MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,022
- 600
- 126
The real questions are:
Pumpkin or Sweet potato?
Boston Creme or Coconut Creme?
You're from Texas, but you leave out pecan?
I am disappoint.
The real questions are:
Pumpkin or Sweet potato?
Boston Creme or Coconut Creme?
You're from Texas, but you leave out pecan?
I am disappoint.
How would I know if I was telling myself the truth?
The real questions are:
Pumpkin or Sweet potato?
Boston Creme or Coconut Creme?
Oh noes, don't mention pecan pie as it starts the whole pecan debate.
1) How to pronounce it (PuhCan, PeeCan, PeeCon, or PuhCon)
2) Who makes the best pecan pie? Texas or Georgia?
Suppose there were a place where one could check the truth of what one believes, say whether to raise taxes on the rich would be good or bad for the country, as one of an near infinite number of examples, the subject matter of which isn't a part of what I wish to discuss, but merely an example. Each party differs rather fundamentally on what they believe and support. If, by means, let's just call it magic, we could know the truth of what we believe, would you change what you believe, or cling to it regardless because of party allegiance or stubbornness that no mater what some supposed object entity might say, you know you can't be wrong?
Would you still think anyway if some magical truth machine told you it was wrong? Maybe you are that truth machine, on the other hand.
As there is some bias to any particular view of data, objective truth is a hell of a lot more complex than anyone is inclined to admit. any political party has to pander to those who cannot, for many different reasons, think logically.
as a statistician, i might observe the results of an infinite dimensional process. I can't represent an infinite dimensional process and make inferences about it, so i reduce the number of dimensions to something i can manage, so i can model it and get statistically viable results. does my model represent reality? no. does it represent a reasonable facsimile of reality? that's a good question: i don't know. no one does.
As there is some bias to any particular view of data, objective truth is a hell of a lot more complex than anyone is inclined to admit. any political party has to pander to those who cannot, for many different reasons, think logically.
as a statistician, i might observe the results of an infinite dimensional process. I can't represent an infinite dimensional process and make inferences about it, so i reduce the number of dimensions to something i can manage, so i can model it and get statistically viable results. does my model represent reality? no. does it represent a reasonable facsimile of reality? that's a good question: i don't know. no one does.
There is the issue of reduction of dimensions so they can be measured. If there is bias then there will be bias in how those dimensions are reduced, no?
So we are back, I think, to the question of self honesty in introspection. Can a mind bring to consciousness the unconscious bias that may motivate a desire for bias, the avoidance of some old pain, say? If we are biased as I believe we are by feelings we do not know we feel, than the road to understanding what they are lies in feeling them, it seems to me. In short, once there is no hidden emotional needs for bias this way or that, one can do ones statistical analysis is some greater confidence, it seems to me.
This thread is about whether we would give up how we want the truth to be if we could know by unknown means, what it actually is. Most seem to agree that we should face what is real, but the real world says to me that we do not, that we are motivated not to know and not to know if there is any way to know. In short, it seems to me we do not know ourselves very well, hence the bias.
"What is Truth?" That would have been asked more than 2000 years ago and I believe is among the greatest of all questions asked.
For me the truth is not ideas or theories or opinions, but being what one really is, just this wonderfully gifted ape with its moment in the sun. There is no truth because the lover is filled with love and there is no room at all for any opinion. If you know you do not know and if you do not know you know.
Left and right, up and down, all opposites collapse and disappear in being.
Truth logically exists and, therefore, the question ought not be anything more than how can we recognize it.
Each of us will probably see truth to contain differing factors. That suggests there can't be one universal truth... And that will provide the argument that what I maintain is truth can't be true because you don't agree... totally.
We are biased by every bit of 'stuff' that enters our mind... We rationalize based on these inputs...
I think that if we didn't have anything filtering our thinking we'd all find truth to be exactly the same. Like a robot... every one operating based on the same program will or ought to proceed in identical manner...
Probably.
Well I'm going down the rabbit hole so you ought to be warned.
When I said "What is Truth" I didn't ask whether a given thing is true or false and I maintain this is a critical distinction. .............................
Anyway, now I'm rambling
Oh noes, don't mention pecan pie as it starts the whole pecan debate.
1) How to pronounce it (PuhCan, PeeCan, PeeCon, or PuhCon)
2) Who makes the best pecan pie? Texas or Georgia?
Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.hmmmmm
Maybe I can back into an answer to the proposition you provide.
IF I take a position on an issue... any issue and come to that position based on my assessment of the data which then produced the information independent of any outside input I'd have before me the truth as I see it. I may augment at that point from other sources but with strict scrutiny. My truth, therefore, evolves but it is always started with some intuitive notion of what that probably is.
I don't see how anyone can hold on to a position in a steadfast manner in the face of contradictory or inconsistent data.
It seems the only way to arrive at truth or rather, the probability that some proposition is truth is to develop a hypothesis and go about trying to falsify as well as prove.
IF there is absence of empirically derived truth you are left with some faith based belief that something is true or false...
I am not satisfied that anything faith based has merit when there exists a high probability or even plausibility for some proposition to be true based on a non faith approach to the question.
It's probably for the best.
Forget about conservative vs liberals, the pu-cahn vs pee-can debate might tear this entire forum apart.
Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.
As an exercise, imagine dividing the entire nation up into minority groups. Taking the wealth of any one group and using it for the benefit of the other groups leaves the country better off, on average. Extending that logic leads to government taking all wealth and distributing it as government thinks best. Yet those societies have inevitably been worse off than not.
Methinks the OP trumpets his truth in an attempt to build the power of like-minded groups. This is a story as old as mankind.
It's probably for the best.
Forget about conservative vs liberals, the pu-cahn vs pee-can debate might tear this entire forum apart.
Well I'm going down the rabbit hole so you ought to be warned.
When I said "What is Truth" I didn't ask whether a given thing is true or false and I maintain this is a critical distinction. I purposefully used "Truth" not "truth" because I can look at a situation and apply contextual boundaries for it's consideration. I then have a basis for comparison when variables come into play. If I am diligent and apply proper reasoning I arrive at "a" truth, meaning in this case a correct assessment. I agree that assuming things as factual based on preference before data prevents us from obtaining "a" truth, and the principle of guarding against bias is a basic necessity for effective evaluation and reasoning.
This however does not address what I consider "The Big T", and that would be the knowledge, or potential knowledge of all things which are true and all things which are false. That is a question which cannot be answered logically even in principle, and so when faced with something that one cannot know then "what is Truth" remains a deeper question than say, what is the binary state of sequence of computer memory. There are some things which cannot be resolved by logic and that gives people fits.
The two gentlemen listed as authors are still rolling around in their graves about the accessibility of truths. The limits they faced aren't a matter of reasoning ability nor computational power, but a larger truth concerning the fundamental nature of reality and "knowability", and I maintain a thing may be true or false, but if it cannot be known as such, it fails as a "Truth" as it cannot aid in a more complete understanding of how things are as opposed to what we think them to be.
Anyway, now I'm rambling
Philosophically I tend to agree, but we've revised our tax code to the point that most of those benefitting from social programs will never be the ones who are paying for them. The top earners pay for virtually all of government now. Given that, the question becomes a bit more pointed: Do I care about these people so much that I have the right to dip a bit deeper into Bill Gates' pocket on their behalf? We aren't talking about raising taxes on everyone now, we're talking about raising taxes on a small group. Morally, I have a problem with that. Everyone ought to contribute, not just those who "won life's lottery". Contrary to what most young Americans believe, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" is from Marx, not JFK.As I will say in response to Hay in a few... I live in a world where philosophy is nice to delve into as a means to augment the thinking process... like logic and stuff and such but I don't think many of the deeper questions philosophers ask are worthy of my time. I could care less about some abstract notion they'd seek to answer.
Having said that, my response to your bolded bit above is simply this: We have decided by our votes to empower those who make the laws which put into effect what you question... I personally am a fiscal conservative but am probably a social liberal at heart... I care more for those with little than those with much but that is only one aspect of the question... I have a reasonable understanding regarding the economic reality of give and take scenarios. I'd rather pump a few more trillion into targeted stimulus programs and put to debt than tax some portion from the rich. I want them to have funds and investment confidence. IF I can put a million to work in tax paying positions I can see a long term benefit... Eventually, the very folks who get the benefit today will pay for it tomorrow... There are so many more of them that a little from the many will easily mean more to the debt than more from the few.
Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.
As an exercise, imagine dividing the entire nation up into minority groups. Taking the wealth of any one group and using it for the benefit of the other groups leaves the country better off, on average. Extending that logic leads to government taking all wealth and distributing it as government thinks best. Yet those societies have inevitably been worse off than not.
Methinks the OP trumpets his truth in an attempt to build the power of like-minded groups. This is a story as old as mankind.
Philosophically I tend to agree, but we've revised our tax code to the point that most of those benefitting from social programs will never be the ones who are paying for them. The top earners pay for virtually all of government now. Given that, the question becomes a bit more pointed: Do I care about these people so much that I have the right to dip a bit deeper into Bill Gates' pocket on their behalf? We aren't talking about raising taxes on everyone now, we're talking about raising taxes on a small group. Morally, I have a problem with that. Everyone ought to contribute, not just those who "won life's lottery". Contrary to what most young Americans believe, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" is from Marx, not JFK.
Seems to me this is a near-exact duplicate of the gay marriage thing - do I have a right to take away (or keep away) something from someone else in my quest to provide a good society, knowing there can be no adverse effect on me?
As usual, the third parties get excluded from the debate.
It's pee-cahn, the pu-cahn and pee-can parties can both go to hell.