too many threads for me to be arguing in at the same time =(

:<

i really hate arguing philosophy unless im in the mood and even then i have a pretty limited knowledge. but if you really want to get people interested might i suggest you explain what you mean by "truth" and tell us where your objective "truth" comes from.

Philosophy is not what I'm talking about, that always feels like some annoying kid you can't quite reach to clobber. There are plenty of things where there's an answer, even muddy and complex things like morality and law, where one idea is much closer to some ideal of truth than another. People should be able to say that and reject the weak idea completely rather than to have to keep coming back to it and justifying it as retarded as if it will somehow change. It's just amazing how good people like the Carl Roves of the world have become at muddying a truth with doubt and reinterpretation.

but you see in rejecting what you call a "weak" idea you will be disregarding any evidence or arguments for it out of hand. what you seem to be saying is that we should reject all of this in favour of "your" prefered interpretation. the one that makes your life and possibly our life the easiest. that is just the way in which religions work.

also what makes you believe there are definate answers to things in the world "even muddy and complex things like morality and law". morality and law has always been evolving throughout history. have we suddenly found the answer and our society's current morality will remain unchanged in the future?

It's something I was going to clarify in the original: beware of anyone who claims they possess the objective truth, that's not quite what I'm saying. Look at it instead from the lower end of the scale, as a society we know slavery is wrong, we've moved on and it doesn't need to be discussed. The strange inability to put aside creationism as an issue seems similar.

slavery is only wrong from a certain pov and it also isnt about true or false.

"spreading" religion isnt wrong or right or true or false in the absolute sense.

The way the religion says things are might be untrue though.

Basically:

1+2 = 3 = true
saying 1+2 = 4 means what you say is not true but that doesnt make it absolutely 'wrong' or 'right' (unless you believe life has a goal and there are 'higher' ethics or what not)

Doesnt mean you should tolerate someones bullshit btw

Basically I agree with you dont worry :)

1+2=3 became true only after the set theory btw ;)

1+2=3 is only true because of the axiom 1+1=2
same as actio=reactio or F=m*a
these things cant really be proven. they have been set as axioms and seem to be correct because of empiric evidence.

im reading the god delusion at the moment, its pretty interesting and insightful. i'd recommend it

Yeah, quite interesting

It's ok, a bit slow.

Just out of curiosity, why? I can only really think of 3 reasons, I'll go from what I think is the least common to most common reasons for reading the book: 1. You are confused about what you believe in and are looking at both sides of the argument. 2. You're just curious to see what he has to say. 3. Mental masturbation.

I don't mind Richard Dawkins and understand his point of view, but I honestly believe the majority of people read his book for a good old fashioned circlejerk, chances are if you're an atheist you have nothing to gain from the book than to see your opinions reflected back at you, but then again, I can't read (B<). I'm putting you in category 2 'cause I don't think you have the conviction to read an entire book for self gratification.

2 but i'm not (or wasn't) a 100% die-hard athiest (not christianity yo) so it's kind of research. religion and the way people interpret it is interesting to me too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Saw an interesting critique of the new atheists on random blog by what i assume to be random faith-dude; http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=961 - I don't agree with his general view and exactly the way he portrays Nietzsche; he has a slight bias, but it's an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

Hmm interesting read i agree, but like you said it is a bit biased

true

i bought it and being atheist just can't be bothered reading it through

same here, great book.

just listen to what george carlin has to say of religion. =)

Religion, the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims.

He loves you.. and he needs MONEY, HE ALWAYS NEEDS MONEY!

Now you talk about a good bullshit story, HOLY SHIT!

Hahah, always brings a tear to my eye :D

just post the link dickface.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Hmm.

I'm a mental midget and can't think of anything that would bring new ideas to the table but I got to applaud you for bringing the the cult of equality into the discussion.

You're just not seeing the light. Burn
http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?jesustri...s/top.html

homer smash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

huh?

Big Lebowski. Watch it.

oh man, i watched the big lebowski a couple days ago. i loved it.

HAHAHA, great quote! :D Havn't seen that movie in years, will put it on tonight!

I pretty much agree with ur sentiments.
The 'conspiracy theorists' would say that governments support this style of thinking because people with shakey notions of truth are more likely to swallow propaganda.
There's another, possibly more cynical, alternative, and that is that while encouraging everyone to be egalitarian (thinking the Sun has tits is as valid as understanding nuclear fusion) they actually believe the complete opposite, and want to pacify the population into being more tolerant of disadvantaged groups.
I think this attitude is wrong because the disadvantaged groups are not inherently inferior, which is the pernicious notion behind all this cloying "tolerance". It's largely a matter of culture, we shouldn't forget how engrained dogmatic religion was in the UK even 100 years ago.
I think the best strategy is pursuit of the truth... but we musn't be biggoted about it; it's a really fine line and I think sometimes Dawkins crosses it. I feel like he'd do his cause more benefit if he quietly demonstrated the elegance of evolution with colourful examples rather than deconstructing creationism, it's really not worth the breath. Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience. The truth persuades by teaching, it does not teach by persuading.

Of course, the thing about Religion is that it does assert an absolute truth. With the loss of this, and the loss of universal morality, we may have lost "objective truth" too, and we come full circle...

it all depends on what the definition of is is.

The objective truth... like, if you stab yourself in the leg, it will hurt (but only under the right conditions). Or the best one, "I think, therefore, I am.".

People today have over-complicated everything (falsely believing complexity is good or a sign of advancement). They lose sight of the simple, undeniable truths constantly guiding everything.

Religion is notorious for misleading. For example, religion causes children to learn the concepts of heaven and hell; this in turn causes children to assume pain, pleasure and fear are just part of 'life'; the children then assume these things will always be with them; most people go through their entire lives believing these things (even if they don't believe in heaven or hell), and never even start to question what pain, pleasure and fear really are (even though it is perfectly obvious).

The Universe is beyond simple. Complexity is found in mystery, not in the structure of the Universe.

There have been quite a few failures recently in the search for objectivity; the death of god and objective morality (major blow), then gödel and turing etc. showing the limits of axiomatic system (they both killed themselves), then the positivists and even more recently the analytic philosophers failing (to a large extent) in defining truth, meaning and a perfect logical language. (contrast between early and late Wittgenstein)

I'm reading a book called "Science, truth and democracy" atm; and it's quite interesting because the author tries to navigate between two views; what he sees as the "scientific faithful" - having faith that science is step-by-step approaching a full complete view of reality, and the opposite - a relativist seeing science as guided by people in power with selective interests and values.. He does this by an analogy of science to cartography, i.e. there's an objective world out there, but whatever we make of it reflect us as being vested with certain values and interests - just like a cartographer's interest in the coastlines or the arbitrary divide of countries and so on reflect us as humans with a type of perception/mobility/values/interests that guide this map-making... I've not finished the book yet though, found a link here; http://www.cceia.org/resources/to_be_read/160.html

And yet the world has been mapped.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1508605#pid1508364

Eventually you would complete the map though.

Yeah, but his point is that it's mapped according to what we see as interesting. I'm not particularly in agreement with him, but i do see his point.. It's like the words we have, they pick out the features of the world that are interesting to us. Anything i label could be labeled in other ways, e.g. we talk about color of things while leaving out almost all of the spectrum; or we talk about the shape of something based on transparency in relation to us - creatures having x-ray vision or whatever would label the the pieces of metal floating inside a lump of clay instead of the lump of clay itself etc.

That is, there are an infinite number of map-like-truths, and we pick out the ones that are useful or interesting to us. I would say that the map-analogy is quite good for higher-level sciences, but might be a bit harder to hold on to when talking about the very basics of physics - which seems to show again and again to be able to give up counter-intuitive results..

I don't know yet how he would reply to this, but it seems this analogy is used so as to give credence to the idea that most of current science is based heavily upon our interests rather than some detached ideal of truth. I think this is to show how we need to really think through what our values are and were we want to go with biology and chemistry etc. But i'm not done with the book yet, so can't say for sure.

Yeah I get what he's saying but eventually the map would be complete (Unless someone set out to prevent it from being completed)

I don't know.. I wouldn't think so. E.g. the map can never outline itself perfectly. It is part of the world. A view/description has to have a certain perspective, it can't go outside itself - even if we collect the unified opinion of all of humanity this is still a problem, it would still be "our" view. But this is perhaps only in an ultimate and rather abstract way.. I'd try to push him by claiming that we get more and more fundamental knowledge that we know in principle to be able to explain most phenomena we know of, although we are not able to see this or deduce this except in an abstract sense.. Not sure if/how he draws the distinctions between higher and lower-level knowledge yet. Gonna read more now actually ;)

It has some effect no doubt but acting as if people's personal or economic interest drives the whole of science is missing a lot of other influences. If an area is unexplored it's generally going to be much easier for people to make a name with new discoveries for example, areas don't really get ignored as the mapping anaology with infinite maps (you had to add this when it was pointed out the world has been mapped regardless of the order in which it was done) would imply. They're interlinked, imply each other and no one really knows what will be useful and what wont before developing the area, sometimes the use doesn't arise until a long time after the discoveries like number theory.

Yes, he does talk about problems/questions like this later in the book; it's really quite an interesting read - recommended.. I'll probably write my semester essay on this book. I can basically chose whatever subject around this ^^

What does Turing's or Gödel's death or suicide have anything to do with.. well anything to merit a mention. A shame Turing's homosexuality came to light as he probably would have had much more to contribute.

Yup, it's a shame - stupid people didn't know wtf they were doing.

This is by no means an easy discussion. It seems you dont want to go on to philosophy, but really, this is philosophy.
It seems to me that you just want to prevent dumbness from spread based on tolerance ( all things are relative blabla ).I agree with you on this. We really must have grip on facts to some extend. There is a point where we have to distinct belief from stupidity. But, as you probably must know, things are not that simple. Are we over-complicating? Maybe, but i dont believe so.
When you really understand concepts like solipsism, absurdism, nihilism whatever, things can get pretty weird.
Like i said in other post, i atleast, expect too much from people sometimes. When people come to talk with me about religion, i expect from them some kind logic thinking and their reasons nicely exposed, not the random "God created everything" mega-brainwashed type.

I dont know whats your knowledge on philosophy and stuff, but i recommend you to read some.

Logical thinking + religion = not possible.

To some extend, yes.

Spirituality does not equal religion, imo.

Everybody has had a transcendent moment in their life.

Gotta agree with you and start labeling things more carefully.

no

"Everybody has had a transcendent moment in their life."
No.

hmm, pending answers ;)

hehehe question of questions; i wish i could ask enough questions so i could make a graph - where time until death vs if you want to know or not is plotted.. bwahaha, now all that remains is enough answers ;)

btw nice journal

"I am, therefore existence exists." - Jonesy

People do not understand, the brain is like a garden. If you do not constantly weed, your plants will become unhealthy.

i do my best to constantly weed

That's what beer is for, the Gazelle theory of intelligence. Your brain is like a herd of Gazelle, beer is the lions weeding out the weak and slow.

lol?

And vodka is a guy with chaingun shooting the shit out of your Gazelles. :)

You also need some psychedelics if you want to unlock the doors of perception.

Nah.

Drugs are not a shortcut nor a tool of spiritual growth. Fun, yes, but ul-team-mately just fun.

However lots of people are easily infused (atleast from what I have seen 1st hand) with illusions of gaining something from them.

I'm sure there are people who disagree with your interpretation of the situation.

I'm sure there are people wo disagree with you disagreeing with his interpretation of the situation.

The way I see it, all intoxicants give different illusions.

If I drink three beers I suddenly become handsome and witty, if I drop enough acid I see myself mastering lateral thinking and enjoying all kinds of visual distractions which, at least when I was younger, made me seriously reconsider the arbitrary nature of reality but in the end I'm still lactose intolerant, if i eat a bowl of ice cream i get wicked gas and diahorrea ;D

Every creature carries the external universe within its internal universe and while substances may add to it we can never escape it.

Just my 2 cents.

you don't need illusions for spiritual growth?

Yeah.

Well my choice of words was kinda weak.

One needs to discern faked/artificially produced feelings etc.. and enjoy them for what they are but not attach any further value to them

That probably doesn't make much sense and/or I suck at putting things into words.

E.g I used to run in the local Goa trance party circuit especially when I was younger and I've met so many retarded "Chemical evangelists" that I'd like to punch every one of these "instant satori" types in the face. :D

well, putting things into words will get hard if you want to distinguish between fake and real feelings and experiences ;)

Candide ftw :]

So talking primate descendants who walk upright have access to objective truth? Get real.

Perhaps I should change the title since I mean something more along the lines of truth not being relative.

"X = Y"

Porn = love.

Vaginas = fuck-i'm-horny

Cocks = tasty-like-a-lollipop

Relative and objective are not antonyms.

Didn't say they were, I mean there is a single truth or at least a current most accurate truth to most issues and that alternative ideas with less evidential backing do not have an equivalent value. Objective truth was a bad title because it lead people to think I was interested in philosophical bollocks.

The scientific merit of truth is repeatability or at least support by current theories. This will only take you so far, but for most practical/physical stuff it still beats the hell out of any religion.

As tourist pointed out, science will only get you so far.. I recently saw the word "science 2.0" somewhere - pointing to an extended science to include social issues etc. This would perhaps be the direction you are aiming for. We're not quite there yet as you point out, but if you want to argue for the scientific method, or the scientific method extended - and not just state it - you need to argue philosophically.

Will only take you so far with what? There is nothing else. Science 2.0... don't make me laugh, sociologists and social 'scientists' making up terms they barely understand to justify their grant money.

You need adjustments etc. It's not like we are at an end and mankind has discovered a perfect method to attain truth called science; it has been - and still is - evolving with pragmatic discussion and philosophical arguments (or metascientific arguments, if you will).

Science 2.0 is the attempt to try to extend science. It's obvious that at higher levels (social/political) science becomes more human and psychological; we need to take account of values and goals in addition to whatever evidence might be available. E.g. when talking about education you have some evidence for what works in what circumstances, and you might on request figure out a few things about how to teach certain things etc. - but overall, the complex interplay of values, goals and speculative estimations/deductions from these "facts" need necessarily to come into play.

There's a huge cottage industry of educational research that deals in 'facts', what it produces is utter bollocks and because it's not science none of it builds on other parts. It's just a waste of time and money. Science can be improved but not with wishwashy nonsense in the social 'sciences', this is just wishful and futile thinking. What extends into the social and political arenas successfully will be science.

So you think this is a fault of the social scientists and not the problems they have to face as a cause of the more fluid environment they need to make sense of?

I think they're 3rd rate researchers so yes, it's their fault because they're for the most part just very bad at what they're attempting. The field is full of bad statistics used to promote outright lies and yet major policy choices are being made on the input of these morons.

Isn't there an inherent ambiguity at such high levels? There are no final invariable laws you can deduce, every correlation you establish has a host of different explanations, whenever you're dealing with humans you're also dealing with psychology and whenever you're dealing with social/political issues you're dealing with contingencies. I agree that they may not be top shelf researchers, but i think this higher level they are working on, which rests on so many uncertainties and contingent human facts, has much of the blame for why it cannot be as perfect as the lower-level sciences.

You're right in the problem with the researchers themselves though; as most people really have no clue about the scientific method, the ignorance can reach even to the level of governments when founding studies (or making decisions about schools). I think this was some of the motivation behind the "science 2.0"; that someone was tired of the way these higher level fields sometimes entirely escape the lessons science has to offer about truth, consequences, utility etc. - so as a way to implement science more rigidly.

The thing is this kind of muddy thinking makes no progress at all and the only useful progress is either experience-based or pure, science research based.

Pure science? Pure research?

I can understand your anger or disappointment with the relativism, nihilism, new-ageism and postmodernism; but you need to realize that some of this, especially postmodernism, is a reaction to the increasingly untenable position of holding e.g. that an infinitely disinterested scientist collects objective facts about the ultimate truth and puts it into a system.

If you want to avoid muddy thinking - study mathematics or logic; but even there you have creativity and leaps in thinking going beyond the established way of doing things. If we are to make useful progress, we need creativity, intuition and imagination as much as we need science and rigor.

I study philosophy and social science and I must admit there are some bogus terms floating around the sociological world these days, one that make me roll my eyes and want to stab my professors.

However, I believe that sociology is an incredibly important branch of academia as it (especially now, imo) highlights many of the more utterly backward and downright stupid social habits that peoples around the world have adopted. Durkheim's term 'Anomie' is of particular important given the current state of our ultra-consumeristic(is that even a word!?) lives.

If you're not h8'ing on sociology then nvm what I just said, I just wanted to defend something I really love.

Btw great journal ixir, and I always enjoy reading your post CPLains.

Peace, m8's

*edit: now that I've read a few more of your posts and you do seem to dislike sociology a fair bit. Can you highlight some ideas that you deem to be silly/useless? I'm interested.

My only real exposure to it is the educational soft science which tends to clothe itself as science when it's nothing of the sort, sociology may have some worthwhile conclusions but again it doesn't seem to be science but tries to appear as if it is.

a good solution:

the participating parties have to agree on the language, how to behave in a discussion and very important: on the topic.

one example: ask your relatives, friends ... what the word god is meaning to them. you will get in most cases alot of different answers. true ? false ?
but if you agree with them on the definitions of language and then on the topic its possible to work on truth.
"my opinion" at a certain point gets untrue if rules are set.
take mathematics as an example - you cannot do certain things and say its my opinion because its false. the same goes in other languages if the outline of conversation is set.
-----------------------------------
most can be answered if people agree about what they talk and what they want. not very complicated but often needs much respect for others and some sort of discipline in discussions.

and remember that unlike in mathematics or computer science the human language is often not very exact and meaning of words can depend on where you were raised, who your parents are and so on. and not everybody has the same quality of education and knowledge - so some people will make more faults than others under certain conditions.

You cant quantify someone´s "truthness/opinion", or disprove it based on some random rules. You can´t define a set of rules to serve impartially the discussion. Not even with logic.

I think Nietzsche for instance said something interesting about logic on the "The gay science" and how it can misleads you into thinking you actually understand things.

I'm kind of wondering if truth can be relative. Relative can be true but can true be relative? I'm not sure real truth can be anything other than absolute and objective.

what is truth

what everyone will find

relative truth is relative

relative intercourse > relative truth.

"A triviality is a statement whose opposite is false. However, a great truth is a statement whose opposite may well be another great truth."

also

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Bohr was cool.

yup he was, same for heisenberg or pauli or dirac :) cool gang xD

Oh yeah, and smearing rants/blogs are what truly deserve our utmost respect. People like CPLains are totally about plugging religion in schools, and doesn't matter if we are speaking about piece of art or meatball sandwich one can perceive it objectively. Do save us educated morons, holy inquisitor ix of the church of objective truth.

what does "plugging religion in school" mean?

why don't you drop by irc some time? we miss you, ukno

might as well, year since i've been on irc :o

Must.. Avoid.. This Thread!
(I need my sleep)

hmm? this thread seems perfect for sleep

muhaha that's so true.

tl;dr