Errol Morris, "There Is Such a Thing as Truth"

[Neutiquam Erro]

Errol Morris: "There Is Such a Thing as Truth" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4620511)

This short essay was presented on NPR yesterday. It's nicely summarized in this quote:

It's not that we find truth with a big "T." We investigate and sometimes we find things out and sometimes we don't. There's no way to know in advance. It's just that we have to proceed as though there are answers to questions. We must proceed as though, in principle, we can find things out -- even if we can't. The alternative is unacceptable.

A refreshingly rational perspective.

[El_Spectre]

Excellent... there's nothing wrong with acknowleding that we are just moving from (hopefully) higher to lower states of ignorance. Can we ever find the "truth"? I dunno, and I doubt we can ever know before we get there.

I find it somewhat refreshing that everytime we have a big jump in our ability to observe, the universe reveals a new level of complexity.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The "truth" is a philosophical concept, it is also an accepted goal for most of the population. However, the difficulties that arise when trying to see what is meant by the word "truth" are way to big to ignore the fact that, we simply dont know.

I liked to quote.

[Francois Tremblay]

Truth is not something esoteric. Is it true that you are posting on this board ? If not, then why are you wasting your time ?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Is it true that you are posting on this board?

Is it a fact? or a truth?

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Is it a fact? or a truth?

Should I take that as a no, you are not actually posting here ?

[clarsct]

I think we have a communication gap here.

That I posted on this board at about 4:28 pm , Central Standard Time is a fact. A truth would be more along the lines of: Stealing is wrong. Facts are generally numerical, verifiable, and falsable. Truths are a more philosophical matter. What is truth to one person is another person's belly laugh. I think in the article 'truth' was meant as 'an idea uncovered that advances our base of knowledge, explains facts that we see, and promotes new theories'

There are both philosophical considerations as well as factual ones in that statement. I think that's what Bodhi was talking about, although I may be wrong and he is free to correct me.

[Francois Tremblay]

That I posted on this board at about 4:28 pm , Central Standard Time is a fact. A truth would be more along the lines of: Stealing is wrong. Facts are generally numerical, verifiable, and falsable. Truths are a more philosophical matter.

So, to be clear about this, you consider "I posted on this board at about 4:28 pm , Central Standard Time" to be factual but false ?

I'd be also interested in your proof that stealing to save one's life from hunger is wrong.

At this point, you guys are sinking yourself more and more, and it might be a good idea to cut your losses.

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
So, to be clear about this, you consider "I posted on this board at about 4:28 pm , Central Standard Time" to be factual but false ? I'm not sure whether you're arguing honestly or being deliberately obtuse here.

In either case, you're ignoring the conceptual difference between "a true statement" (aka: a fact) and "a truth" (in the philosophical sense). Your example falls into the former catagory; the topic of the OP falls into the later. The two concepts are apples and oranges to each other, although the the distinction often gets blurred in casual conversation.

For "a truth" that gets refined over the years, consider an abriged progression of gravitational theories:

Gallileian: Everything falls at the same contantly accelerating rate where friction is negligible.
-- This as "true" a statement. It is not absolutely true, but it is true enough over a small stretch at the surface of the earth that no one could have done better at the time.

Newtonian: The force between two objects is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their seperation.
-- This is a "truer" statement then Galileo's. Again, it's not absolutey true, but it's still as true as anyone could have known at the time.

Relativistic: Things get @#%$-ing weird at speeds aproaching that of light or in proximity to massively gravitational bodies.
-- This statement is "truer still" than Newton's. In fact, it's as true as anything we are currently able to determine.

So, does that make Relativity "the Truth" in regards to gravity? We have no way of answering that question decisively.

[Vim Razz]

oops, hit the wrong button

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Should I take that as a no, you are not actually posting here ?

Is it a fact? or not

[Francois Tremblay]

Vim Razz : You are either trolling me or confused. I agree that truth is refined as we find new evidence ! That is how reason works. Bodhi and clarsct are the ones trying to dissociate truth from knowledge.

"Is it a fact? or not"

It is a fact and a true proposition as well.

[clarsct]

You've hit on the point. Knowledge is a collection of facts. One cannot definitively prove that stealing is wrong. It offends our sense of rightness, and we consider it to be truth that stealing is wrong. This is part of the reason we have laws against it. Of course, there is extenuating circumstances to consider. Stealing to feed yourself is wrong, from a certain point of view. And, therefore, falls into philosophy. There is nothing in the Constituion prohibiting murder, yet murder is illegal. Why? Because we say it is wrong to take the life of another. Are there circumstances that can mitigate this, yes. That is why law is administered by Human Beings and not by computers.

Truth is seperate from knowledge. Especially when you speak of Truth, not just truth.

As for the question you asked, I find it nonsensical. I said the statement was falsable, that is, it could be checked and seen to be false. Truth is not falsable. You cannot go look it up in the big book of TRUTH and figure out if it fits the mold. Therefore, all that is truthful is not necessarily factual.

[Francois Tremblay]

One cannot definitively prove that stealing is wrong.

We can't prove a falsehood, no. The statement you gave was false because it does not reflect the fact of the matter, which is that stealing is sometimes good and most of the time wrong. Your statement is a red herring, since no one said stealing was wrong except you.


There is nothing in the Constituion prohibiting murder

And that would be because the Constitution describes the role of government, not the laws of the land. That makes two red herrings in a row.


Truth is seperate from knowledge.

No it's not. As the other poster explained, something can be true and yet later found to be insufficient. You are trying to set another standard of "truth" that is wholly fantastic.


Truth is not falsable.

Wrong. All meaningful propositions are falsifiable. Unless you are saying that truth is not meaningful, which is just as ridiculous as saying that truth is separate from knowledge.

[Kopji]

Alfred Tarski lays a good foundation for this too:
http://www.ditext.com/tarski/tarski.html

[Francois Tremblay]

No he doesn't. He uses Correspondence Theory as his justification, and Correspondence Theory is nonsense. There is no identification of apart from what our senses give us, so to speak of truth as anything but the result of a method (labeling something true if it corresponds to a fact we have no access to) is about as meaningful as making truth dependent on divine revelation.

Truth is what is obtained by a rational process (such as the scientific method). No other definition is possible or needed.

[Kopji]

Karl Popper relied on his argument for his theory of falsification.

[Kopji]

Popper learnt of Tarski's theory at an early stage of his philosophical career, and always stressed
its importance. He liked especially its vindication of the view of truth as correspondence with
facts, and for siting truth in the metalanguage of a theory with the consequent avoidance of all
those old headaches about assertion and belief
http://www.univie.ac.at/karlpopper2002/abstracts/Symposia/boyerfinal.pdf

Am I incorrect in identifying Karl Popper as sort of an uber-falsificationist? He seems like a pretty premier science kind of guy.
And I don't see anything evil and god worshiping in Tarski's paper, he seems like a respected guy too.

Or are you better and I should listen to you instead?

[Kopji]

I should just let this thread die quietly without comment. I was expecting to be pummeled here by now, humm, maybe I'm not worth the trouble. :)

I do not understand though, how I could hold a great idea like 'falsification' without also having a specific philosophy that allows there is such a thing as objective truth.

The scientific idea of 'falsification' needs the underlying philosophy that the 'truth' of something may be approached or described by various facts and evidence, even though we may never be absolutely sure.

This connection of science with truth is what makes science so different from religion, and so much more beautiful.

Because of thinkers like Tarski, we use 'true' in a sense that has meaning. Tarski allows us to derive some logical conclusions:

Is true
Is false
Now indeterminate but will be shown to be true
Now indeterminate but will be shown to be false
Now indeterminate and will always remain so

(as I see it) It is not so much that ideas like 'God' are worthless because 'they cannot be falsified', it is that such ideas are shown by falsification to be always indeterminate. There is no evidence that could show them to be true or not. We cannot 'approach' the truth in an external way.

If there is 'truth', to these things, it is an inner understanding - unprovable. Asking if art or beauty were true, we might attempt to 'prove' a work of art was beautiful. But unless a person experienced it in an inward sense, we are wasting our time or worse, imposing a kind of tyranny.