It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Truth, proof and fact: You think, it's rare.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Often when you read a thread on ATS, (or have a conversation with anyone anywhere,) you have to deal with folks presenting a belief as a fact.
This is known as the subjective fallacy: Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so.

Many people know this philosophical rule, using it often as an argument in an of itself: "So says you!"

However, this is an incomplete concept. For what if your definitions of "truth" or "fact" are in error? You would be deciding upon something for which the very foundation of your reasoning was faulty.

For instance: Let's suppose your reading a well written thread about the Mayan Calendar. (And by "well written" I simply mean "entertaining,") After the Original Post, a discussion commences among members. One of the members brings up a "fact" such as, "Professor Plum of the Church of the Altered Consciousness proved in 1986 that the turn over of the Mayan calendar is no different than a rare and special new year's day."

In this instance, it should be fairly clear: It might be a fact that Professor Plum said such a thing, but his theory being presented as a fact is hardly irrefutable. It could be true, we cannot state that it is true.

It is also realistic to expect to find even more substantial, real world, "scientific" proof as fallacious. Sometimes, it's hard to believe, yet even hardcore scientific types are subject to confusing belief for fact.

For instance: You're reading a thread that is a "testable" subject matter, such as the Crystal Skull phenomenon. There are crystal skulls, let's call them of two variety, one being the "original 13 skulls of lore" and all the rest. All of these skulls exist and can be tested.
Now presume you watch a special on the Discovery channel where a gaggle of Scientists get their hands on one of the original 13 skulls and perform a series of tests upon it.
Further presume they find that the skull was manufactured by machine in the year 1962. The program suggests that therefore, the entire crystal skull theory is probably bunk.

In this instance many things are misinterpreted: Is the skull they tested a "real original 13?" Was the skull an original 13 that was subsequently machined? Are they correct in reasoning that the one skull they had, likely being as authentic as any of the other "original 13," should equate to all of them being false, machined skulls?

Here is the real problem: you have to take someone's word for either case.
You have to believe the preacher who tells you God created the Universe.
You have to believe the scientist who tells you the big bang created the Universe.
Neither can prove it to you.

Facts either are or are not. They either exist or they don't.
Proof is in the sensing. No sensing, it's only belief and sometimes, even with sensing, it's a belief.

The best we can do in our search for truth is to understand that it is very difficult to discern, and for most of our lives, our thoughts, beliefs and decisions to create/adopt them, are merely guesses. From the quantum to cosmic, we simply don't yet know.

How do we do our best guessing? By coming to logical conclusions about what we can, and doing our "very best guessing" only when it's necessary. (The rest of the time, simply leaving the question unanswered.) Sounds easy, but obviously, it isn't.

Philosophical logic, the art of reasoning, is a healthy start, (but when you get into it a bit, you will discover that even it breaks down.)
In it's simplest form, consider this:
Brian is a philosopher. Philosophers are wise. Therefore, Brian is wise.
This is a true statement, reasonably sound. Yet, is it true in reality? Maybe I am, maybe not.
What does "wise" mean?
Everything breaks down to definitions, which is a slippery slope.

If I had said: Socrates is a philosopher. Philosophers are wise. Therefore, Socrates is wise.
There would probably be a greater concensus of agreement amongst readers.
Why? Because you know something of Socrates.
But how did learn what you know about Socrates? Was it true, correct and factual?
How do you know?
Socrates is not experiential in your time and place, yet I am. Does this help?
Around and around we go.

What we know compared to what we don't know is comparable to the amount of time my life takes up compared to the near infinity before and after it.

The less apt you are to make declarative statements the less likely you are look foolish in retrospect.

To read more about the nature of reality and our perception of it, please visit
www.anti-socialengineering.com...

Healthy debating, ATS.




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I find it really hard to read with all that going on in your avatar, very distracting indeed.

Edit. Thank you.
edit on 31-10-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I find it really hard to read with all that going on in your avatar, very distracting indeed.


HAHA! Yeah it is!!!

I like the post and it makes all the sense in the world. Very logical and thought out, for sure. The truth lies in the eye of the beholder. Each truth can be dissected to become false in a sense and in another sense the opposite.

edit on 31-10-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I find it really hard to read with all that going on in your avatar, very distracting indeed.



Although I've set it mostly "open" to ATS, as per the terms and conditions, I also BLOCK a large number of annoying animated avatars using adblock plus.
Even before I read the OP's post, that was one of the first things I did.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Well, I'd hate to have my threads be unread due to annoying flashing.
Therefore, if this is the way the winds are blowing, let it not be said that I don't also blow.
I have changed my avatar and rather than black bag you one at a time, I'll take you all out at once...



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The truth is that you are having an experience. Nothing else can be known for sure.

I can not be sure that you are having an experience but i know i am.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Very well said! and written... S&F



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by briantaylor
 


While your making good points, i think your seeing things from the negative point of view a little too much. Very skeptical to the extreme it seems. Still good points though.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EspyderMan
 


Skeptical of what? I thought I had expressed no opinion...



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The truth is that you are having an experience. Nothing else can be known for sure.

I can not be sure that you are having an experience but i know i am.


Excellently put!



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by briantaylor
 

I agree a lot with what you say.

The thing is, we can't say anything is fact with certainty, until we've traveled the whole universe for all of time to confirm our theories and experience. Otherwise, it's all bound to our local reality. And our local reality could be distorted in ways that we're presently unable to predict. This reminds me of predicting the future of climate. Our models may be accurate, but the only way to falsify a model's prediction is to travel into the future and to compare the model results to the actual reality. Ultimately, extreme skepticism means we're not certain about anything. But for practical purposes, extreme skepticism is counter-productive. It would be comparable to saying that Einstein is potentially wrong about EVERYTHING. The trouble with saying that is that it's highly unlikely, given our present understanding and capabilities. It's like betting the house on a lottery ticket. We have to be careful sometimes when we're skeptical of things around us.

What if we spent a fair portion of our budget asking these kinds of questions? Well, I think there's a good chance we'd quickly go into debt as the money is not being spent well.

We only have so much time and money. So we do have to judge an argument's validity. This means that nothing is certain. Life is a precarious balance, for sure.

Moreover, I think most of us know the difference between extreme skepticism and skepticism.

Creationism and Flat Earthers are at least in the realm of extreme skepticism. It could be argued that they're, in fact, crazy. Maybe their brains cannot accurately assess information.
edit on 31-10-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I agree with what you've stated and I second your statements concerning public and professional experts. That said, I suspect that there may be a reliable means to establish broad structure that will hold the truth - as a whole - steady while we look at it. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm willing to admit to being wrong if it can be accurately explained to me that I'm wrong and where it is that I've gone wrong.

I did a quick once-over of your blog site, and you seem to have an intellectual approach I can appreciate. Check your mail.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I find it really hard to read with all that going on in your avatar, very distracting indeed.


HAHA! Yeah it is!!!

I like the post and it makes all the sense in the world. Very logical and thought out, for sure. The truth lies in the eye of the beholder. Each truth can be dissected to become false in a sense and in another sense the opposite.




"The truth can be found in a lie but a lie cannot be found in the truth." - Old Toad Proverb

First, have you ever noticed the old 'eYe' quote you used, only references ONE eYe and kNot tWo?


What that is referencing is your one eYe, your mind, kNot your tWo eyes.
So that's all about perception, which isn't always the truth, it's just YOUR truth, the one you want to believe, regardless if it is the Truth or kNot.


As to your comment that "each truth can be dissected to become false in a sense and in another sense the opposite." That tWo is also perceptually based because to find a falsity in the Real Truth, requires you to Lie to yourself somehow, whether intentionally or kNot.


While math proves there can be more than one answer to an equation, it also proves that usually only one of the answers is correct.
So if your math is bad, you can easily get the wrong answer as most dew.


Luv ya Gyrlfriend!


Ribbit


Ps: Great thread, OP!



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by briantaylor

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The truth is that you are having an experience. Nothing else can be known for sure.

I can not be sure that you are having an experience but i know i am.


Excellently put!


The real question is, who is the You and how dew you kNow who the You really is, that is having this experience?


Ribbit



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Some things, I think, we can take as given.
I cannot prove I exist, but I suspect I do, by way of the suspicion.
If I can paraphraze...



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by briantaylor
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Some things, I think, we can take as given.
I cannot prove I exist, but I suspect I do, by way of the suspicion.
If I can paraphraze...


The problem is, as you pointed out in the OP, We can be mistaken about the given as well.


Who are You?

Are you your Soul or is your Soul you?

So whether or kNot you exist, is moot. It's who You are or are not that's the real question, for the correct answer to that answers the other.


Ribbit



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Hello Butt Ugly Toad,

I quite agree. I just use different terms.
I happen to write about the self, by way of study, inwardly and outwardly, expecially on the subject. (Not just of myself, but the constituents of "selfdom" in history and practise.)

In terms of intentionality, the "who I am" matters only in that it is the place from which the "what I do" springs forth. I send my intentions out into the world. The world simply is or is not.
The world is True False.
I am accept reject.

I can happily blather on and on about the constituents of paradigm, anti-social engineering the hyper-manipulated self, authenticity, the rampant ineptitude of modernity, the self, the history of the self, the domain of morality or nearly any other facet of conscious actualization, up to and including simpler aspects of neurobiology.

Surely, such conversations, although ultimately ending at a cold, unrewarding ocean of personal responsibility, would be stimulating along the way.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by briantaylor
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


Hello Butt Ugly Toad,

I quite agree. I just use different terms.
I happen to write about the self, by way of study, inwardly and outwardly, expecially on the subject. (Not just of myself, but the constituents of "selfdom" in history and practise.)

In terms of intentionality, the "who I am" matters only in that it is the place from which the "what I do" springs forth. I send my intentions out into the world. The world simply is or is not.
The world is True False.
I am accept reject.

I can happily blather on and on about the constituents of paradigm, anti-social engineering the hyper-manipulated self, authenticity, the rampant ineptitude of modernity, the self, the history of the self, the domain of morality or nearly any other facet of conscious actualization, up to and including simpler aspects of neurobiology.

Surely, such conversations, although ultimately ending at a cold, unrewarding ocean of personal responsibility, would be stimulating along the way.



What if Is is Fact and Is kNot is Fiction?

What if True is Fact and False is Fiction?

What if Accept is Fact and Reject is Fiction?

What if History of Self is Fact and Self is Fiction?

Ribbit



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   


As to your comment that "each truth can be dissected to become false in a sense and in another sense the opposite." That tWo is also perceptually based because to find a falsity in the Real Truth, requires you to Lie to yourself somehow, whether intentionally or kNot.
reply to post by ButtUglyToad
 


I don't really believe this though.
I don't "lie" to myself intentionally anyway. What is a lie? I know what I know and what I don't know will reveal itself.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

I've never used a picture as a response before.
That is a lie.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join