Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

How far can opinions be recognized?

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 6:57:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I say that opinions can only be recognized as far as some senses are concerned. Taste, smell (does it smell good or bad), color appreciation (do you like the color of blue, for example), sense of humor, and the list goes on. With this list being not all inclusive, I expect you to understand the types of things I consider to be "opinion." Basically, all things that cannot be rationally explained, where it is impossible to find a universal answer. So, in the case of colors, it cannot be explained - it cannot be reasoned - that a certain color must trump another in any terms.

What does this leave us with? Well I think it leaves us (yes, I know, it's ironic because i'm saying "I think") with everything else - everything that can be reasoned - being an objective issue. This leads me to understand that with many "controversies," every single "opinion" out there is simply an input given by the user to represent his thoughts on the matter, unless their input is right (if the input is right, it's a Truth). What we consider to be an "opinion" on a matter is simply a result of an incomplete understanding of the circumstances involving the matter (or the "controversy"). The opinion, then, is simply a misguided, and therefore incorrect, understanding of the "controversy."

This took me a while to think up and type. Putting these thoughts of mine into words was harder than expected. I'm not too happy about it, but I hope you guys can get the idea here. The idea came up because I've read a lot of controversies and sh1t that seemed to be aimlessly debated. Of course we debate to defend what we think to be true, and in doing so we use reason and logic to support our claims. I just think that, theoretically, if one could present a summation of EVERY point to be considered in a "controversy" the reasoning behind one side of the argument would ultimately trump the other(s). This means that in every "controversy" there is a Truth. In the end, the "controversy" was just a term used to describe a situation where an understanding of the circumstances were limited or warped.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? :D
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 4:16:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

People can decide to accept or ignore the Truth. It might not be befitting for a particular person's goals. We can use corrupt people as a prime example. For example, an economic truth (in theory, of course) may be implemented to elevate an economy; however, a corrupt individual may find that this path is not, personally, optimal (i.e the corrupt individual may want to curb policies to maintain personal wealth and status).
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 4:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The economics illustration can really be used to describe any individual. The point of the economic truth is to stimulate the economy with the intention of increasing and stabilizing economic growth. Because a certain policy may be economically sound (it will work - it is a Truth), it doesn't mean that ALL individuals will be able to live a better life.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.
I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 12:04:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I plan on posting a bit here later when I have better Internet access. I have a few thoughts that need developing which the OP's point seems particularly relevant towards.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to. It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 8:43:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to.

Uhm... no. Rationality is a higher level function that requires us to be cognizant of that which is being processed. If we aren't aware of it, we can't process it. Rationality and irrationality isn't part of the equation yet. Again, you're assuming that, when faced with the Truth everyone recognizes it as the Truth and a failure to do so can only be willful ignorance. Justify this view.

It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 12:02:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.

I see what you mean. But, for the economics standpoint, the objective value would be to experience economic growth. How can we make it so that our economy grows ? There would be a Truth to that. Whether or not an individual appreciates or "values" this economic growth is up to them.

It's important to note that economics derives itself from natural human tendencies. This means that economics is treated based on the mentalities of the economy's individuals (and thus not treated as an exact science).
* In American society, with the observed society, following through with method x will achieve Economic prosperity. Method x, in America's case, is Truth.
*In French society, with the observed society, following through with method y will achieve economic prosperity. Method y, in France's case, is Truth.

But, in the end, I also think that economics can and should be applied with a scientific approach, as I do imagine there is a quintessential economic model that will provide lasting economic prosperity (since I do believe all humans have certain undeniable commonalities when it comes to logical decision making, etc). Of course economics is not a one-step process (LDC, industrialization, post-industrial, etc). What I'll say is that an economy would need to follow certain steps to find its way to the top and to find a way to stay at the top (or at least a comfortable rung). You can actually find Truth in economics in developing economies today. You look at any developing country today and you'll find clear-cut commonalities in the functioning of its political economic machinery.

.....Definitely starting to go off on a tangent here with economics, so i'll stop here.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 3:52:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 8:43:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to.

Uhm... no. Rationality is a higher level function that requires us to be cognizant of that which is being processed. If we aren't aware of it, we can't process it. Rationality and irrationality isn't part of the equation yet. Again, you're assuming that, when faced with the Truth everyone recognizes it as the Truth and a failure to do so can only be willful ignorance. Justify this view.

It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.

If we aren't aware of the Truth? How can you be unaware of the Truth if the Truth itself is revealed to you (it is clear to you)? You always arrive at a Truth. When you find a Truth, you know (and therefore are aware) it's a Truth. Otherwise, how can we be aware of ANYTHING that is True?
How are we made aware of the Truth of gravity, or that wood is a solid? Observation? Experimentation? Logic? Reason? If yes to any of these, then I don't see your problem here....
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 3:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 3:52:07 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:43:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to.

Uhm... no. Rationality is a higher level function that requires us to be cognizant of that which is being processed. If we aren't aware of it, we can't process it. Rationality and irrationality isn't part of the equation yet. Again, you're assuming that, when faced with the Truth everyone recognizes it as the Truth and a failure to do so can only be willful ignorance. Justify this view.

It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.

If we aren't aware of the Truth? How can you be unaware of the Truth if the Truth itself is revealed to you (it is clear to you)? You always arrive at a Truth. When you find a Truth, you know (and therefore are aware) it's a Truth. Otherwise, how can we be aware of ANYTHING that is True?
How are we made aware of the Truth of gravity, or that wood is a solid? Observation? Experimentation? Logic? Reason? If yes to any of these, then I don't see your problem here....

Recognition of something as true isn't the automatic, involuntary process you imply here. It requires thinking and judgement. Merely being exposed to the truth does not convey recognition.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 4:12:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 3:54:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 3:52:07 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:43:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to.

Uhm... no. Rationality is a higher level function that requires us to be cognizant of that which is being processed. If we aren't aware of it, we can't process it. Rationality and irrationality isn't part of the equation yet. Again, you're assuming that, when faced with the Truth everyone recognizes it as the Truth and a failure to do so can only be willful ignorance. Justify this view.

It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.

If we aren't aware of the Truth? How can you be unaware of the Truth if the Truth itself is revealed to you (it is clear to you)? You always arrive at a Truth. When you find a Truth, you know (and therefore are aware) it's a Truth. Otherwise, how can we be aware of ANYTHING that is True?
How are we made aware of the Truth of gravity, or that wood is a solid? Observation? Experimentation? Logic? Reason? If yes to any of these, then I don't see your problem here....

Recognition of something as true isn't the automatic, involuntary process you imply here. It requires thinking and judgement. Merely being exposed to the truth does not convey recognition.

A truth doesn't have to be clear by its mere exposition. The uncovering of the Truth, after being exposed to it, can be found by examining everything that goes behind this truth (in my op, the summation of every point to a controversy). So yes, if the Truth is found in a controversy, you're going to have to explain how this Truth came to be, because otherwise, it may just sound like another opinion in another's eyes. Just like a math problem in calculus, you can skip to and only show the final answer, but without a step-by-step process of how you got there, others wouldn't be quick to accept the finding.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 4:22:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All of what I said in the last post, by the way, was supposed to be assumed in the first place....

>______>
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 4:12:52 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 3:54:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 3:52:07 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:43:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:30:09 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:05:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:32:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:24:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:22:13 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:11:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/14/2013 10:02:56 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:26:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:01:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
If everyone were perfectly informed on the facts of a given issue, do you think they would all come to agree on its rectification?

Most. Important. Question. Ever.

I would assume that for the daily issues at hand, having the Truth presented would garner a majority vote.

"Majority" covers a wide range, from 100% to an unimpressive 50.1%

I would imagine that when things are presented in extreme or perfect clarity, people would be less inclined to rely on emotional whims when arriving at the choice for decision. I say this because most of the time people use pathos or emotional appeal as justification for their beliefs when they are presented with your typical "controversy." (Meaning that they are not informed enough to make a truly objective decision)

That they are "informed" is a given for the question at hand.

So to cut to the chase, is your point that knowing the Truth in a typical controversy is a worthless notion since there exists selfish people? (If Truth is presented, and if a person's preference is chosen over the Truth, it would be treated as selfish behavior).

No, and I don't know where you got any of that from...

Well I just assumed that, since you and the original comment stressed the idea that accepting the Truth is not a given consequence (of finding a Truth to a conflict), that it would be because people would still opt out for personal reasons.

You're assuming that all people would necessarily recognize the Truth when exposed to it.
It would be irrational not to.

Uhm... no. Rationality is a higher level function that requires us to be cognizant of that which is being processed. If we aren't aware of it, we can't process it. Rationality and irrationality isn't part of the equation yet. Again, you're assuming that, when faced with the Truth everyone recognizes it as the Truth and a failure to do so can only be willful ignorance. Justify this view.

It would be like saying someone fails to recognize that gravity exists. If you don't recognize it then you are just ignoring it. Truth is still Truth. You're wrong to think otherwise or to fail to recognize.
Misconception. Warped understand.

If we aren't aware of the Truth? How can you be unaware of the Truth if the Truth itself is revealed to you (it is clear to you)? You always arrive at a Truth. When you find a Truth, you know (and therefore are aware) it's a Truth. Otherwise, how can we be aware of ANYTHING that is True?
How are we made aware of the Truth of gravity, or that wood is a solid? Observation? Experimentation? Logic? Reason? If yes to any of these, then I don't see your problem here....

Recognition of something as true isn't the automatic, involuntary process you imply here. It requires thinking and judgement. Merely being exposed to the truth does not convey recognition.

A truth doesn't have to be clear by its mere exposition. The uncovering of the Truth, after being exposed to it, can be found by examining everything that goes behind this truth (in my op, the summation of every point to a controversy). So yes, if the Truth is found in a controversy, you're going to have to explain how this Truth came to be, because otherwise, it may just sound like another opinion in another's eyes. Just like a math problem in calculus, you can skip to and only show the final answer, but without a step-by-step process of how you got there, others wouldn't be quick to accept the finding.

... Wut? I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:37:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 12:02:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.

I see what you mean. But, for the economics standpoint, the objective value would be to experience economic growth. How can we make it so that our economy grows ? There would be a Truth to that. Whether or not an individual appreciates or "values" this economic growth is up to them.

It's important to note that economics derives itself from natural human tendencies. This means that economics is treated based on the mentalities of the economy's individuals (and thus not treated as an exact science).
* In American society, with the observed society, following through with method x will achieve Economic prosperity. Method x, in America's case, is Truth.
*In French society, with the observed society, following through with method y will achieve economic prosperity. Method y, in France's case, is Truth.


But, in the end, I also think that economics can and should be applied with a scientific approach, as I do imagine there is a quintessential economic model that will provide lasting economic prosperity (since I do believe all humans have certain undeniable commonalities when it comes to logical decision making, etc). Of course economics is not a one-step process (LDC, industrialization, post-industrial, etc). What I'll say is that an economy would need to follow certain steps to find its way to the top and to find a way to stay at the top (or at least a comfortable rung). You can actually find Truth in economics in developing economies today. You look at any developing country today and you'll find clear-cut commonalities in the functioning of its political economic machinery.

.....Definitely starting to go off on a tangent here with economics, so i'll stop here.

But there are always multiple ways to approach growth, that may or may not be more or less effective depending on what they entail. Perhaps "the Truth" for country Y is that, for maximal economic growth, they need to kill all of minority Z. Yet they choose not to do that, because it's morally repugnant. Of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is that different approaches can solve the same problem, and maximal economic growth is merely one among many considerations. IFF everyone agree that that was the sole goal, then yes, all of us being exposed to the same information would be likely to get us all or mostly all agreeing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:38:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And, to be clear, that's generally the case for all normative claims.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:37:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 12:02:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.

I see what you mean. But, for the economics standpoint, the objective value would be to experience economic growth. How can we make it so that our economy grows ? There would be a Truth to that. Whether or not an individual appreciates or "values" this economic growth is up to them.

It's important to note that economics derives itself from natural human tendencies. This means that economics is treated based on the mentalities of the economy's individuals (and thus not treated as an exact science).
* In American society, with the observed society, following through with method x will achieve Economic prosperity. Method x, in America's case, is Truth.
*In French society, with the observed society, following through with method y will achieve economic prosperity. Method y, in France's case, is Truth.


But, in the end, I also think that economics can and should be applied with a scientific approach, as I do imagine there is a quintessential economic model that will provide lasting economic prosperity (since I do believe all humans have certain undeniable commonalities when it comes to logical decision making, etc). Of course economics is not a one-step process (LDC, industrialization, post-industrial, etc). What I'll say is that an economy would need to follow certain steps to find its way to the top and to find a way to stay at the top (or at least a comfortable rung). You can actually find Truth in economics in developing economies today. You look at any developing country today and you'll find clear-cut commonalities in the functioning of its political economic machinery.

.....Definitely starting to go off on a tangent here with economics, so i'll stop here.

But there are always multiple ways to approach growth, that may or may not be more or less effective depending on what they entail. Perhaps "the Truth" for country Y is that, for maximal economic growth, they need to kill all of minority Z. Yet they choose not to do that, because it's morally repugnant. Of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is that different approaches can solve the same problem, and maximal economic growth is merely one among many considerations. IFF everyone agree that that was the sole goal, then yes, all of us being exposed to the same information would be likely to get us all or mostly all agreeing.

Well yeah I meant to focus on the single goal of economic growth (this implies the best way possible: efficient, lasting, etc). By the way, the only thing your example served was to illustrate a way in which a political body would choose to limit an economy's potential growth. Refusing to kill off minority Z would be refusing to maximize economic potential. And if that is the truth for country Y, then there is no other approach to reaching economic potential.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:28:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:18:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:37:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 12:02:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.

I see what you mean. But, for the economics standpoint, the objective value would be to experience economic growth. How can we make it so that our economy grows ? There would be a Truth to that. Whether or not an individual appreciates or "values" this economic growth is up to them.

It's important to note that economics derives itself from natural human tendencies. This means that economics is treated based on the mentalities of the economy's individuals (and thus not treated as an exact science).
* In American society, with the observed society, following through with method x will achieve Economic prosperity. Method x, in America's case, is Truth.
*In French society, with the observed society, following through with method y will achieve economic prosperity. Method y, in France's case, is Truth.


But, in the end, I also think that economics can and should be applied with a scientific approach, as I do imagine there is a quintessential economic model that will provide lasting economic prosperity (since I do believe all humans have certain undeniable commonalities when it comes to logical decision making, etc). Of course economics is not a one-step process (LDC, industrialization, post-industrial, etc). What I'll say is that an economy would need to follow certain steps to find its way to the top and to find a way to stay at the top (or at least a comfortable rung). You can actually find Truth in economics in developing economies today. You look at any developing country today and you'll find clear-cut commonalities in the functioning of its political economic machinery.

.....Definitely starting to go off on a tangent here with economics, so i'll stop here.

But there are always multiple ways to approach growth, that may or may not be more or less effective depending on what they entail. Perhaps "the Truth" for country Y is that, for maximal economic growth, they need to kill all of minority Z. Yet they choose not to do that, because it's morally repugnant. Of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is that different approaches can solve the same problem, and maximal economic growth is merely one among many considerations. IFF everyone agree that that was the sole goal, then yes, all of us being exposed to the same information would be likely to get us all or mostly all agreeing.


Well yeah I meant to focus on the single goal of economic growth (this implies the best way possible: efficient, lasting, etc). By the way, the only thing your example served was to illustrate a way in which a political body would choose to limit an economy's potential growth. Refusing to kill off minority Z would be refusing to maximize economic potential. And if that is the truth for country Y, then there is no other approach to reaching economic potential.

Ah, but countries are not undifferentiated blocks. They are made up of individuals. There might be some individuals how value growth more than morality. There may be some who value morality over growth. Who is "right", who has the "truth"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:45:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The real question here is: Do you love lamp?

I, for one, love lamp.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:59:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:28:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:18:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:37:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 12:02:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 8:32:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You seem to not understand that value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value. Even if we all agreed on the ramifications of certain, say, economic theories, and we were 100% correct, people would still adhere to different economic principles because they value different things.

I see what you mean. But, for the economics standpoint, the objective value would be to experience economic growth. How can we make it so that our economy grows ? There would be a Truth to that. Whether or not an individual appreciates or "values" this economic growth is up to them.

It's important to note that economics derives itself from natural human tendencies. This means that economics is treated based on the mentalities of the economy's individuals (and thus not treated as an exact science).
* In American society, with the observed society, following through with method x will achieve Economic prosperity. Method x, in America's case, is Truth.
*In French society, with the observed society, following through with method y will achieve economic prosperity. Method y, in France's case, is Truth.


But, in the end, I also think that economics can and should be applied with a scientific approach, as I do imagine there is a quintessential economic model that will provide lasting economic prosperity (since I do believe all humans have certain undeniable commonalities when it comes to logical decision making, etc). Of course economics is not a one-step process (LDC, industrialization, post-industrial, etc). What I'll say is that an economy would need to follow certain steps to find its way to the top and to find a way to stay at the top (or at least a comfortable rung). You can actually find Truth in economics in developing economies today. You look at any developing country today and you'll find clear-cut commonalities in the functioning of its political economic machinery.

.....Definitely starting to go off on a tangent here with economics, so i'll stop here.

But there are always multiple ways to approach growth, that may or may not be more or less effective depending on what they entail. Perhaps "the Truth" for country Y is that, for maximal economic growth, they need to kill all of minority Z. Yet they choose not to do that, because it's morally repugnant. Of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is that different approaches can solve the same problem, and maximal economic growth is merely one among many considerations. IFF everyone agree that that was the sole goal, then yes, all of us being exposed to the same information would be likely to get us all or mostly all agreeing.


Well yeah I meant to focus on the single goal of economic growth (this implies the best way possible: efficient, lasting, etc). By the way, the only thing your example served was to illustrate a way in which a political body would choose to limit an economy's potential growth. Refusing to kill off minority Z would be refusing to maximize economic potential. And if that is the truth for country Y, then there is no other approach to reaching economic potential.

Ah, but countries are not undifferentiated blocks. They are made up of individuals. There might be some individuals how value growth more than morality. There may be some who value morality over growth. Who is "right", who has the "truth"?

Perhaps, but I sure as hell know that if we don't kill off those damn minorities, we won't maximize our economic potential!!

I guess where your point "value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value" really holds true is in the context of, for instance, fairness/justice. The only thing I can argue, or anyone can argue, I think, is that perhaps you can pick apart certain values and provide counter evidence that would show that holding such a value is counter-intuitive to your own well-being and/or ultimately contradicts your own constitution (which would mean you have a weak constitution - or a set of values that don't hold well together).

What do you think?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:20:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:59:40 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I guess where your point "value judgments don't necessarily have objective truth value" really holds true is in the context of, for instance, fairness/justice. The only thing I can argue, or anyone can argue, I think, is that perhaps you can pick apart certain values and provide counter evidence that would show that holding such a value is counter-intuitive to your own well-being and/or ultimately contradicts your own constitution (which would mean you have a weak constitution - or a set of values that don't hold well together).

What do you think?

I think fairness and justice are examples, but then so are things like color preference. Or music preference. Etc. etc. etc. Value judgements don't have objective truth value. There are statements that you can make which do have objective truth value, such as "Your valuing of the color blue over red will, in this context, cost you $1000"--but whether that cost is worth it is a value judgment that doesn't have a truth value of its own. Only if we shared all of the same values would we be likely to ever reach a point of general agreement with perfect knowledge...and since the latter is essentially an impossibility, as is the former, I don't think it's gonna happen.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!