Is there such a thing as truth

[LORD-ICON]

some statements are true like idk SALLYS HAIR IS RED if its truly red then no matter what shade of RED it is its still red
now opinion like GOD IS REAL or something like P.O.D sucks those are opinions just because a lot of people think this that doesnt mean its true
soooo yes there are some truths in this world even though some truths can be broken like
THIS IS A SAFE SITE and a week later a hacker breaks into it so thats and opinion not truth
conclusion: maybe

[blackprince491]

but how can sally have red hair if red may or may not be the same 4 all ppl

[Brent-tc]

Everything I say is a lie.

Did i blow your mind?

Hmmm... I have encountered many people who believe that statement is a paradox. It is not.

My proof:
You have told the truth in the past once before.
Now you say "everything I say is a lie".
That is clearly a a lie, as you have told a truth in the past.
Which has no contradiction to your statement.

This is the correct form of that paradox "This statement is a lie."

[Brent-tc]

Now, on to the subject of the thread.

Yes, truth exists, as it is all around us. Though people may not necessarily agree with something that is true, that makes it no less true. The only real exception to this rule is opinion (and lies of course). If I said "I know a small amount of c++", that is not necessarily a truth. Someone may interpret 'small' as meaning something beyond what is intended. Now this is truth "I know how to declare a variable in c++"

[thedotmaster]

2+2=4, true?
2.49999, rounds down to 2.
1.5 rounds up to 2.
So, 2 could mean 2.4999 just as easily as 1.5 or simply 2.
2 + 2 could mean 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.
The truth is only true when placed in context.

[OneArrow]

Truth is fundamentally based upon human understanding. "2+2 = 4" is only a true statement in a very specific system. Entirely divorced from context, it has no inherent meaning at all. "My core temps are 58C and 61C" depend on inherently imprecise measurements that we ourselves have defined in the first place. Even "I know how to declare a variable in C++" references a man-made construct - the process of variable declaration is correct because we have deemed it so (and enforce it through vicious-looking compiler errors).

Because human understanding is clearly incomplete, I think it would be premature to conclude that we can declare anything as true with any sort of finality. Of course, applying this line of reasoning would render all debate on anything meaningless ("you don't know that for certain" would be sufficient to end discussion in most cases). The solution, then, would be to further human understanding by applying what we think we know (theory as opposed to "truth"), and revising as necessary.

In short, I would question everything.

[ckFoxTrot]

Is there Truth... maybe...

Would we ever be able to discern if we came across "truth" or not? probably not.

What we know as truth boils down to "intersubjectivity." What is accepted as true by the majority of people is accepted as true. Just look at astronomy or the sciences. It was once believed that the world was flat. This was "true." Then it was discovered that the earth is round and at the center of the universe... so on and so on.

If you want to read a great book on truth and science check out this book by Kuhn, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Struct ... 083/?itm=4

As he finds, the fundamentals science is based on are no different than, say, religion... and, like I said, truth is basically whatever is generally accepted at the time (intersubjectivity).

The thing is, whether we can discover real Truth or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that we need the appearance of being able to do so.

If you do not have Truth, even if it is just intersubjectivity disguised as Truth, then anything is possible or allowable. There are no guidelines or rules to govern society.

Science, though its basic fundamentals may be no different than religion, has gained the reputation of being Truth, largely due to the quantitative aspect and being able to "prove" something, regardless of whether or not you are really proving anything and whether or not what you proved may be found to be false later on.

Also related to intersubjectivity are differences in personal interpretations of our world.

For those talking about colors, and Red always being Red... that is not necessarily the case.

There is never a one-to-one relationship between the world and how we perceive it. There is always a filter inbetween. Our own personal interpretation/perception of what we experience.

None of our senses are identical. Even the language we speak and our comprehension of it and the meanings of different words, phrases, or sentences differ within a single language. Bring in cross-language differences and you introduce even more problems. Ever heard a foreigner say that they are going to "go get on their car"? It is not because they don't know how to speak english well enough, it is because the relationships between objects differs across cultures.

Back to colors, here in the U.S., we have something like 27 different unique color terms that we can identify. Some cultures have as few as 2 (with the same ocular traits that we have). For them, there may be only light and dark, or white and black. I think one culture, if I remember correctly, has Red and Black. For these cultures, all the other colors terms that we know simply do not exist, they are just shades of their two colors. Then there are all the other cultures somewhere between the min and max.

Then, the best representation of a color also differs between people of the same culture. The "best" representation of Red for one person may very well look like Purple to you. So how do you figure out what the "best" Red is? An average of sorts, Intersubjectivity. What is Red anyways, aside from a human creation to describe something we experience. If cones never developed in the eye would Red still exist? Might there be some evolutionary trait that may change color or light perceptions all-together? Would it be "progress?" Would it be "better?"

Anyways, sorry for the drawn out, wordy response.

Look up that book by Kuhn for more info. That, and Terms of Inquiry by Davis. Maybe read some Popper, Lakatos, or Feyerabend too.

Back to my point, there may very well be Truth, but we have to settle for popular opinion.

[terpsfreak129]

There is such a thing as truth to the extent that something is true within our realm and existence. Something that is true to someone, may not be true for someone else. For example: The red chair is red. -- Different people have different definitions of red, as some may be blind, colorblind, or whatnot.So to some people, the red chair could be red, blue, gray, or may not exist at all.
However, this brings it back to my main point,which is that something can be true within our own realm. To me, that chair would be red, and that would be true.

Also keep in mind that anything we talk about being true, has been determined true by ones brain, and ultimately, something determined as true, or fact, is in your own existence, and may or not be true to someone else.

[beagle]

Jonas has 9 toes

Poor Jonas.

[thedotmaster]

Going off topic but.... beagle, your sig:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we, They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do I."

I know he didn't mean to say it like that but if he had he'd have been very clever.
It's not funny at all really, you ought to think like the enemy "how would I attack the US?".