posted
So when we're arguing over what is true and what is false, what exactly is at stake? If I hold a false belief, why is that a problem for me?
Does "truth" have a value all of its own?
An example. Let's say I believe that jumping out of a plane without a parachute is perfectly safe. What exactly is at stake in that belief? Is it only the potential harm? Is the practical matter of death the only reason it is better to have an accurate picture of sky diving?
What about a more abstract issue? Let's say I'm an atheist, and that I'm wrong. The Christian God exists. Is the only thing at stake my eternal soul? Does it actually matter that I'm wrong, per se?
Or, what if I hold some basically trivial untrue belief... say, I believe that WWII began in 1950 and ended in 1961. What is at stake there? Is the only important thing about this the fact that I'd look like an idiot to my peers?
What if i believe something that could be correct, but as yet is unverifiable? Say I believe in aliens, and I'm wrong - no intelligent ETs exist. Let's also say I keep my belief to myself, so I don't have to worry about ridicule from my peers. Am I losing out on anything by secretly holding that (hypothetically) false belief?
So is "truth" valuable per se? Or is it only the practical results of holding true or false beliefs that is important?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concepts in your mind should mostly mirror reality, aside from important exceptions like imagination, dreams, fiction, etc. If your concepts do not model reality accurately, this means your brain and you cannot realize your full potential, whether or not this has practical implications.
In more practical terms, there's a principle in learning that the more you know, the easier it can be to learn more. If you have lots of untrue beliefs and ideas rattling around in your head, this makes it harder to learn more.
So yes, truth is inherently valuable, both to individuals and society.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Concepts in your mind should mostly mirror reality, aside from important exceptions like imagination, dreams, fiction, etc. If your concepts do not model reality accurately, this means your brain and you cannot realize your full potential, whether or not this has practical implications.
In more practical terms, there's a principle in learning that the more you know, the easier it can be to learn more. If you have lots of untrue beliefs and ideas rattling around in your head, this makes it harder to learn more.
So yes, truth is inherently valuable, both to individuals and society.
I think you’re talking about consistency. As long as one holds beliefs that reflect reality (i.e. “true”) they are very likely to be consistent with each other, and will permit to learn more “true” beliefs. (And that is because our Universe appears to be quite consistent.) Random beliefs would spoil that consistency, that’s why holding “true” ones is better than a “mélange”.
But one can (like in fiction) construct a set of “false” beliefs (non reflecting reality) that is equally consistent. That’s my criteria for liking or not (science) fiction. Incidentally, that’s what I appreciate about the “Enderverse” that OSC has created.
posted
What exactly do you mean by reaching your potential? A person can have a ridiculous set of metaphysical, religious, psychological, historical and political beliefs and still do amazing things. I doubt you'd find many things to agree on with, say, a 10th century Aztec king; but would you argue that king was leading some kind of empty life?
Even so Morbo, I do think you are talking about practical consequences. The ability to learn more is not a practical matter?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truth is important because beliefs determine decisions, and because true beliefs will allow you to make correct decisions. Being blind to reality puts one in danger of walking off some cliff without even realizing it until too late.
quote:As long as one holds beliefs that reflect reality (i.e. “true”) they are very likely to be consistent with each other, and will permit to learn more “true” beliefs. (And that is because our Universe appears to be quite consistent.) Random beliefs would spoil that consistency, that’s why holding “true” ones is better than a “mélange”.
I think this is backwards. Consistency is totally unimportant EXCEPT for the fact that we assume reality is consistent, and thus that inconsistent beliefs must reflect some falsity. In fact, if reality were inconsistent, then it would be better to hold true but inconsistent beliefs rather than false but consistent beliefs. After all, true beliefs allow you to make correct decisions. Consistent beliefs only allow you to make consistent decisions - which doesn't help you at all if those decisions are consistently wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little parallel to the question: how much value is there in the seeking of truth on a grander sense versus truth on a moment-to-moment basis?
A philosophy piece I once read posited that it was possible that, for example, I've never existed before this moment, and that all my perceptions, memories, and beliefs spontaneously came together at this moment; no similar moment may have existed before this time, and no moment may exist after. But how much value is there in considering such things, if there may be no external view from which I could realize that version of reality was true? Would it be a waste of time to ponder such, rather than try to recognize possibly illusory truths in an illusory reality?
Or another point: the Newtonian model of the atom is not strictly accurate. But it was highly valuable in broadening our understaning of the elemental nature of the universe, despite its flaws.
Is it worth spending all one's time trying to spot the flaws in your telescope, when you could instead be looking at the stars?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll throw in with the "truth is practical" camp. I'd expand on that, but others have already said what I would, and better than I could.
quote:posted by Launchywiggin: And that the absence of truth is inherently evil.
Would you mind explaining this a bit more? It's a claim I've heard before, but it doesn't at all square with my concepts of evil or ignorance. It seems to me that, while truth is valuable, it's absence is more or less valueless.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think this is backwards. Consistency is totally unimportant EXCEPT for the fact that we assume reality is consistent, and thus that inconsistent beliefs must reflect some falsity. In fact, if reality were inconsistent, then it would be better to hold true but inconsistent beliefs rather than false but consistent beliefs. After all, true beliefs allow you to make correct decisions. Consistent beliefs only allow you to make consistent decisions - which doesn't help you at all if those decisions are consistently wrong. [emphasis added]
Well, I say that without consistency, there is no possible “practical truth”. I mean, it the Universe/reality would be inconsistent, how would you know just what is “true”? (Other than “the reality is inconsistent”, of course). Inconsistency means that you can prove things to be “true” and “false” at the same time, or that each time you make a deduction, you can’t know if the result will be the same as the last time, or that a given action will have each time another (unpredictable) effect. Therefore, the value of any “truth” is nil here.
This just brings us to those systems that are so complex that seem “chaotic” (or even inconsistent) to us. Take the weather for example. There are correlations in there too, but our limited knowledge still makes “forecasts” on the long term “unreliable”. What is the inconsistent truth about the rain to fall 3 months from now? What is its use?
BTW, I’m not saying that in an inconsistent reality it’s better to hold false but consistent beliefs. If there is no possible “truth” then how can you define the “falseness”?
posted
My apologies for breaking the discussion, but I just have to drop my two bits. Feel free to completely ignore my ramblings if they do seem to hold any truth.
Truth is something that's not only reasonable or logical. You'll never be able to pin it down that way. Truth has to do with feeling as well. And therefor it's countenance is different for every individual. Trying to capture the truth with words alone is futile. Because even the words themselves can have varying definitions in the minds of different persons. One can agree with statements because of their logic and reason, but it's also possible to feel something is right even though one can not quite put into words why this might be so.
posted
Good point about Newton's atom which was false, but good for science in the long run (practical).
I was more thinking about how truth is inherent in our beings (not just for practical purposes of knowledge), and one can feel that truth = good; the opposite of truth = bad. Perhaps that's why someone eventually sought to prove Newton's atom wrong, because it didn't gel with their being.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to think that truth is inherently good.
And that the absence of truth is inherently evil.
But the 64 million dollar question is why.
quote:One can agree with statements because of their logic and reason, but it's also possible to feel something is right even though one can not quite put into words why this might be so.
Is "feeling" something to be true the same as "being true"?
I think I laid out pretty black and white examples, Eduardo. If someone feels WWII began in 1951, what do you say to them?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds of the major philosophical question "Why be moral?" For many theists, the answer can be that you'll suffer through divine actions otherwise. Many atheiests have tried to make the case that you'll be better off, or feel better off, if you act morally.
All of this is still related to the practicality of morality - if you're a rational being, you'll figure out that it's in your best interest to be moral. But isn't that a child's conception of morality? "Be good or something bad will happen to you!"
I gotta think there's something more involved than just this. Likewise for truth.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that a rather childish way to approach truth though? "This answer is unacceptable to me, so I'll just wish/hope/pray there's something more." I don't want to seem dismissive, it's just that I've never understood this approach. How does the attractiveness of a thing determine it's truth-value?
In morality, I think, there's some leeway for one's desires in dilemmas where all viable paths have the same (or closely similar) practical worth.
quote:posted by Launchywiggin: I was more thinking about how truth is inherent in our beings
See, I think this is what I don't get. It seems to me that babies come into this world not knowing much besides to cry when they're unhappy and to suck on any nipple-like object presented to them at the appropriate time. What inherent truth do they possess?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a total side note, there was no Newtonian model of the atom. You are probably thinking of the Bohr model.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust: My utterings aren't always what they appear to be. If someone were to tell me that they believed that WWII started in 1951, then I would ask them to explain their source material. Personally, I think the truthfulness of statements increases as one finds more sources saying the same thing. But saying the same thing can sometimes be accomplished by using very different words. What I'm basically trying to say is that we tend to test the truthfulness of things in a rational fashion, but that in some cases it is impossible to find/create a definitive rational explanation and one is left to trust the feeling that something is true. I hope this somewhat clarifies my stance on the issue.
Juxtapose: one inherent truth babies carry within them is that we are all equal and that all differences between humans are less important than this commonality. Unfortunately, as one grows up, there are countless ways in which we are distracted from this very important truth, and if one loses touch with it, trouble ensues.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
