# Open-mindedness



## MDLarson (Mar 18, 2002)

Does a person seem "close-minded" to somebody else who disagrees with them?  If one finds a truth to be The Truth, does that make them close-minded?  If a person doesn't care about anything does that make them open-minded?  Is open-mindedness a myth, or is it just subjective?

My signature has been:


> "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." -G. K. Chesterton



I'm going to change it soon, but I still believe it to be true.

*Disclaimer:*
I don't want to argue too much here; I just want to chat.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 18, 2002)

Preach it Brother!


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 18, 2002)

If a person decides that "The Truth" is beyond all criticism, and will be true in all instances, they are setting themselves up to be soundly lashed by a tongue. 

Nothing is universal like that, and it would be ignorant to simply accept something as the unquestionable truth. Sure, it is fine to believe in something as "The Truth", but to abandon all logic in pursuit of keeping that truth alive, as least inside yourself, is a folly.

There are things such as opinions, which are just manifestations of emotions. There are both logical resons to be against and for abortion. It is these inner emotions that make the true choice. As long as we know that we are deciding with our emotions and not with our minds, we'll all be fine. Once we begin to try and impress our own personal emotions upon others we will run into trouble, and be called closed minded and stubborn.

I've presented a few different ideas here I guess, but here's the main gist:
Latching onto an idea is fine, but once you decide to defend that idea at all costs, without logic, that is when you become closed minded, which is defintely a bad thing.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 18, 2002)

I believe in absolute truth... anything less is simply lukewarm.

Think about this...

We are standing out in a yard and I point to a tree and call it an "Oak-Tree". You on the other hand reply... Admin, that is not a tree at all, but that is a cow. So, I take the time to teach you and show you that not only is it a tree, but it is an Oak Tree and I bring forth documentation to prove it is a tree.

You on the other hand, look at me and say... "Admin, you are so close minded as to not consider the possibilities."

To me, why are you so close-minded to not seek the truth.

Admin


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Matrix Agent _
> *If a person decides that "The Truth" is beyond all criticism, and will be true in all instances, they are setting themselves up to be soundly lashed by a tongue.*


Not if it's true!  If they are "soundly lashed by a toungue", it is only because of bad debate skills.  A wrong person can still win a debate.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 18, 2002)

But from the philisophical point of view, which is what I think Matt is trying to get at, I believe that nothing can be completely universoal. For sure, everyone can have their convictions and morals, but isn't there an extreme or scenerio in which they just don't work.

Don't get the idea that I have no morals or no philisophical ideals, but I also believe that if one cannot bend, then they will break.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 18, 2002)

Basically... you could look at this...

Many people will say that the church is full of hypocrites. It would be hard to disagree with a saying that their ARE hypocrites in the church, but not all church goers are hypocrites.

Now, a true statement would be, all church goes are sinners. Now, some might say that hypocrites are sinners, therefore, the church is full of hypocrites.

That is simply crazy.

First and foremost, one can "teach" the ideal, while not following the ideal themselves. Many of you have given reports in school on places you have never been before. Does that make you a hypocrite, not at all.

Being open-minded means... being open to the truth, even if that truth may not be the way you currently believe. However, the world sees open-minded as being open to MY view point, and those who are usually "crying for open-mindedness" are they themselves by their very nature and teaching, close minded.

I consider myself very open-minded, however I also believe that the truth is very narrow. And yes... one who is completely wrong can win a debate, if the one who knows the truth is either not sure of it, or doesn't know enough about it, or the opposing view to defend their stand.

<just stirring the pot>

Admin


----------



## kilowatt (Mar 18, 2002)

well said Admin and MDLarson.

and for my money, 'wrong' people win debates all the time. because its true, its  a test of debating skills.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 18, 2002)

My truth is not your truth.  I have perceptions and ideas and feelings, which all contribute to me believing something to be true.  How can I expect your perceptions and ideas and feelings to coincide exactly with mine?

I may say that this is a dogcow ("Moof!") but your perceptions see it as a fire engine.  As individuals, we each have a drastically different idea of truth than anyone else.  As a society, we try to find common ground on which to be able to relate to each other.

In other words.  As a society, we have decided (at least in English speaking societies) that things that are colored green should be called "green".  That is a form of truth.  But what if I decided that in my personal mind, I called that green thing "Spork"?  That would be my truth.  And my perception of the "Spork" colored thing has not changed, it is still the same thing that everyone else calls green.  Whose truth is true?  (Hint: both)

In time, with much talk and examples, you may convince me that some of your truths are more reasonable than mine, and I may adopt your truths.  It's hard to talk about "Spork" colored things.  People don't understand.  But there are a great many of my truths which you will never change my mind about.  This is not close mindedness!  If I listen to all of your points, and try as hard as I can to understand what you are saying about your truths, I can still decide to disagree with you.

One of my favorite quotes can be mangled to apply here.  The original quote is something like this:


> Either we are alone in the universe [a.k.a. no other intelligent life], or we are not.  Either way, the prospect is staggering.


Mangled version:


> Either there is a God and a life after death, or there is not.  Either way, the prospect is staggering.



The very nature of humanity, in my opinion, prevents us from ever finding a "universal" truth.

(There.  That ought to provoke some replies!)

Disclaimer:No offense is implied or should be inferred.  Religion is a very sticky wicket when it comes to debate, since so many people are so _very_ enthusiastic about their beliefs.  But if you listen to my point of view and still disagree with me, I will still call you 'friend'.  If you listen to my point of view and change your mind on account of what I said, I'll call you whatever you want to be called.  If you don't spend the time to listen, I will call you narrowminded.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 18, 2002)

I think that we are all going to look at this from our own personal perspective no matter what... which is how it should be.

Admins argument are not that different from ones I have used myself. I have often said that faith for me is like saying the sky is red. I see a blue sky that others tell me is red. I am then told that I can have salvation if I _just_ believe that the sky is red. The problem for me is that in my heart I know the sky is blue.

An alternative way for people of faith to look at this is to consider your faith a gift of inner sight. I could never be upset with someone who is blind not understanding things that sighted people take for granted, and people of faith should not think ill of others that don't share your gift.

Faith and belief are not thinks that can be changed by argument... only personal experience.

As for having an open mind, the only people who _don't_  have an open mind are the ones who know the truth and hide it from others because it would mean that they were wrong.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *I will call you narrowminded. *



Most people call me RacerX, but I can answer to _narrowminded_ too.



What did you say again?


----------



## edX (Mar 19, 2002)

> _originally said by the wizard of administration_
> one who is completely wrong can win a debate, if the one who knows the truth is ... not sure of it ....



i have a hard time with this one line because i believe that when one _knows_ the truth, then they are sure of it. the problem is that the truth can't always be supported by logic and reasoning or even verabal communication for that matter.



> _originally said by my friend who recently got his own congrats thread_
> as for having an open mind, the only people who don't have an open mind are the ones who know the truth and hide it from others because it would mean that they were wrong.



i tend to see this the opposite, those who feel they must tell everybody what the truth is are the ones least sure of it. those who can walk securely and quietly with their truths to themselves have probably got a better grasp on the truth and the ability to open their minds to how others' perceptions relate to that truth.

but let me regress and cover broader ground now. 1st i must say that i believe there are no absolute truths in this world.  There are personal truths, shared truths and supposed truths as well as assumed truths. There are lots of lies masquerading as truths. There are also many levels of truths that we move thru as we go thru life and gain more gradual understanding. 

And anything that is absolute truth must by definition contain all these other truths. So what we get in this world is only bits and pieces of the absolute. But without the bits and pieces, the whole could not exist. so each of the pieces is still very important.  yet each of us is capable of only holding so many truths at once. No one can know all these truths at once unless they have reached what the Buddhists refer to as enlightenment. And in order to move in the linear progression of our lives, we need to ascertain some things so that we can function. our ability to know these things adds to our level of confidence in operating in the world. Still , we never know when a challenge to these truths might occur. 

but all this talk about truth is still only incidental to the issue of open and closed mindedness.  I think Phil was on the right track when he talked about closed mindedness being when you shut yourself off from any new information and stop trying to use your logic and reason. When you attempt to make your own paradigm fit the new information rather than seeing what paradigm the information suggests. this is a matter of something known as flexibility in psychological terms. When one is flexible (open minded), one will adapt one's old views to the new situation. When one is inflexible, one will repeatedly try to fit the new situation to one's views, never listening to others and rigidly maintaining that if you just keep doing things the same way then everything will be ok, because it has always worked before. Probalby the number one thing therapists work with is making people more flexible. Getting them to unlearn their truths that used to work for them and learn new ones that will work now that they and their world have changed. What is true for any one person at any one time, may not be true for them at any other time. Yet people tend to repeat actions that have carried truth in the past. Learing and unlearning truths is an important part of life and growth. I certainly hope that i have picked up some new truths by this time next year and discarded some of the ones that are working against me more than for me.

And since we seem to be using religion as some sort of example of Truth around which minds are either open or closed ( an artifact of another thread i think), then let me propose an example.  At a certain point in our development we believe whatever our parents tell us. so if they are Christians or Muslims or whatever, then we are too. Their truths are our truths. At some point we find a flaw in one of their so called truths -eg, we go out with wet hair and don't die of pneumonia We begin to question all their truths. we find out that fire still burns and a hammer to the thumb still hurts. But we also find out that there are other ways of perceiving things in the world. There are other ways of viewing God. Maybe we explore. maybe we worry that God will hurt a lot worse than the hammer if we stray and so we continue to believe out of fear. Or maybe we have a personal experience that somehow points us in the right direction, either back on the road we were on or else travelling a new one. At any one point on this journey we need a guiding Truth. But that is all it can be - a guide. Because tomorrow we may have a new experience that opens a new guiding Truth to us and then nothing is like it was yesterday. But to use a Christian example of the importance of keeping an open mind, remember that Jesus had his moments of doubt. Truth that is never questioned by it's holder becomes stale and useless. It is not faith, it is a defense against fear. One must face and question one's fears in order the strengthen one's Truthes. The minute one loses the ability to do that, then one loses their true faith.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *If one finds a truth to be The Truth, does that make them close-minded?*



Yes, that's pretty much a definition of closed-mindedness.  Here I am assuming that The Truth cannot change, and would be held to be true even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

If your mind is open, then it must be open to things that potentially contradict any of your beliefs.

Closed mindedness could be defined as an unwillingness to examine new evidence or new arguments that contradict one's beliefs, and to revise or completely reject those beliefs if the evidence empirically proves them unsound (or the arguments logically proves them unsound).

If you would sooner reject logic or the evidence of your senses than change your mind about X, then you are closed-minded regarding X.  That is, certain statements or sensory observations are rejected, not because there is logical grounds to reject them, but rather because they contradict X, and there is _no_ logical grounds for their rejection.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *1st i must say that i believe there are no absolute truths in this world.*


Are you sure of that?  _*Absolutely*_ sure?  

René Descartes said this:


> "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think therefore I am"*.


I understand this to mean that at least I, as a person, exist.  For as long as I fulfill the definition of existance, no one can rightly say that I don't exist, simply because they choose not to believe it.  I think that would be an example of an absolute truth.

Let us, for the moment, assume that there *is* Absolute Truth.  More questions pop up:
Is it discoverable?  (Can a person seize on it?)  Can Absolute Truth change?

Now realize that an religion has not yet entered into the picture.  I'm just talking about a truth that is true always, for every person.  It wouldn't matter if that person believed it or not, it would still be true.

I haven't forgot about open-mindedness and all that, but this is worth talking about for now, I think.

*Apple used a variation of this quote for the debut of the original iMac:  "I think, therefore iMac"


----------



## unlearnthetruth (Mar 19, 2002)

"cogito cogito, ergo, cogito sum"

I think I think, therefore, I think I am


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2002)

> _posted by Matt_
> *I understand this to mean that at least I, as a person, exist. For as long as I fulfill the definition of existance, no one can rightly say that I don't exist, simply because they choose not to believe it. I think that would be an example of an absolute truth.*



Actually _anyone_ can say the _you_ may not exist, but *you* can rest assured that *you* exist. The truth that you have of your existance does _not_ provide proof of that existence to others.




> *Let us, for the moment, assume that there is Absolute Truth. More questions pop up:
> Is it discoverable? (Can a person seize on it?) Can Absolute Truth change?*



I think a more interesting question is to what lengths are you, personally, willing to go towards an understanding of anything (in this case the nature of existance which calls into question _why_ is the universe the way it is). I, personally, have never taken the easy path of relying on others to have provided the effort needed to gain knowledge. This is because knowledge can only be mastered by taking the time to discover it yourself. I have questions about why we (and the universe) are here that most people would leave to either the _scientist_ or the _theologians_, but would never invest the personal time to discover themselves.

Lets, for a moment _not_ look at religion, but look at aspects of the physical world around us. The world that we live in is _very_ Newtonian in nature, consequently we relate things to that comfortable understanding of nature. In our Newtonian world gravity and electromagnetism are _forces_ of nature. But with a far deeper understanding of the geometry and topology of the universe, we can see that *no* forces are actually in play. Gravitation is a distortion of Minkowski space-time and electromagnetism is a connection on a phase space that has the properties of a Lie group.

The point here is that the last sentence of that paragraph represents 9 years of hard studying of both mathematics and physics (mathematics being something that most physicist are actually very weak in, so the last part of the sentence would be lost on many of them) to make that knowledge mine. I can describe to you in great detail what it is I am talking about, but most of it would be lost because it requires discovery on your part.

Then there is the social aspect of trying to find out about the universe we live in. I know that I am not going to see any answers to the big questions in my lifetime. Anything I do represents the smallest of steps down a path of discovery. We, as a race, have wander down dead ends before, only to back track and find our way once again. The point is, then, not the final discovery... it is playing a part in the journey of discovery that matters.



> *Now realize that an religion has not yet entered into the picture. I'm just talking about a truth that is true always, for every person. It wouldn't matter if that person believed it or not, it would still be true.*



Religion does not rely on facts, or proof, it is a *faith*. You have faith in that what you believe is the truth, but you have no facts that can be given to others. What you believe maybe true, it maybe partially true, or it maybe completely wrong... the point is that without actual facts it remains a faith.

The interesting thing to note is that some people with a weak faith need others to believe in the same thing they do to reinforce that belief. I feel no need to _convert_ anyone to what I believe, because anyone blindly believing in the same thing I do without having my experiences would have to rest that belief on the efforts of others. My beliefs are unique and my own, and I am quite secure in them. I know that they are clouded by having been created from my own perspective, but not any more or less than anyone else's beliefs are clouded by their own personal perspectives (unless we are talking about mental illness, but that is another subject).


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2002)

first, what a shame that we had to bring  poor Descartes into this. I haven't the time nor the resources to explain here why Descartian linear models are extremely limited in their application and that if we closed our minds to anything after him we would be farther from the truth than we currently are. RacerX pointed on e limitation of the simplistic "i think therefore i am' . I would also offer this - if that were true, then would you cease to be if you cease to think? do you 'think' 24 hrs a day? Are you aware of thinking (or anything else for that matter) the entire time you are sleeping? So do you cease to exist during that time? 

next, i'm not absolutely sure of anything. and the nice thing is that i have no need to be. as long as i keep my mind open to the possibility that something more exists that i am not yet aware of, then i keep myself ready for each day's discoveries. since i can't be absolutley sure of anything, i can be ok with never being sure about the things we cannot know.

last, in response to RacerX's exception for mental illness - it may be that what we sometimes identify as mental illness is really someone who sees the new truth while all others have closed their minds on some agreed upon truth. 'truth' can be a great defense mechanism.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 22, 2002)

Descartes is down the pub with his mate Derrick, who says "fancy another pint?" The somewhat inebriated Descartes replies "I think not" and disappears...

OK, now to answer Matt's original post:



> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Does a person seem "close-minded" to somebody else who disagrees with them?  If one finds a truth to be The Truth, does that make them close-minded?*


My 2 pennies Sterling:

By capitalizing "The Truth", I assume you are referring to a high and absolutely inviolable truth that can not be refuted. Whilst I think such truths must exist (there must be correct answers to some questions), I also think that humans can never know if their belief is true in this absolute sense.

Someone who believes an opinion of theirs to be in accordance with "The Truth" is, in my opinion,  arrogant in their degree of self confidence.

Taking this back to the theme of "The Truth" referring to whether there is a God, I can conceive of no evidence, even a personal visitation, that could convince me either way. I therefore regard people who believe themselves to be privy to the absolute truth as to whether god exists, be it that they think so (e.g. the Pope) or think not (e.g. Richard Dawkins) to be close-minded.

I do not however, think it is bad to be close-minded. If an absolute belief in God makes somebody happier than any alternative belief, then I think it best that they have such a belief. It is only when these beliefs begin to detrimentally affect others (e.g. the Crusades), that close-mindedness becomes bad.

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 22, 2002)

I guess I was trying to be more philosophical about the matter of there being an absolute Truth, _any_ truth.  I understand René's quote to be applicable in the discussion of relativism, because at least when an individual exists, that is a starting point of a firm foundation with which to base other conclusion on.

I don't mean to take Descartes' quote any further than what he said, that he himself believed he existed because he had thought.  Whether or not he thought all the time or ceased to think is irrelevant, because the fact is he *thought* at at least one moment in time, and for that moment in time, he quite simply, existed.  Bla bla bla

I fear this discussion got too bungled up too fast.  Are we just making our fingers and brains sweaty, or are we learning and expanding our minds?!?!


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2002)

I don't know, but i liked Bernie's Descartes'joke. 

what did you want to learn? how could we be more "philosophical"? I am once more lost as to what you were expecting?

but consider that expectations are part of a closed mindset. because you have already delineated out the parameters within which you believe the future discussion _should_ go then you have closed your mind to all the directions it could go.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 23, 2002)

Hmm, I am thinking my point was missed, that's all.  I mean, the idea of being able to seize on at least one concrete thing that _is_ true, and sticking to it.  It just seems to me that it is impossible to make a discussion simple.  

I do believe there are plenty of absolute truths in the world that we can pick up on.  If we don't we are just floating around and not really embracing anything.  I realize that some here don't have a problem with that, but I guess I do.  I don't want to step on toes again, but I just don't think relativism is helpful at all.

Anyway


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

> _said by Matt_
> *I don't want to step on toes again, but I just don't think relativism is helpful at all.*



Actually, I think relativism (the concepts and ideas that define it) are exceptionally important. Relativism on an emotional level is the basis for empathy, which plays a paramount role in ethics. Much of Kant's ideals of duty and reason require an empathy for others before making choices. Even the teachings of Jesus place empathy (and therefore relativism) in an important light.

Remember that if you only care about the world as it is seen from your point of view, and discard the points of view of all others, that would be quite selfish and self-centered. You can have core beliefs and core ideals and still act is a selfless, empathetic manner... as long as you accept relativism.

Lets look at a good real life example: Marriage. In a marriage, you are often ask to make choices that effect both you and your spouse. There are times when the effect may not be positive for both of you. If you make all your choices based on what would be positive for you in every situation, then I would consider that a failing marriage. Empathy for your spouse would have you look at three possible effects of any choice. There is how that choice effects you personally, how it effects you spouse personally, and how it effects the family unit collectively. The last one is the centering factor. It keeps you from moving to far from being either selfless or self-centered.

Strangely enough, the idea of relativism also have a large role in nature. Because we want to have some fixed frame of reference, we spent hundreds of years looking for one. We finally decided that the _ether_ in which all things exist must be the fixed frame of reference. So near the end of the 19th century, two scientist (Michelson and Morley) came up with an experiment to measure the speed of the Earth moving through the ether, and what they found changed everything. They discovered that they're experiment was the fixed point in the ether (which was not possible). The bizarre result left people wondering about the make-up of the universe until a mathematician (Lorentz) produced a transformation that explained the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. A number of years after that a young patent clerk (with a degree in physics equivalent to that of a secondary school physics teacher) took the next step that no one else was willing to take, and married the ideas of Lorentz's transformation with Galileo's postulate of relativity. From that we now know that the only constant is the speed of light (which appears the same from every reference frame). In order for this to work (as discovered in Lorentz's transformation) all aspects of our personal reference frame (space, mass and time) change in order to make the speed of light appear constant relative to that frame.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 23, 2002)

Technical quibble.  The speed of light is constant in a constant medium.  So when it changes media, say from air to glass, it gets diffracted which is what causes rainbows through prisms.

Oh, look over there! Another nit!  Let's go get it!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *Technical quibble.  The speed of light is constant in a constant medium.  So when it changes media...*



Actually the speed of light constant that I speak of is _c_=300,000,000 meters per second (the speed of light in a vacuum), the fact that the perpetuation of light waves in media chances does not effect the constant value of _c_ in any given reference frame.

Any other quibbles I can help you with?


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 23, 2002)

Right.  That's what I said.  "The speed of light is constant in a constant medium".  It's not constant when the medium changes.  So it doesn't matter if you're speaking of the speed of light in a vacuum (3x10^8 m/s) or the speed of light in mud (ah, prob'ly about 0x10^8 m/s).

The diffraction part is only used to illustrate that it is not constant for all media.


> Any other quibbles I can help you with?


Nope, that's the quibble o' the day.  

This post brought to you by the letters C8H10N4O2. _(a.k.a. Caffeine!)_


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

I tend to post more desktop shots than anyone, so here is one of mine.





> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *Right.  That's what I said.  "The speed of light is constant in a constant medium".  It's not constant when the medium changes.*



The constant _c_ is the same no matter what your reference frame or medium, because _c_ doesn't refer to perpetuation in a medium... it refers to the constant for all reference frames.



> *This post brought to you by the letters C8H10N4O2. (a.k.a. Caffeine!) *



I couldn't tell.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *The diffraction part is only used to illustrate that it is not constant for all media.*



Hey, would you like to talk about diffraction from a quantum mechanical point of view... it is really quite interesting.


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2002)

it seems that this thread is accelerating despite its defraction. apparently none of it is being absorbed. 

but to go back to relativism - 

Matt, what do you find so frightening about relativism? what is threatening about having no absolutes? or maybe i should say 'what is so frightening about floating around'?

would you rather fix yourself upon a single point of reference for the security of knowing something and then find yourself lost when everything around you has changed, or accept that any point you occupy is capable of flux and then be able to make the necessary calculations and adjustments to act in relationship to the changed relative positions of things? false security or the security (confusion?) of knowing that you will need to constantly gather new info to be safe? 

there is an old saying - the more things change, the more things stay the same. once this is accepted then relativism becomes a stable point of focus which provides the ability to deal with the fluctuations. 

at any one point in time i am able to ascertain a certain number of truths. In the next moment i may find that many of these have changed. Is it helpful to me to continue to operate under the denial of those changes? once again i would call upon my experiences as a therapist and say that helping people let go of those useless _truths_ is a big part of what therapists do. Also being near the silicon Valley, i can tell you that there is lots of work for therapists working with techies who want the world to work as you describe - full of constants and social equations. If there is such a pattern, it is more likely a fractal type than a linear type.

and when you once again complain that a thread isn't going the way you wanted, is it because we are missing your point or because you are missing others' points? and if it is others who miss yur point, then perhaps all you need to do is present your point a little more clearly. i realize this is a tall order and easier said than done.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

I liked the direction the thread was going... what were we talking about again?


----------



## Erchems Joyous (Mar 24, 2002)

For those who know MDLarson, I am his wife.  First of all, I would like to say that Empirical truth and absolute truth are entirely different things.  Empirical truth can be proven: i.e. scientific proof, the law of gravity.  Absolute truth is "capital T truth" and has to do with things that cannot be scientifically proven, such as whether or not God exists, or if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  I think that these two different kinds of truth need to be kept in mind as we discuss this issue, because they are so different.

We also have different terministic screens through which we see truth.  For example, if a friend of mine tells me that she likes my hair, I would take it as a compliment and keep it styled that way.  If. on the other hand, someone I don't like or trust says that she likes my hair, I might style it differently.  I have different reactions to the same words.  Terministic screens also include our personal history and what emotions and perceptions we bring to a situation.  All of that said, I believe that there is absolute truth, and as much as we debate it, opinions on this probably will not be changed because of our terministic screens.  Perceptions create realities, true or not.  The thing we cannot argue about is the fact that there is empirical truth because it can be proven.  If I say that gravity exists and show you scientific fact, you cannot reasonably say that it doesn't exist.  It is fact.  

Thanks for enduring my long-windedness.  I just think it's important to understand the kinds of truth we are talking about in order to comprehend a huge and abstract subject like truth.

P.S. In case you're wondering, Matt didn't tell me to post this--I wanted to post it on my own!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 25, 2002)

First let me say welcome to this forum! 

A word about _empirical truth_ if I may. You brought up the _law of gravity_ as an example, which we should look at more closely because it is not that different from your definition of _absolute truth_. Granted, the effects of gravity appear constant throughout our lives, but the question about the nature of gravity has taken many forms... all within the _scientific proof_ of any given period since Newton. The very terminology for describing gravity is misleading (the phrase _force of gravity_ makes little sense when you understand that gravitation is not a force at all). Our current understanding has changed little in the last 85 years, but there are people who are working on a (hopefully) more complete version that can bring the ideas of gauge theories (which describe the other _forces_, which are also not forces, of nature) and general relativity together under the same framework.

Another good example would be the nature of our universe. Up to about the 1920's physics had been pushing what was called the _Steady State_ theory. With the data collected by Hubble and a closer inspection of general relativity, the 1930's gave rise to the _Big Bang_ theory. With data collected in the 1970's, Big Bang theory lost favor to the alternative _Inflation Cosmology_ (which I personally have some problems with, because the same information from the 70's data could point to a less messy theory, that cleans up some problems with topological exceptions in the large scale structure of space time... but I digress).  Someone who believes in _scientific proof_ would most likely believe the news reports like one I remember from the early 90's that said something like _Scientist say Universe is only 9 billion years old_. That report was supposed to be based on an article in the journal _Nature_, but the actual article stated that with only a handful of readings (of a process that takes thousands) researcher say that a ball park figure for the age of the universe can be seen at about 9 billion years (+/- 5 billion), but it is going to take more than ten years to finish the study before any results can be put forward.

The point is that empirical truth requires either active participation or faith in the source. Even then, most science is a work in progress, sorta like guessing what a puzzle is going to look like when it is only half finished. You may get a good overall picture in most places, but many of the details are still missing. And if your source for scientific information doesn't take the time to know what it is they are reporting, then you could just be getting allot of misinformation.

On the topic of your _terministic screens_, your definition would make it so that only someone without terministic screens would even have a chance at knowing an _absolute truth_. And seeing as we all seem to have them, yourself included, we really can't possible know of an _absolute truth_. We all live in a world clouded by emotions, insecurities, misconception, misinformation and/or lack of information. Personally, realizing that, I would say that relativism would be the best course for dealing with life.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 25, 2002)

My truth is not your truth, nor is yours mine.



I get lost in all this philosophical talk about truth.  Get me going on the nature of intelligence, and I can keep up.  But at certain points in the discussion of truth I think to myself "Self, why are you participating in this discussion?  These are just opinions about truth."

Ack.  Sense make no I.  Bed am going I to.


----------



## edX (Mar 25, 2002)

i also welcome you Joyous. i find this a new wrinkle - a husband and wife tag team. I like it.  and your post fit completely on my screen so it doesn't qualify as long in these kinds of discussion.

but 1st let me point out that empirical has nothing to do with proof or disproof. Empirical simply means that something is observable. Look it up in a dictionary. by virtue of being observable a phenomenon may be subjectable to experimentation. experimetation may lead to some sort of proof.  RacerX gave a pretty good explanation of that and the fallacies of believing that experimental data delivers anything but temporary relative truths. It helps to be prepared that the next experiment might yield different data. 

I also think that RacerX did a wonderful job of associating your escape clause (personal filters) with the very reason we cannot know absolute truths if they do exist. I think this is a variation of what i was arguing earlier.

and it is this 'faith' in the unknowable that is so perplexing. Without stepping all the way to spirituallity yet, let's look at some other things that are not subject to experimentation. When i say there are no ducks in this room, we can observe that and either prove or disprove it. when i say there are no ducks in the world, you can find a duck and disprove me. If I say there are no ducks on Pluto, then you might believe me but in truth neither of us knows for certain. We have not searched every square inch of Pluto to find out. Likewise if i say there are unicorns, you can not disprove i am wrong. not finding a unicorn does not disprove that one might exist somewhere.

now take that understanding with you into the realm of spirituality. No one can disprove the existence of anyone else's 'God'. There are no observable Gods. There are observable actions of 'nature' that we often attribute as the actions of God(s), but in fact we cannot prove or disprove this association.  And so we lend our peraonal filters to the task of understanding what we do not know in some way that makes sense with the rest of the world as we know it. and we create our own Truths in the process. We often do this in groups yet somehow those personal filters still keep everyone from agreeing on the absolute Truths. And since no one can prove you are right or wrong in any but  relative manner, relative truths are all we ever work with despite the inherent tendencies we have to declare them absolutes and unchangable. 

one last side note and i will be done for now - as a social scientist i have been taught the importance of hypothesis testing. Which is to say that it is necessary to hypothesize first and then collect data to see if it is supported. one can support a lot of hypotheses with randomly collected data that contains multiple variables. It is becoming more important to offer more than one hypothesis for any given situation and then test them all individually. this way an experimenter is not already committed to some preconceived notion of the truth. Whichever truth is uncovered will be the one with the most evidence. Even then, more than one hypothisis may be supported by the findings in which case neither is abslutely true. both may contain elements of the truth, but both likely contain fallacies as well. and any 'proven' hypothesis is likely to give way to a new hypothesis and a new truth in the future as we refine our methods. but what do we find most of the time - that nothing is always true and that proven truths are only guides that we must be ready to abandon in the face of individual evidence to the contrary.


----------

