How we know what we know: utter denial in human beings
Utter denial: once in a while you get a clear example of this sort of thing, and I think it is fasinating to see.
Billy posted the web site for a project by two Brits who reenacted Mao's "Long March". Mao himself said that the length of this march was 25,000 li, or about 7800 miles. That "fact" became a truth for the Chinese people.
But when they actually studied it and walked it,
it turned out to be shorter:
The best I can reckon is between 13,000 and 18,000 li, or 4,060 to 5,625 miles. To my mind, this arithmetical revisionism doesn’t belittle the Long March at all. Whichever way you cut it, 4,000 miles is still a bloody long way. But to Chinese people reared on the "25,000-li Long March", my conclusion on the distance is the worst possible heresy. I could tell a dozen tales about Red atrocities or hypocrisy, or say Mao was a buffoon who knew nothing about military strategy, and still get nothing like the horrified, disbelieving response I get when I say, "You know, the Long March wasn’t really 25,000 li."
'You must have gone the wrong way," they say, as if by turning left instead of right I somehow took a 3,000-mile shortcut.
OK, that's the setup. Here's the detail. Confronted with the actual fact right before his eyes, the fact simply can't change for one gentleman:
Ever since my marching partner, Andrew McEwen, and I published our results, we’ve been patronized and insulted by everyone from taxi drivers to Communist Party historians. The latter are the most entertaining, because of the contortions they perform to "prove" Chairman Mao’s calculation was scientifically correct.
In spring 2005, Chinese National Geography [sic] surprised me by asking if I could write an article outlining why I believed the Long March was shorter than Mao said. They also commissioned a Party expert to rebut my conclusions. This gentleman marshaled all the available evidence [not a particularly onerous task, as verifying Mao’s statements by empirical research has not been a popular activity in China since the Revolution] and demonstrated that the Long March was, er, between 16,000 and 18,000 li. He concluded his article with these immortal words: "Although we are unable to identify exactly which part of the Red Army marched 25,000 li, the above facts clearly demonstrate that the 25,000 li are an unchallengeable historical fact."
Chinese National Geography cancelled the feature.
This kind of partisan denial happens in all societies, in ourselves too, and we just can't see it. It's "the truth hole" and I hope to try to understand it.
My thinking on this is affected by an NPR piece I listened to about two years ago. There was this guy who was half black as his mother had sex with a gentleman of color. Mom however steadfastly denied it to the kid all his life. She told him that there was American Indian in their bloodline and his darkish appearance was due to that. His belief became so steadfast that even when presented with scientific evidence that showed the contrary, he refused to believe it for years and years, and lived in the denial state. That denial state is fascinating to me. Things that are not true, but are believed anyway because to not believe them is psychologically difficult.
DENIAL: Don't Even kNow I Am Lying
Things that are not true, but are believed anyway because to not believe them is psychologically difficult.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
Labs, especially understaffed and overpressed American labs, have been known to make HUGE mistakes. HUGE. A man was poisoned by his wife with Anti-Freeze: the testing lab made a fatal error (very usual, by the way) and misplaced a decimal point in the results. Neveryoumind that antifreeze in ANY amount should NOT be found in humans...the lab dismissed it. Years went by before the wife was prosecuted. Medical mistakes are de riguer. It is POSSIBLE to doubt results--either lab or otherwise. Thats all I mean. d'you know how many false negative pap smears go by?
The third flawed and widespread basis for decisions often does the most damage because it is the most difficult to change. It happens when people are overly influenced by deeply held ideologies or beliefs--causing their organization to adopt some management practice not because it is based on sonud logic or hard facts but because managers "believe" it works, or it matches their (sometimes flawed) assumptions about what propels people and organizations to be successful.
Very interesting subject .
Let's start with getting rid of the easy reply 'what is truth anyway?' I have a lot of problems with the concept of time for example . I know that X particular event only ran on for a couple of hours , but why the hell does it take up the whole of my head then ? I know that that other X period of time ran on for years and years , but why does it only take up about one second of my brain ?
OK , now that is out of the way , it is interesting to remember that not all cultures count like we do . In many languages , once you have got past the fingers and toes , everything else is 'a lot' ( those cultures put detail elsewhere) . We can hardly say that the Chinese think in terms of 'a lot' . No one knows more about counting than they do . Mao obviously played around with figures and other people's credibility . This is not good , but then neither was Mao .
Seeing how little things actually were is part of growing up . We have all gone back to that huge tree of our childhood only to find out that it is just an ordinary old tree . That bottomless , scary cupboard turns out to be a scruffy little glory-hole . I have never been able to grow up completely though , as I still see my father as tall , brave and wonderful . Well , he IS tall , brave and wonderful .
And apparently it is not true about being able to see the Great Wall of China from outer space .
As a recent historical corollary, one could ask how many men were in the Million Man March? So long as history names it such, the actual number won't really matter, as it's as much a symbol as anything. In this case, the numbers aren't quite so conclusive as the Long March, but the effects of a significant number remain.
"The Boston University team figured that there were 878,587 marchers. With an estimated error margin of 25%, the number of participants could have been as high as 1,098,234 or as low as 658,940."
Info found here:
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/education/teach_guide/million_man.htmlGood point , Ridgeplate . It is also a very white American point , as was Undertoad's . Both your complementary points are valid , of course . Perhaps we choose to count when it is in our interest ? And how many tears have you counted in The Trail of Tears ?
And in America , do they do what they do in France , Ridgeplate ? Whenever there is a public demonstration , the trade unions give one figure , and the police a much lower one .
(There are no more public demonstrations in the United Kingdom , by the way . Mrs Thatcher managed to kill all the trade unions , and no one dares to demonstrate against capitalism in the UK any more .)
I experience MY truth about the world. This truth is based on my perceptions of all past experiences and knowledge. Joe has his truth, Mary has her truth, Dave has his truth, etc, etc until we encompass every person living, as well as all those that came before us. Some of us group together and agree to have an identical portion of the truth. Thus we have a mathematical group that agrees 4 + 4 = 8, we have a Christian group that agrees in salvation through Christ, we have an alcoholic group that agrees a liquid substance can control their lives,etc, etc until we encompass every group that is and has ever been. The largest group around , humans, (most humans anyway) have a truth inside us that says "I AM this truth that I perceive". So if you disagree with one of my truths you are attacking me personally as well as all my groups that I belong to. Also, if I would happen to allow myself to believe your truth that means part (if not all) of me dies.
Truth in this world is only perceptual.
Accepting a new truth = death.
Denial becomes survival
Very interesting , Bluesky .
What do you do to the people who you think are attacking you and your groups ?
If I'm speaking in generalities (as I was in my previous post), I'll speak as most humans do:
I will kill you spiritually, emotionally, or physically to prove my truth is stronger than yours.
If I'm speaking for me personally:
I TRY to acknowledge that your attack on my truth is only an ill conceived attempt for you to protect yourself and then communicate understanding back. Notice I said try, it is a very ingrained habit in all of us to perceive these things as attacks and then attack back.
I shall have to be very careful then .
Good point , Ridgeplate . It is also a very white American point , as was Undertoad's .
Points apparently now have race and nationality...that's ever so much more interesting than just having validity. Now one can be racist or nationalist about a
point without any
people actually being involved. Would pointing out that "Bolshevik" was not in fact the "majority party" at the time also be a white American point? One must think so now.
I guess we'll deprecate Orwell's observations on language and politics too...perhaps not American, but certainly white. Clearly guilty of excessive occidentalism.
And here is a point that may be a white American point without the speaker even being white. A miracle!Most people choose to put a point over when it happens to coincide with their vision of the world , MaggieL . There are loads of points all over the place . One can pick and choose .
A few people - not very many - try to see the points , and then they try to make sense of them .
I try to belong to the latter group , but I no doubt belong to the former .
I try to belong to the latter group , but I no doubt belong to the former .
No doubt. Beliving you have risen above speaking out of your own
weltanschauung must be a particularly pernicious form of self-deception.
... A few people - not very many - try to see the points , and then they try to make sense of them .
I try to belong to the latter group , but I no doubt belong to the former .
...so when you pointed out Ridgeplate's ideas as white where you trying to see the points and make sense of them or just muddle them up to promote you perceived truth ?
... and what the hell is a weltanschauung ? ;)
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/PatThk.htm
this is research project I find interesting that looks at understanding (and misunderstanding)- critical thinking, beyond just ability.
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/PatThk.htm
this is research project I find interesting that looks at understanding (and misunderstanding)- critical thinking, beyond just ability.
I would say "inclination and sensitivity" are even greater contributers than the article professes. Probably to the point that we could say "ability" is standard across the board and severe inclinations toward "inclination and sensitivity" hinder the ability to accurately measure "ability".
:3eye:
... and what the hell is a weltanschauung ? ;)
Surely a computer dude knows how to Google. :-)
People will find experiences in their life that can be used to affirm whatever they believe.
No matter what the experiences or belief. ;)
Surely a computer dude knows how to Google. :-)
You've seen through my humble attempt at drollness via feigned ignorance.
Is your leitmotiv to do with MaggieL being your doppelganger , BlueSky ? Or is that just schadenfreude on my part ?
No...just my predisposition to posting without F5ing. : )
Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
And why not?
[QUOTE=BigV]Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
QUOTE]
Well Done BigV !
I feel the essence of your quote answers the original post with a truth we often overlook.
d'you know how many false negative pap smears go by?
Just an off hand guess based on the number of women I know who've had them (false neg.) I'd say, ohhh about most of them.
Just an off hand guess based on the number of women I know who've had them (false neg.) I'd say, ohhh about most of them.
I do hope you have that backwards. If you know women who had false negatives, how did they find out?
When the tumor grew large enough to detect by non-pap-smear methods, its size indicating it must have been there during previous pap smears?
No, Maggie is on the Ball. I have that backwards. A lot of them had false positives. That's why I had to give up being an freelance groin ecologist.
Surely a computer dude knows how to Google. :-)
Computer dudes know better than to "google". Clustered results are much better.
Do you actually believe that the G-Evil company provides better search results? There is no scientific evidence to show that, and several private studies (that I am privey to, being a search expert) that indicate otherwise.
Maggie, Google is a Silicon Valley company; all other Silicon Valley companies you distrust. Why the affinity for such an evil empire? I have met with Google on three seperate occasions and I know them well. They are very evil; you have no idea. Why do you like them?
Can you give us a tib bit of their evil doings?
... and what the hell is a weltanschauung ? ;)
It's what you check when you're trying to calculate your lebensraum.
Do you actually believe that the G-Evil company provides better search results? There is no scientific evidence to show that, and several private studies (that I am privey to, being a search expert) that indicate otherwise.
Maggie, Google is a Silicon Valley company; all other Silicon Valley companies you distrust.
That's an unsupported sweeping generality...you're just cranked becuase I think your latest "WiFi NetZero" Kool-Ade smells of fish.
And "privey" sounds like where that objection belongs, too; finding the definition for a foreign word doesn't exactly require the best search engine on the planet...whatever you may believe that means. There are currently twelve engines in my search bar; I'm satisfied with Google for routine stuff such as the above. My sympathies if they compete with your advertising business.
Since you're a "search expert" you'd probably better get used to the fact that-like it or not-"google" has become a generic term for web search. (So much so that maybe they should scramble a little to protect the trademark.)
"It's not so much the verbing that wierds language, it's the renounification." No, Maggie is on the Ball.
Not any more. :-)
Can you give us a tib bit of their evil doings?
I had to sign NDAs a few times in my dealings with them. So, I am limited in what I can say. I offer the following public tid bit. I believe that Google is unfair to older workers even though they prevailed in this suit. It's very hard to prove especially with verbal comments in private.
(AP) A California judge has sided with Google Inc. in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former manager who alleged the online search engine leader had fired him because he didn't fit in with the company's youthful culture.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving granted Google a summary judgment on all the case's key issues in a Sept. 21 ruling. The judge concluded that Brian Reid, formerly Google's director of operations, hadn't presented enough evidence to prove Google fired him in February 2004 because of his age.
Reid, who was 54 when he filed the suit more than 14 months ago, said one of Google's executives told him that he lost his job because he didn't fit into Google's youthful atmosphere. ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1174574Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
And why not?
Because sometimes being kind is the greatest disservice possible. When they find out they'd been making a fool of themselves and you could have prevented it, how will they feel about you? ;)
They will feel your kindness. They will feel your love. They will forget their embarrassment. Their life will be better off from feeling the joy brought by your compassion. Besides, most of the time sacrificing kindness for "truth" is lost as people will only believe what they are ready to believe.
I have NEVER regretted the situations in my life where kindness was chosen over truth.
EDIT: after posting the above I thought it was important to clarify my view by saying that kindness is the key in BigV's quote. Many times truth is the kindness . The intentions of what you express far outweigh the syntax of the words given.
Yes , kindness is beauty .
And, to quote Keats :
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all ye know on earth and all you need to know' .
... but , we cannot be poets all the time .
What is the line between true kindness and condescension ? I would not like anyone to hide the truth from me 'out of kindness' . I decide what is good for me , not other people . Mao probably thought he was being kind when he lied to the Chinese .
This is so common it is ridiculous, the example that confuses me the most is all the evidence of Mediterranean, Asian, North African and European presences in the Americas far before Columbus, yet American and European text books still contain that falsehood.
This is true of much of what we know of history, particularly of the move West in America, but a great deal more... it is sad and shameful.
Yes . Although we do mention Eric the Red .
There is also an old tradition of a pre-Columbus North American tribe being able to speak Welsh , but this is nonsense . Similarly , in New Zealand , some people of European stock like to claim that the Celts were there before the Maori . This theory tends to be put forward by uneducated racists .
Concerning the Chinese , yes , it seems to be respectable historical fact that they got around far more than was hitherto believed .
... see Martin Doutré for the loony Celt theories in New Zealand / Aotearoa .
I have also recently read that a very old bit of human has been found in America . The Native Americans want to give this bit of human a proper traditional burial , but the scientists say that DNA tests show that this bit of human does not belong to them , as it is a European .
Anyone know any more about that ?
Yeah.... google Kennewick Man.
They will feel your kindness. They will feel your love. They will forget their embarrassment. Their life will be better off from feeling the joy brought by your compassion. Besides, most of the time sacrificing kindness for "truth" is lost as people will only believe what they are ready to believe.
I have NEVER regretted the situations in my life where kindness was chosen over truth.
C'mon. :eek6:
EDIT: after posting the above I thought it was important to clarify my view by saying that kindness is the key in BigV's quote. Many times truth is the kindness . The intentions of what you express far outweigh the syntax of the words given.
OK, nice save. Then you would tell them they have toilet paper stuck to their shoe, instead of, they look marvelous.
What is the line between true kindness and condescension?
It's the line of uncertainty. If I am unsure of what I think is true, but I am sure of what is kind, better to err on the side of kindness.
To steal a very useful acronym from Scott Adams of Dilbert fame,
BOCTAOEI don't think that lying to anyone under any excuse is kindness. Whether or not you cloud the lie in poetic lines about kindness nothing to do with the fact that you are lying to them. Even the feeling that you lie because you care about them is false, because you are belittling them in the process. You say "well, they would be happier if they thought this" but it really ends up being "well, they can't really handle it so I'd better make sure they don't hurt theirself". It is what is done with children, not adults.
In the end I think it boils down into happiness vs dignity
I'm not advocating lying. To lie implies an intentional withholding of a relevant truth. If I am uncertain of the truth, then I am not lying.
Mark Twain takes this question up nicely in a short story entitled "Was it Heaven? Or Hell?"
Worth a look.
If you intentionally deceive (or intentionally allow a deception to continue), outright or through any form of omission, it is a lie.
It ain't hard.
I'm not advocating lying. To lie implies an intentional withholding of a relevant truth. If I am uncertain of the truth, then I am not lying.
That's when I like to say, "I don't know." But then, I can offer an opinion.
Did I just miss the point by not reading the whole thread? Woops.
If you intentionally deceive (or intentionally allow a deception to continue), outright or through any form of omission, it is a lie.
It ain't hard.
I think your on the money here that deception is a lie,and I think what's being proposed here is not deception though. It's simply allowing for the fact that your perception of truth does not have to be same as everyone Else's and therefore not forcing your viewpoint on another is the kindness. I'll try an example:
Let's say your friend gets a new haircut, and technically this haircut is a freakin wreck in the areas of straightness of cut, esthetically pleasing , or whatever reason you perceive. Your friend then asks you, "How do you like my new haircut?"
You say, "You look great!"
Deception is when you've said this because: you don't have the balls to express your perceived truth, you've said this in hopes that they will look foolish by proclaiming their great haircut to all they see, or any other motive that has intentions of allowing some pain into their existence.
Kindness is when you've said this because: you know your friend takes all criticism in a negative way and your perceived truth does no good by being expressed, you've said this because you truly see only greatness in your friend and the temporary effects of a haircut are meaningless to you, or you've said this because you're unsure whether you're perceiving a bad haircut or if it actually is a bad haircut.
Words and images surround us everyday, being interpreted in as many ways as there are people in existence. The only thing you can be absolutely sure of is whether you intended love or you intended hurt in your actions. Everything else is subjective.
~snip The only thing you can be absolutely sure of is whether you intended love or you intended hurt in your actions. Everything else is subjective.
:thumbsup: wise words there
:redface: Thank you skysidhe.
snip~ The only thing you can be absolutely sure of is whether you intended love or you intended hurt in your actions. Everything else is subjective.
But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;)
Maybe you're in the clear because your intentions are good, but that doesn't help the victim of good intentions gone awry.
Also, opening your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about is never a good idea no matter how good your intentions are. I hate to shatter your little 'my little universe, your little universe, it's all good' campfire song of a philosophy, but you can know a hell of a lot more than your own emotions.
Hey XOBruce and 9th Engineer,
I was glad to see your responses to my last posting. Friendly discourse helps all of us clarify/understand our individual realities.
XOBruce: Would you mind giving me an example of a "victim of good intentions gone awry." ?
9th Engineer: Would you mind giving me an example of 'what can be known', as represented in your statement ", but you can know a hell of a lot more than your own emotions."
..but...but...but...I thought the prime example was a bad haircut. !
~snip "victim of good intentions gone awry."
I've been the victim of the hairdressers good intentions many times. I swear I never wanted to hear the truth.:p
oh and how, unless it was his wife, would telling her it looked great go awry unless he blurted out the awful truth during a nightmare about the scary haircut?? :lol:
LOL
I like you skysidhe .
I was offering a chance to introduce a different example in case mine was not perceived as serious enough for other's viewpoints. ALSO: your comic relief could not be considered as going awry unless the person viewing it felt that humor was necessary within comic relief. (just kidding, thats my pitiful attempt at comic relief :) )
I guess I should rephrase my questions as: Could XOBruce (or anyone) give your thoughts on specifically what is a negative effect of any example of good intentions and what exactly else 9th can know with certainty besides your intentions of love or hurt.
Skysidhe: "I've been the victim of the hairdressers good intentions many times. I swear I never wanted to hear the truth."
If your hairdresser just wanted to use her services as a way to build her wealth , with no regard to the quality of your haircut, that is NOT Good intentions.
Now, lets assume her intentions were good (regardless of their specificity) . One could say that has gone awry because of its bad visual appeal. This is just a perception on someones part. Some will like it others will not. What if you did get a GREAT haircut ? Maybe some lady so enraptured in the essence of your style and sophistication looks at you just a second to long while driving by you. She doesn't see a car turning into her lane because of it and is instantly killed when impacting with it. I know this is a lot of what if and circular reasoning but here is my point: It's ALL just perception and conjecture because we can't see into the minds of others nor can we see the future. Why guess about it ? Why try to "work it all out" ? There is NO way to be certain, so just use your best intentions and let the world work itself out as IT intends.
I guess I should rephrase my questions as: Could XOBruce (or anyone) give your thoughts on specifically what is a negative effect of any example of good intentions
Sure. It's very common for people to be supportive of a friend by taking their side in a conflict, even when that friend is in the wrong and would benefit from a frank discussion on why they are wrong and how they can improve.
On vacation a week ago, there was a kid who was doing flips from the side of our dock into 8 inches of water with hidden rocks below. He got royally chewed out, because he came close to killing himself or worse. He was being a total idiot. After he was chewed out by the adults, his cousin went up to him and consoled him, expressing his disbelief at how unfair the adults were, and that there was nothing wrong with doing flips into 8 inches of water. The cousin was trying to be his friend, but was giving life threatening advice.
By the way, the kid was doing flips in the shallow water because he couldn't swim.
Good intentions gone awry...
Overprotecting your children so they don't learn the realities of life themselves...ie: giving them too much money without earning it, taking care of legal issues without them having to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Your friend is extremely excited about a new venture idea he/she has. They are simply bubbling over with joy about it. Instead of telling them this is the worst idea you've ever heard and crushing their spirit, you say it's unique, has *cough* potential, and is fascinating. They promptly go out and quit their job, get a second mortgage on their house and throw themselves into developing this doomed project...losing everything in the process.
You are venting to another friend, who knows quite a bit about cars, that you are having electrical problems in your sports car. He knows nothing about the make/model, but thinks he can help anyway and offers to fix it for you. After completely dismantling the dashboard and wiring harness, he realizes he is in wayyyy over his head and cannot even begin to reassemble the car to operating order. (Had this happen to me).
All began with good intentions, but had the individuals involved been honest, things may have turned out very differently.
Stormie
Snip The cousin was trying to be his friend, but was giving life threatening advice.
By the way, the kid was doing flips in the shallow water because he couldn't swim.
Hi Glatt ! :)
Your perception of the cousins advice sounds logical and I would guess acceptable to the majority of people.
To extend the nature of my view on this I would offer the following:
Maybe the cousin was NOT trying to help. Maybe he wanted to see the other child get int further trouble. Maybe that bit of advice MIGHT have led to further damage or maybe the cousins consoling actually DID help. Such as: if the boy getting in trouble had not been consoled maybe he would have shown his defiance by pulling an even more outrageous and dangerous stunt that did lead to severe pain and suffering. We do not know. We can only guess about outcomes or perceive them in different ways. Only the cousin knows if he intended harm or help.
Good intentions gone awry...
SNIP
All began with good intentions, but had the individuals involved been honest, things may have turned out very differently.
Stormie
Howdy Stormie,
I think if you look back at my last couple post's you'll probably see what's coming from me. I'd like to give a general reply to your examples but ask others to reply to future examples as I'm sure "someone" has to be getting sick of seeing my name in this thread.
First possibility: Any of these examples could have started with bad intentions, not good intentions. Even close friends can be ruled and driven by internal conflicts and habits that we never even know about.
Second Possibility: Was the outcome actually negative or was it just perceived that way ? Can we be certain ? Maybe the outcome without the "good intention" would have been worse. Can we see the future or alternate pasts?
We work ourselves into a frenzy everyday over things "gone awry" and it's all just perception formulated by past events that we see our own individual way. (with attention to the initial purpose of this thread) Believing that our individual truth is the only correct one IS the ultimate DENIAL.
~snip~
We work ourselves into a frenzy everyday over things "gone awry" and it's all just perception formulated by past events that we see our own individual way. (with attention to the initial purpose of this thread) Believing that our individual truth is the only correct one IS the ultimate DENIAL.
But our individual truth is all we can offer, isn't it? This is what makes humans so fascinating...in my opinion.
Isn't that why we choose who our friends are and why we have them in the first place? Having friends whose 'truth' is not TOO different than our own and yet whose feedback from a different perspective allows us to more objectively view the situation at hand. I know I wouldn't want my friends to all be carbon copies of me, because I want to hear what other people think (those I respect and trust anyway)..be it how my new haircut looks, or if I'm seeing my relationship clearly, or if I'm being a biatch in a certain instance.
I believe there is a gap between facts and beliefs. Beliefs are based on personal, historical experiences, desires, denials and perceptions. Facts generally consist of provable data and bear no relation to emotions.
The distance between point A and point B is provable data, even when the routes taken vary. That the sun is hot is an indisputable fact. My hair looks good is a belief (or delusion :p ). Intelligent people are more successful than those less intellectually endowed is a belief (depends on your personal definition of success). Humanity begins at conception is a belief. I think 90 degrees is hot, someone who lives in the tropics may think its downright cool. Beliefs can be changed, facts cannot.
And yes, the outcome of my examples above were merely 'perceived' to be negative due to my 'truth' and expectations. To someone else, these endings may have a different meaning.
Tolerance allows us to understand that everyone has their own 'truth', even when it is directly opposed to our own. Understanding it doesn't mean condoning or accepting it, just that we acknowledge that others feel as strongly about their truths as we do about our own.
Stormie
Stormie,
I really, really, really, really love your post. It is exactly the type of thoughtful and kind discussion that is needed to allow us to learn from each other.
I respectfully add my reflections as follows:
[SIZE="1"]But our individual truth is all we can offer, isn't it? This is what makes humans so fascinating...in my opinion.
Isn't that why we choose who our friends are and why we have them in the first place? Having friends whose 'truth' is not TOO different than our own and yet whose feedback from a different perspective allows us to more objectively view the situation at hand. I know I wouldn't want my friends to all be carbon copies of me, because I want to hear what other people think (those I respect and trust anyway)..be it how my new haircut looks, or if I'm seeing my relationship clearly, or if I'm being a biatch in a certain instance.[/SIZE]
The ability to appreciate and desire another person’s individual truth is a rare blessing in our current world. Many believe ANY difference of opinion is a direct attack on their own beliefs. If our individual truth is all we have, this perceived attack is then equal to damaging/killing all that we are = nonexistence. What a horrible fear to live with each day. If I believe you are my brother ( I use brother as a term meaning someone you trust and love), and she is my sister, and EVERY other human in existence is my brother/sister I will cherish all of their individual experiences and truths. Here is the paradox: the more I believe in ANY individual truth, the further I am from believing all others are my brothers/sisters. If I don’t believe ALL people are my brothers and sisters I will never be free from fear of attack, separation, individual loss, emotional pain, etc….
[SIZE="1"]The distance between point A and point B is provable data, even when the routes taken vary. That the sun is hot is an indisputable fact. My hair looks good is a belief (or delusion :p ). Intelligent people are more successful than those less intellectually endowed is a belief (depends on your personal definition of success). Humanity begins at conception is a belief. I think 90 degrees is hot, someone who lives in the tropics may think its downright cool. Beliefs can be changed, facts cannot [/SIZE]
You have a knack for explaining things clearly. Is teaching a part of your current lifework?
What would you measure the distance between A and B with? Would you use a ruler, a surveyor’s tool, or a digital instrument? There is no instrument on earth that can measure the exact distance between two points. Every tool we have to accomplish this task is based on approximations, not an exact factual length. Lets also consider this: Walk to the half point from A and B. Now walk to the half point between your current position and B. Now do the same again. Keep doing this. You would do this for eternity. There is no length so small that you cannot take half of it. This is why I perceive very, very few things as fact or truth.
[SIZE="1"]Tolerance allows us to understand that everyone has their own 'truth', even when it is directly opposed to our own. Understanding it doesn't mean condoning or accepting it, just that we acknowledge that others feel as strongly about their truths as we do about our own. [/SIZE]
Beautiful!
I think that the word 'truth' is being misused here. Truths rarely exist outside of science, and things that change in different contexts (or persons) are not truths. When people have been saying things like 'that persons truths' it's not really a set of truths that's being refered to, rather, that persons beliefs. Saying that a person has a unique set of truths is pointless because it completely takes all meaning out of the word. That person might feel very strongly about something, but if it doesn't hold true under all circumstances it cannot be a truth.
The whole idea sounds like something you'd hear a motivational speaker use, it just allows people to get wrapped up in their view of the world because it's their truth (said with nose held high) and no one has a right to challenge a truth.
Or maybe it's the stigma surrounding the word 'belief' these days. Being PC sucks.
truth [ trooth ] (plural truths [ trooz, trooths ])
noun
Definition:
1. something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality
If you tell the truth, you have nothing to fear.
spoke the truth
2. true quality: correspondence to fact or reality
3. true statement: a statement that corresponds to fact or reality
His story was a mixture of truths and untruths.
4. obvious fact: something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated
5. something generally believed: a statement that is generally believed to be true
a religious truth
6. honesty: honesty and sincerity
I can say in all truth that I never knew about his crimes.
7. conformity: adherence to a standard or law
8. loyalty: faithfulness to a person or a cause ( dated )
Sorry to get all 'dictionary' on ya'll. Truth as it relates to reality is the one I want to emphasise. Reality is rarely exactly the same for everyone. Therefore, what is true for me may not be true for you ie: my reality is not the same as yours.
Here is an interesting essay on "truth":
http://www.thymos.com/science/truth.html
No Bluesky, I am not a teacher. I am a student of life and seeker of knowledge :). But thank you for the complements.
Stormie
I think that the word 'truth' is being misused here. ........
The use of the words truth, belief, and fact ,whether in the context of individualistic or scientific, were used interchangeably as an attempt to show the possibility that there is no difference between them. Scientific fact can be as subjective as belief , which was pointed out in the example of measuring distances from A to B.
My ideas were presented to offer a viewpoint for discussion and refinement of clarity. They were not said with nose held high nor were they presented in a need to be validated.
[HTML]XOBruce: Would you mind giving me an example of a "victim of good intentions gone awry." ?
[/HTML]No. I won't waste my time. I've already seen you and I will never agree. :headshake
[html]XOBruce: Would you mind giving me an example of a "victim of good intentions gone awry." ?
[/html]No. I won't waste my time. I've already seen you and I will never agree. :headshake
I've already seen you and I will never agree.
???? You sound like you are declining a date :p
I'm declining a trip to la-la land. ;)
The link between truth and scientific fact is stronger than personal belief, mostly because belief is inseparable from personal experiences and science strives to be completely isolated from the person doing the experament. We have seen bad science frequently these days (both sides of the global warming debate need to step away from the politics verrrrrryyyyy slowly) and it's giving it a very wishy-washy appearence. This is not real science. The express reason for requiring that all experaments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propogate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space. The only things that changes based on perception are people. It's not your surroundings that change, it's you.
The most basic reason I don't like the word truth used like that is that it takes all meaning away from the word. It's like saying "I'll love you forever", you won't be here forever but using a strong word puts emphasis on the intention. What we experience are not individual truths, just perceptions that are so important to us that we call them truths to emphasize how strongly we adhear to them.
p.s. quantum mechanics does not apply as long as you have more mass than an electron. don't go there. please :3eye:
TThe express reason for requiring that all experaments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propogate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space. The only things that changes based on perception are people. It's not your surroundings that change, it's you.
yes, and I think as long as we have to filter truth through our senses we can't really be sure unless we are open to all options and test what we percieve to be true.
A good test here. What you think is true turns out to be not true at all.
http://www.icerix.com/icerix.php?adres=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/senses.swfHello again 9th engineer.
I read your post several times in order to, hopefully, understand everything you’ve presented. I feel it contains very insightful and sincere concepts. I respectfully add my reflections as follows:
Scientific truth is higher than personal belief truth’s
The link between truth and scientific fact is stronger than personal belief
I thought it might be interesting to think about this statement in this manner: My understanding is that we’ve established that it is reasonable to accept that each of us usually perceives the world around us based on the filter of our past experiences and beliefs. If the above quote is a belief someone holds, how would this filter affect his or her daily experiences? Also: how would this filter make a person feel about themselves?
The express reason for requiring that all experiments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propagate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space
If we attempt to define levels of truth I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head in that scientific facts are higher than “normal” personal beliefs because scientists make a strenuous effort in eliminating personal bias. I say normal because I believe there is a way to construct a personal belief that makes it altogether different in nature than the ones most of us have accepted. I wonder if you feel that it is possible to have/create a personal belief system that is in no way based on past experiences/comprehensions in a similar manner that scientific procedure attempts
A lengthy article, but good information about intentions changing our very DNA structure, and a measurable field of energy emanating from our hearts that has effects on people/substances nearby. Could not these energies effect every Science experiment ever observed or performed near a human ?
Hard to get through, but basically we’re seeing light photons becoming ordered by the mere presence of human DNA. (this doesn’t appear to be a predictable fashion does it ?)
Look at just how complex the structure is to get all this information to our brains. Can it be that hard to believe our intentions can make the minute chemical and electric pulses needed to drastically alter what we perceive around us ?
I don't like the word truth used like that is that it takes all meaning away from the word
I can understand your concern, but taking all meaning away from the word truth was my goal. I agree that there appears to be “levels” of observable reality (truth/belief/fact). The point is that they are all subjective in some manner. Why put my faith in any of them?
~snip~..................I can understand your concern, but taking all meaning away from the word truth was my goal. I agree that there appears to be “levels” of observable reality (truth/belief/fact). The point is that they are all subjective in some manner. Why put my faith in any of them?
So, in essence, you are a Nihilist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth. In its more extreme forms, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" is itself a truth, therefore showing itself to be inconsistent. A formally identical criticism has been leveled against relativism and the verifiability theory of meaning of logical positivism.
Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.[1]
I don't consider Nihilism a correct description of my belief system. I see great meaning beyond all things, I do believe there is purpose and a comprehensible truth. I just don't think those things are within physical form. I believe in God. I believe all living/conscious beings are much more than their physical form and for some reason we have all decided to share this illusion we appear to work, play , and die within.
I'm declining a trip to la-la land. ;)
what is la la land? What are you against here? 'cause I don't see it.
glatt and stormieweather gave perfectly good examples of what I was describing. Having seen how BlueSky_The Man analyzed them, changed the parameters and went off tangentially, I can see how he thinks....or doesn't.
I think it's flawed logic.
Occam is spinning in his grave.
I will never agree with that approach to any question.
I think it would be fruitless to even enter into a discussion of it.
If anyone, buys his reasoning....fine, have at it.
I don't and prefer not to waste my time. :headshake
Bruce,
I respect your decision to discontinue this thread, and thank you for the interaction that we did share.
I think it's important to note that when describing another's viewpoint using words such as "la-la land","flawed","fruitless",and "waste of time" you are diminishing yourself. You can only successfully insult another if you truly believe insults are painful and detrimental to YOUR OWN SELF. Every time you enforce this by insulting another you are only adding to the pain your carrying around already. I would not wish for you to carry around more pain because of a simple philosophical conversation.
Sincerely,
BlueSky
glatt and stormieweather gave perfectly good examples of what I was describing. Having seen how BlueSky_The Man analyzed them, changed the parameters and went off tangentially, I can see how he thinks....or doesn't.
I think it's flawed logic.
Occam is spinning in his grave.
I will never agree with that approach to any question.
I think it would be fruitless to even enter into a discussion of it.
If anyone, buys his reasoning....fine, have at it.
I don't and prefer not to waste my time. :headshake
I feel funny talking about another poster but since you addressed my question by referring glatt and stormie about bluesky I should say what I see.
I'm looking and I only see postitive. Blue Sky is affirming their beliefs and thoughts by positive affirmations. In the discussion between stormy and bluesky there was a lot of give and take.
Even with Glatt I saw bluesky not try to tear down but build up their own beliefs before presenting his own. Somehow I think that's cool.
Here is bluesky affirming their beliefs.
Hi Glatt !
Your perception of the cousins advice sounds logical and I would guess acceptable to the majority of people.
Stormie,
I really, really, really, really love your post. It is exactly the type of thoughtful and kind discussion that is needed to allow us to learn from each other.
I respectfully add my reflections as follows:
You have a knack for explaining things clearly. Is teaching a part of your current lifework?
Originally Posted by Stormieweather
Tolerance allows us to understand that everyone has their own 'truth', even when it is directly opposed to our own. Understanding it doesn't mean condoning or accepting it, just that we acknowledge that others feel as strongly about their truths as we do about our own.
Bluesky picked out this part of stormies comments to quote and then replied with a
beautiful.
Beautiful!
As far as buying his reasoning?? How about just reading it and picking out the best parts?? Isn't that what we do in a discussion is pick out those ones we like or don't like.I think if you arn't going to like something you should give your own examples.
I picked out the affirmation of others comments and I forgot the rest because typed words on a message board don't equal major thought process changes do they? You picked out the negative aspects and forgot the rest. We are only bantering ideas back and forth and I actually miss hearing a reasoning argument from you bruce. Lastly,
You might be surprised with whom I actually do agree with regardless of what little part of me I type out because untimatly it isn't the whole truth is it? Anyway who I agree with is 9th Engineer and his thought was this.
I think that the word 'truth' is being misused here. Truths rarely exist outside of science, and things that change in different contexts (or persons) are not truths. When people have been saying things like 'that persons truths' it's not really a set of truths that's being refered to, rather, that persons beliefs. Saying that a person has a unique set of truths is pointless because it completely takes all meaning out of the word. That person might feel very strongly about something, but if it doesn't hold true under all circumstances it cannot be a truth.
The whole idea sounds like something you'd hear a motivational speaker use, it just allows people to get wrapped up in their view of the world because it's their truth (said with nose held high) and no one has a right to challenge a truth.
Or maybe it's the stigma surrounding the word 'belief' these days. Being PC sucks.
I think 9th Engineer wraps it up for me.
How about just reading it and picking out the best parts??
In a word, NO.
Is that what you do with an instruction manual?
I told you, if you want to play that game, have at it.
I'm not interested in disconnected thoughts that have no logical progression, no matter how genteel the presentation.
Positive bullshit, is still bullshit. :smack:
Is that what you do with an instruction manual?
:thepain: :blush: um yes, sort of.....but you gave me the chuckle of my week thanks. :lol2: