a means of separation that "the truth" as it is known comes to be known as "the truth." The basis for truth is factual credibility, logical integrity, reasonable verifiability -which is to say that given some means of confirmation, that which is true can be distinguished from that which is false.

Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character. All of this, however, assumes the integrity of the verification itself. In the production of truth, however, the hallmark of intellectual bastardization is no more than the corruption of verification such that false "truth" may be verified and confirmed. To ensure that that this -the bastardization of the production of truth- is avoided requires the decentralization of the production of truth and the verification of truth, but to guarantee the possibility of the imposition of a regime of truth that lacks integrity, with its own capacity for production and verification, which exist in tandem with another, one must only centralize production and verification within a singular concentration of power or objective.

In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

While surely the danger of such a regime is implicit, its potential to manifest systemically, socioculturally and politically is silently staggering, and beckons as the incentives for the production of false "truth" increase on the basis of human ambition; this is the case because human ambition frames, shapes and orders human behavior. The adage to follow, simply stated then is: "If it is the case and to the extent that someone has an incentive for you to believe them, then they have an incentive to deceive you to the degree that deception is feasible and the ends towards which it is purposed are attainable." Such is the reason, the cause for the establishment of a means to verify false truth.

The mistake, however, is the risk of inculcated cognitive dissonance which is unavoidably realized among subjects of persuasion -it might be said that this transpires where "truth" and "reality" diverge, and where that divergence is noted. The notice of the divergence by subjects of persuasion causes the falsification of the produced "truth" with plain observation of that which is apparent. In the event that produced "truth" is falsified by apparent reality, the regime is inoculated of its truth producing capacity because of its product"s incongruence with that which is ostensibly objective and confirmable. The task, then, of any corrupt regime with a truth producing capacity is to hedge against reality"s propensity to invalidate its product by reframing reality itself. By making discourse itself a warfare of semantics, no truth even then has the characteristic of truth, because validity is indeterminable. He who has the greater force, then, may dictate in the storm of neither truth more falsehood, by force of dominance, that which is true and that which is false -that all who listen may take comfort only in the authority of the speaker.

tl;dr: Liars use carefully-worded semantics and exploit people's ideology in order to spread their lies and prevent them from being debunked.

The task, then, is to see the world not through an ideological lens, but as it is.
Tsar of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:15:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:11:06 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:58:03 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM, YYW wrote:
To me, one of the most fascinating phenomenons of human intellectual development is the means by which we produce truth. But before determining how truth is produced, it must be first established "that" truth is produced. Truth is delineated from falsehood on the basis of validity, where validity hinges on the ability of a recipient of some given piece of information to confirm the truth -that is to say, to validate- of a claim. It is this process of distinction, as a means of separation that "the truth" as it is known comes to be known as "the truth." The basis for truth is factual credibility, logical integrity, reasonable verifiability -which is to say that given some means of confirmation, that which is true can be distinguished from that which is false.

Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character. All of this, however, assumes the integrity of the verification itself. In the production of truth, however, the hallmark of intellectual bastardization is no more than the corruption of verification such that false "truth" may be verified and confirmed. To ensure that that this -the bastardization of the production of truth- is avoided requires the decentralization of the production of truth and the verification of truth, but to guarantee the possibility of the imposition of a regime of truth that lacks integrity, with its own capacity for production and verification, which exist in tandem with another, one must only centralize production and verification within a singular concentration of power or objective.

In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

While surely the danger of such a regime is implicit, its potential to manifest systemically, socioculturally and politically is silently staggering, and beckons as the incentives for the production of false "truth" increase on the basis of human ambition; this is the case because human ambition frames, shapes and orders human behavior. The adage to follow, simply stated then is: "If it is the case and to the extent that someone has an incentive for you to believe them, then they have an incentive to deceive you to the degree that deception is feasible and the ends towards which it is purposed are attainable." Such is the reason, the cause for the establishment of a means to verify false truth.

The mistake, however, is the risk of inculcated cognitive dissonance which is unavoidably realized among subjects of persuasion -it might be said that this transpires where "truth" and "reality" diverge, and where that divergence is noted. The notice of the divergence by subjects of persuasion causes the falsification of the produced "truth" with plain observation of that which is apparent. In the event that produced "truth" is falsified by apparent reality, the regime is inoculated of its truth producing capacity because of its product"s incongruence with that which is ostensibly objective and confirmable. The task, then, of any corrupt regime with a truth producing capacity is to hedge against reality"s propensity to invalidate its product by reframing reality itself. By making discourse itself a warfare of semantics, no truth even then has the characteristic of truth, because validity is indeterminable. He who has the greater force, then, may dictate in the storm of neither truth more falsehood, by force of dominance, that which is true and that which is false -that all who listen may take comfort only in the authority of the speaker.

tl;dr: Liars use carefully-worded semantics and exploit people's ideology in order to spread their lies and prevent them from being debunked.

The task, then, is to see the world not through an ideological lens, but as it is.

Amen.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 4:17:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:58:03 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM, YYW wrote:


tl;dr: Liars use carefully-worded semantics and exploit people's ideology in order to spread their lies and prevent them from being debunked.

The task, then, is to see the world not through an ideological lens, but as it is.

Radical ideologies are often a poison to the truth. While radical ideologies are part of the formation of truth (if we can agree to an objective reality) ,it is extremely rare to see the (radical) ideology completely highlight the truth - it just doesn't happen often. I rather like to see ideologies as a lens which provides some clarity, yet you need different lenses for different insights.

It is my ardent belief that one should form ideas through a grand synthesis - a synthesis of experience, knowledge, reflection and wisdom from various walks of life, a synthesis that balances various factors and tries to determine the extent to which they do apply, and what is optimal. It's a complex process, an endless one, but it helps, and one slowly begins to uncover 'the truth'. If I may quote Isaiah Berlin, even if his comments are slightly different from my own:

"Total patterns of life must be compared directly as wholes, although the method by which we make the comparison, and the truth of the conclusions, are difficult or impossible to demonstrate. But the vagueness of the concepts, and the multiplicity of the criteria involved, are attributes of the subject-matter itself, not of our imperfect methods of measurement, or of incapacity for precise thought."

Now, as to the content of your post YYW, I do agree with it quite strongly, so perhaps I am committing the very faults you set out to address. I do want to add a point though - our perception of the world 'as it is' is invariably influenced by our experiences (or so I find as I experience more) , and so it can be difficult to fully grasp 'reality' if you will.

A good post YYW, and I hope my reply is not pretentious nor indecisive.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:33:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:11:06 AM, YYW wrote:

The task, then, is to see the world not through an ideological lens, but as it is.

Perspective and perception dictate reality. There is no truth; only varying levels of incorrectness.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:35:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry...no universal truth, nor communal truth.

Only one who makes a claim knows if they were being truthful.

I think you mean correct vs. incorrect and demonstrable vs indemonstrable.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:49:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:35:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Sorry...no universal truth, nor communal truth.

Only one who makes a claim knows if they were being truthful.

I think you mean correct vs. incorrect and demonstrable vs indemonstrable.

lol...

No argument. No refutation... just pedantic nonsense.

lol...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:51:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:41:13 PM, Nimbus328 wrote:
The truth is relative to the society in which it resides.

The nihilistic implication of that statement is disconcerting.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:05:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:41:13 PM, Nimbus328 wrote:
The truth is relative to the society in which it resides.

Watch how quickly that breaks down: a society believes itself to not know the truth.

So many contradictions and paradoxes it's complete nonsense :)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:15:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:41:45 AM, YYW wrote:
To me, one of the most fascinating phenomenons of human intellectual development is the means by which we produce truth. But before determining how truth is produced, it must be first established "that" truth is produced.

Truth is delineated from falsehood on the basis of validity, where validity hinges on the ability of a recipient of some given piece of information to confirm the truth -that is to say, to validate- of a claim. It is this process of distinction, as a means of separation that "the truth" as it is known comes to be known as "the truth." The basis for truth is factual credibility, logical integrity, reasonable verifiability -which is to say that given some means of confirmation, that which is true can be distinguished from that which is false.

Empirically verified =/= immutable
nor does it mean that the conceptual framework in which your interpreting events or positing things is particularly in line with or descriptive of reality.

Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

if there was but one scientist... this might be a problem.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character.

not really even...
For, if I can't verify that what You say Is indeed a good/useful understanding.. Then I have no reason to act upon it.

If your assertions are in no way empirically verifiable as functional/useful, then their's no reason for me to assume them.

All of this, however, assumes the integrity of the verification itself. In the production of truth, however, the hallmark of intellectual bastardization is no more than the corruption of verification such that false "truth" may be verified and confirmed. To ensure that that this -the bastardization of the production of truth- is avoided requires the decentralization of the production of truth and the verification of truth, but to guarantee the possibility of the imposition of a regime of truth that lacks integrity, with its own capacity for production and verification, which exist in tandem with another, one must only centralize production and verification within a singular concentration of power or objective.

I think you need to get away from "truth".. Emprical Verification does not get you to "truth" as people typically speak of truth. "Truth" is suggestive of Metaphysics and is silly business.

In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

Certainly a decentralized peer review is called for...

This ensures that many ideas are checked out.. which allows for the functionality of each to be drawn out, and the most consistent and most functional to rise to the top.

While surely the danger of such a regime is implicit, its potential to manifest systemically, socioculturally and politically is silently staggering, and beckons as the incentives for the production of false "truth" increase on the basis of human ambition; this is the case because human ambition frames, shapes and orders human behavior. The adage to follow, simply stated then is: "If it is the case and to the extent that someone has an incentive for you to believe them, then they have an incentive to deceive you to the degree that deception is feasible and the ends towards which it is purposed are attainable." Such is the reason, the cause for the establishment of a means to verify false truth.

The mistake, however, is the risk of inculcated cognitive dissonance which is unavoidably realized among subjects of persuasion -it might be said that this transpires where "truth" and "reality" diverge, and where that divergence is noted. The notice of the divergence by subjects of persuasion causes the falsification of the produced "truth" with plain observation of that which is apparent. In the event that produced "truth" is falsified by apparent reality, the regime is inoculated of its truth producing capacity because of its product"s incongruence with that which is ostensibly objective and confirmable. The task, then, of any corrupt regime with a truth producing capacity is to hedge against reality"s propensity to invalidate its product by reframing reality itself. By making discourse itself a warfare of semantics, no truth even then has the characteristic of truth, because validity is indeterminable. He who has the greater force, then, may dictate in the storm of neither truth more falsehood, by force of dominance, that which is true and that which is false -that all who listen may take comfort only in the authority of the speaker.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:21:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd imagine you're not suggesting that empirical observation, and validation of theories, gets you to metaphysical truth...

However, I'd still suggest abandoning the word as it's unnecessarily confusing given it's common usage/meaning.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 10:21:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
However, I'd still suggest abandoning the word as it's unnecessarily confusing given it's common usage/meaning.

well, people use it to describe their understanding of physical reality all the time...

but I think it's rather imprecise and confusing to use the word in a philosophical context if you don't mean that it describes in a manner that fully reaches to some absolute, palpable, undoubtable/unchanging aspect of reality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:28:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 10:25:13 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:21:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
However, I'd still suggest abandoning the word as it's unnecessarily confusing given it's common usage/meaning.

well, people use it to describe their understanding of physical reality all the time...

but I think it's rather imprecise and confusing to use the word in a philosophical context if you don't mean that it describes in a manner that fully reaches to some absolute, palpable, undoubtable/unchanging aspect of reality.

So essentially the beginning and end of your objection is predicated on the potentiality semantic confusion.
Tsar of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 11:00:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 10:28:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:25:13 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:21:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
However, I'd still suggest abandoning the word as it's unnecessarily confusing given it's common usage/meaning.

well, people use it to describe their understanding of physical reality all the time...

but I think it's rather imprecise and confusing to use the word in a philosophical context if you don't mean that it describes in a manner that fully reaches to some absolute, palpable, undoubtable/unchanging aspect of reality.

So essentially the beginning and end of your objection is predicated on the potentiality semantic confusion.

I also addressed what points you made..

Here:
Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

if there was but one scientist... this might be a problem.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character.

not really even...
For, if I can't verify that what You say Is indeed a good/useful understanding.. Then I have no reason to act upon it.

If your assertions are in no way empirically verifiable as functional/useful, then their's no reason for me to assume them.


In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

Certainly a decentralized peer review is called for...

This ensures that many ideas are checked out.. which allows for the functionality of each to be drawn out, and the most consistent and most functional to rise to the top.


Granted, I didn't weigh in on your decrying some kind of fascist, group-think, abandonment of open dialogue on empirical phenomena type conversation

sorry for not patting you on the back there...

However, If you're asking for my comments on that I'd say that it might be good to differentiate between empirically evident, and functionally useful, ideas as to the nature of the physical world.. (The 'truths' of physics.. ) and ideas regarding Ethics and Politics.

Certainly, open dialogue would seemingly be best in both cases, for the same reasons.. But it would seem to me that Ethical ideas are a bit different than Ideas on physics, and to be clear (and be most easily followed) we should draw some distinction.

Reasons to Have something as your goal depend upon appeals to particular emotional experiences (as well as, as a pre-requisite, having a sufficiently similar understanding of how the world works)...
Meanwhile reasons for adopting an idea about how the world works rely upon those ideas being evidently handy in getting whatever you happen to be aiming for.

The Ethical is dependent upon your general understanding of the general manner of existence of the world... but involves an addition layer of experience to be considered.

However, as I said, I agree.. In the case of both existential and ethical ideas an open dialogue in which various ideas can be drawn out to their full extent and given honest consideration is most likely to allow you to get the most functional ones.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 4:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 11:00:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:28:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:25:13 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:21:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
However, I'd still suggest abandoning the word as it's unnecessarily confusing given it's common usage/meaning.

well, people use it to describe their understanding of physical reality all the time...

but I think it's rather imprecise and confusing to use the word in a philosophical context if you don't mean that it describes in a manner that fully reaches to some absolute, palpable, undoubtable/unchanging aspect of reality.

So essentially the beginning and end of your objection is predicated on the potentiality semantic confusion.

I also addressed what points you made..

Here:
Problems begin to emerge, however, in the moment that one is not in a position where verification of truth is within the capacity of those subject to persuasion. To elaborate, if it is the case that a speaker posits a claim, only where the listener (who is necessarily the subject to whom the claim is posited) can determine on his own the truth of a claim, are the speaker and listener on equal footing. In the absence, then, of the listener"s access to verifiability, the listener is subject of persuasion is necessarily at the mercy of the speaker to whom he or she listens. Being that the listener -who is subject to persuasion- is at the mercy of the integrity of the speaker, in the process of gathering information which is true does not mean that the speaker"s integrity is questionable though the potential for abuse of power is greater where the speaker is devoid of accountability. In this case, to be devoid of accountability is only to not have ones claims made subject to verification -but to merely have them accepted as true on their own basis.

if there was but one scientist... this might be a problem.

Producers of truth, in that manor, exist in two categories: those who are subject to the scrutiny of verification and those who are not subject to the scrutiny of verification. It is understood that verification may come in many forms with equal degrees of integrity, but in the absence of scrutiny, posited "truth" has a dangerous character.

not really even...
For, if I can't verify that what You say Is indeed a good/useful understanding.. Then I have no reason to act upon it.

If your assertions are in no way empirically verifiable as functional/useful, then their's no reason for me to assume them.


In the production of false "truth" the endurance of the regime of truth which produced it is contingent upon individual endorsement of the regime, on a popular basis, such that challenges to the regime and its capacities of production and verification as such, remain tenable. That implies a requirement of the overwhelming of challenges to the regime"s capacity for production, or the outright silencing of opposition not only to the "truth" produced by the regime or the means of verification, but to the regime itself. All parts must be maintained to preserve the integrity as a whole, that the regime of truth may maintain its credibility.

Certainly a decentralized peer review is called for...

This ensures that many ideas are checked out.. which allows for the functionality of each to be drawn out, and the most consistent and most functional to rise to the top.


Granted, I didn't weigh in on your decrying some kind of fascist, group-think, abandonment of open dialogue on empirical phenomena type conversation

sorry for not patting you on the back there...

However, If you're asking for my comments on that I'd say that it might be good to differentiate between empirically evident, and functionally useful, ideas as to the nature of the physical world.. (The 'truths' of physics.. ) and ideas regarding Ethics and Politics.

Certainly, open dialogue would seemingly be best in both cases, for the same reasons.. But it would seem to me that Ethical ideas are a bit different than Ideas on physics, and to be clear (and be most easily followed) we should draw some distinction.

Reasons to Have something as your goal depend upon appeals to particular emotional experiences (as well as, as a pre-requisite, having a sufficiently similar understanding of how the world works)...
Meanwhile reasons for adopting an idea about how the world works rely upon those ideas being evidently handy in getting whatever you happen to be aiming for.

The Ethical is dependent upon your general understanding of the general manner of existence of the world... but involves an addition layer of experience to be considered.

However, as I said, I agree.. In the case of both existential and ethical ideas an open dialogue in which various ideas can be drawn out to their full extent and given honest consideration is most likely to allow you to get the most functional ones.

Perhaps the phrase "beginning and end" was a bit too harsh in tone. But it seems like what you're suggesting are different kinds of truth -which I can understand- though with which I disagree. The only truth is that which is verifiable, which is to say the truth is everything that is the case. Verification is hard, and what I've suggested requires me to discount something like testimony (verbal accounts of things which have transpired) as something not possibly true, because testimony is not empirically verifiable. That said, I will concede that the implication of this is to wage intellectual war on the telling of history as a practice -but that's one of the frustrations I have with history as a discipline. (It's also why I chose social science rather than the humanities as a field of study.)
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 6:44:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Truth is the Absolute.

And the absolute is The Truth.

But absolutely everything is nothing in particular, and it is these particular truths we are usually interested in,

That is, everything that IS, Is Synonymously true.

But that is not everything that is, this or that.

For a Thing is itself, but what we are usually interested mean is whether or not that particular thing is Throughout, more than one Domain.

And A Proof, is in relation to that. As in Sure you have this idea, or conception, but is the form or formula Transitive, in the domain of relevance.

For example, someone may tell you that they clearly and distinctly see a fool on a hill, and you may be concerned of whether or not there is one, on a Hill. So you ask "is this the case?" to get a reply, "in a dream of dreams". Although they may speak truthfully, it was probably not the domain you had in mind. But even then they could be lying, but who would want make up such a myth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL