Truth

Why there is no absolute truth.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Philosophy
• buddhism
• dino
• dini
• western
• science
• truth

[eikons]

The reason for a universally accepted truth is it's practical application in the past. If I drop a brick, I'm quite sure that gravity will do it's job in forcing it down. I cannot prove that bricks will always do this, the next brick I drop might not. But we all accepted that this is how gravity works just because it has proved more reliable than "bricks fly up" in the past. The same goes for math on geometry, or religion, for that matter. It cannot be disproved, but that doesn't make it useful.

[dndn1011]

@eikons You can be sure the brick will fall, but can you be sure of why? It accelerates dues to a force, but you cannot see the force, you infer the force. Thus force is an assumption. No doubt it might be possible to come up with a version of classical mechanics where force is not given a name or considered. On such assumptions rules are built. The point is which ever assumptions we make are based on practicality, not truth.

[eikons]

@dndn1011 I feel this enters the domain of philosophy, and arguments always water down when it comes to that, since arguments rest on the foundations that philosophy question. But I'll give it a shot. Don't you think that instead of inventing a new system of geometry that adheres to the constraints of what such a system is supposed to be, we should question those constraints? Because if I "prove" gravity wrong by showing how helium works, the mistake would be to disregard the weight of air.

[dndn1011]

@eikons The disregarding of something of which one is unaware is an implicit assumption. You may not know about it, but it is there. It simply does not belong to your version of the truth.

[eikons]

@eikons That is to say that a system being "self-sustaining" does not prove it to be any more true than a system we can practically apply. This is why, when multiple systems that cannot be dis-proven, it is safe to assume the one with practical value may be regarded as the true one. Ultimately, nothing can be proven. Uncomfortable as it may be, assumptions are the foundations of our knowledge. Looking for things that haven't been dis-proven is just a backwards way of going about science.

[dndn1011]

@floating00eye you miss the point; all belief systems (including scientific belief) is founded on what is most convenient for any purpose. The self referential paradox is perhaps easily shown to fall outside formal systems due to the fact that an SRP is not self consistent. Self consistency is an important aspect of "completely self consistent belief systems that explain the world".

[floating00eye]

@WAKEUPstudios I agree, he doesn't address the self-referential paradox. In which case the argument is more aesthetic than epistemological. And even though scientific thought has to make certain assumptions, that doesn't mean that ANY assumptions made about any belief system are equally valid; i.e., many problems have an infinite number of related solutions, but there is an infinitely greater number of solutions which are, indeed, incorrect.

[amccann7]

Interesting thoughts you share.