Submitted 11 months ago by dope@lemm.ee to [deleted]
Yes; but only if you accept that FACT and TRUTH are different things.
TRUTH is what is commonly accepted as fact.
FACT is reality.
Keep in mind that at one point the TRUTH was that the sun revolved around the earth, but the FACT was the other way around.
Reality probably has no facts. Just interpretations from various perspectives.
Reality probably has no facts.
Is that a fact?
It is useful to assume objective facts. For example I’ve only ever seen things falling down. I have formed a model in my head and so far my predictions concerning gravity have always been useful in my life. You’re free to not believe in it but then your life will be more like a 1yo toddler in a baby’s high chair who has to try 500 times a day if the napkin will continue to fall on the ground the next time.
let me guess, your goal here it to get blocked for asking stupid questions, and then go
“REEEEEEEEEE-THEY SAID NO STUPID QUESTIONS-REEEEEEEEEEE”
just to prove to yourself, that indeed, your questions are in fact stupid?
Do you speak from experience?
Whatever you want to believe, you’ll find information to back it up. Flat earth, 9-11 conspiracies, etc. Critical thinking is the key.
Says the guy born and raised in a thinking-obsessed culture.
I suspect that attention is keyer.
I don’t believe you.
But you believe the hundred assertions implied. So we could say that you 99% agree. Which is near enough.
I tend to think of it more that truth is what actually transpires, and my reality is a story I tell myself to approximate that truth.
The story I tell myself is 99% based on the stories told me by those around me, assuming they’re real and not just another part of my own narrative of invented inside my consciousness.
That last 1% is a mix of sensory experience, chemistry and randomness.
One wonders what happens when you find out some are atheists, some are Christian’s and there’s that random hippy-buhddist guy that is mostly full of shit.
As others have mentioned, it really depends on the context of the question- philosophy? Religion? Politics? Whether it rained or not?
Would you rather be right because you repeat the right words, or wrong on your own?
These are kinda stupid and arbitrary choices. I’d pick no 1
That depends on how those people determined their beliefs to be true. And how you define truth.
Yeah, but when all the people agree with me it sure feels like I’m right. And if I get my facts from those same people then the short path to that state seems so obvious that it’s practically mandatory. Because I like being right.
As I said, it depends on how you define truth. If it’s enough that people agree with you, your distance from the generally accepted truth can vary widely, depending on the donor of people you base it on. The fact that people agree with you didn’t make something true on its own.
Effectively the question is: How reproducible do you want your truth to be?
If you only need your buddy to come to a similar truth you may not need to argue that much. But to convince a perfect stranger you will probably have to make your case properly. How did you arrive at your truth? Which conformable facts do you base it on? Which predictions does your claimed truth make, that might validate it?
I mean, if you’re surrounded by idiots, then no.
And you can be surrounded by people who are smart but wrong, too. Time was, everyone thought the earth was flat, but that didn’t make it so.
Or maybe there isn’t even an earth.
You can have perfectly logical conclusions derived from false assumptions too.
Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 11 months ago
Consensus is a kind of testing for truth, but truth itself. Hopefully, people will believe true things in aggregate, but sometimes your peers will agree on an untruth.
A philosopher would say that there is no truth, or at least we can’t be sure we know it. After all, what is “truth” when everything you perceive might not even exist?
An educator would say there are some things we can know for ourselves, like what “too hot” feels like or what “tasty food” is, some things we have to rely on experts for, like “how far away stars are” or “what the earth is made of”, and some things that aren’t objective at all and so can’t be known, like “who deserves this” or “what is immoral”. These are all kinds of truth.
dope@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I hear moral rightness and reasonable rightness knocking against each other here.
It might be as simple as “it works for them so maybe it would work for me”.
And there’s also “around here we say thus and thus. You are from around here, aren’t you?”
There has to be a more casual way of working with this stuff. As casual as monkeys poking anthills with sticks.