Epistimology and Truth

Jeffrey

So if two people disagree is there a True truth or is it subjective for each person and both are true?

vinlyn

It depends on whether or not you are looking at something factual or subjective.

Tosh

If I was to say that I was sat perfectly still that would be true. But you could argue that I'm travelling at a velocity of 67,000 mph on an orbit around the Sun, and that would be true also.

So we could both disagree on whether I'm moving or not, but we'd still both be speaking the truth.

But if I was to say I've got two dogs, when I've only got one, that would be an untruth. Whether the dog exists is another question altogether, I think.

I did a module called the Two Truths which covered what's real and what's not real from the point of view of four different Buddhist schools of thought. It was interesting; but I wasn't a good student. It was a kind of evolution of thought. Have you looked at the Two Truths doctrine?

Chaz

Well, there's truth and there's fact. They aren't necessarily the same. You can read some bit of mythology and see something very "true" in the story being told, even though the events in the story probably never happened.

So fact can be truth, but truth does not have to be fact - unless you're insecure about what you hold to be true.

We can disagree about what is true, because truth isn't always something so black & white and can be very subjective. And that's ok.

Chaz

Tosh said:

I did a module called the Two Truths which covered what's real and what's not real from the point of view of four different Buddhist schools of thought. It was interesting; but I wasn't a good student. It was a kind of evolution of thought. Have you looked at the Two Truths doctrine?

The so-called Two Truths are really important in Mahayana teachings and are generally applied to determinations of the "real" and the "phenomenal", but are often applied elsewhere. It is a different way of looking at the world we live in and challenges our dogmatic clinging to perceptions.

When studying this from the perspective of the different philosphical schools it gets confusing really fast. It helps to have a good teacher or course materials.

vinlyn

Chaz said:

...

We can disagree about what is true, because truth isn't always something so black & white and can be very subjective. And that's ok.

To quote you: "Really ...... so you're a legitimate judge of what is ok and what isn't?"

Theswingisyellow

Your experience, what is in front of you is your truth, the rest of it is just thinking. What can one truly know other than their direct experience? If I were to call anything Truth it would be Dukkha Annata Annica, I find them to be profoundly true and experience them as such. To someone without experience or even knowledge of them, are they also the Truth? I would seriously doubt that; how could they be truth to someone with no experience or knowledge of them? Truth is truly individual IMO, things have the meaning we ascribe to it. To Tosh as to your statement; yes indeed your sitting there as well as moving at 67,000 miles and hour-both may be so but what is your experience? I think we struggle if we tend to take a one-sided or extreme view of life. The totality of life is that it is both things at once and maybe a third view what is our experience with it?

matthewmartin

My economics classes were actually informative about this. There is more than one theory of truth and you have to subscribe to one. If you subscribe to an especially strict theory of truth, then pretty much you're left with mathematical proofs, which are true, but not necessarily connected to how our world works. Physics works pretty well with both math and empirical measurement. Especially strict theories of truth will render the social sciences into a big mass of unsubstantiated speculation. And if I understand it correctly, post modernism means truth is what ever you want it to be, its' your prerogative to pick and choose.

I read on a pagan website that truth is what it makes you feel good to believe. I think that has got to be the most relaxed standard of truth I've come across.

Personally, I like truths that are compatible with everything else I've decided is true. I don't buy into contradictions (e.g. A & not A is true) because then math doesn't work, and if math doesn't work, then we live in a universe with no particular rhyme or reason. That doesn't match up to the universe I'm in-- I see a world that is incredibly predictable & static & modelable, even if it requires stochastic models. I suppose from the standpoint of someone with schizophrenia, the world is endless surprise and A & not A really might be true.

And on the topic of contradictions, I think that non-dualism in zen is misapplied if applied to basic abstractions (i.e. there is no difference between true and false, up or down, good is evil, weakness is strength, slavery is freedom, we have never been at war with East Asia and we will always be at war with east asia), except possibly as a way to jolt the brain the same way a computer's CPU is surprised that we should attempt to divide by 0. But I think the idea of applying non-dualism to fake categories is useful-- happy/not-happy-- better to imagine a liquid slurry of churning emotion

I now get down from my soap box.

Theswingisyellow

I like this so I will share:
Teachings of the Buddha by J.Kornfield p.41
"Sutra on Totality"
Monks I will teach you the totality of life. Listen, attend carefully to it and I will speak.
What, monks, is totality? It is just the eye with the objects of sight, the ear with the objects of hearing, the nose with the objects of smell, the body with the objects of touch, and the mind with the objects of cognition. This, monks, is called totality.
Now if anyone were to say: Aside from this explanation of totality, I will preach another totality," that person would be speaking empty words, and being questioned would not be able to answer. Why is this? Because that person is talking about something outside of possible knowledge."

Wisdom23

Whilst my thoughts and way of life much resembles that of a Taoist i would actually have to agree with the Nihilists on the idea of truth.

I think the search for questions regarding truth are a futile search, howver you look at it we are alive and it is a bizzarre miracle, so instead of searching for answer lets take a look around. Whilst waiting for my mrs to finish her shopping i often go for a cup of tea and watch all the people interacting. If you want long and deep enough it is a fascinating watch lol.

NomaDBuddha

Jeffrey said:

So if two people disagree is there a True truth or is it subjective for each person and both are true?

My answer is this dry joke : two jews argue over something, and one tells the other 'you are not right !'. So they want to settle the argument at the old rabbi , who, in turn, listens to their stories with care and patience. After hearing the both arguments, the rabbi concludes : ' You know, I say that you are right ! But also you ( the other jew ) are right too !' .

Both people can be right, on their 'truths', or can be both wrong.

Jeffrey

@NomaDBuddha, I heard another 'verse' to that joke. The two in the argument said 'we can't both be right' to which the rabbi said 'yes you are right'.

Dennis1

What exactly happened-that is the truth. What you thought about it-that is the truth about what you thought. Ditto the other guy. Now TRUTH is a different question.
In epistemology, Immanuel Kant tells us we can know the truth by necessary logical deduction. We can only know probability, through observation. For instance, we drop a ball above the surface of the earth and it falls. We could say well the law of gravity is true. Well, no it's not a truth although we could say it is highly probable that the ball will fall next time. Very high probability but not truth. So we have laws which are based on experimental observation and they mostly state probability. We have theories and they state the likelihood that a law or probability exists. Then we have conjecture which is just some kind of wild guess.

We can be certain about a proposition and state the truth of a subject when we have control of the definitions. So, a statement can be true by definition. e.g. All men with white hair are over sixty. He has white hair so he is over sixty. Now that statement is a valid proposition because we defined the elements. All men with white hair are over sixty. Since we say that proposition is a given, then the conclusion must be true.
That is true by definition.

Experience can not provide that type of certainty. Faith can provide certainty. We say I believe white haired men are all over sixty. Then you have certainty. Of course you are wrong because your faith (or belief ) is not well founded. Certainty or faith are no guarantee of truth. In Science we don't pursue truth. Science is the pursuit of repeatable but falsifiable results. In other words, we have a theory that explains the observable data so we try an experiment to see if we can predict what will happen when our theory is applied. Maybe it will be verified and maybe it won't be. We try it out and we accurately predict the outcome. Someone else does a similar experiment and gets the same results. Ditto. After a while we say well that is a sound theory or maybe even a law like the law of gravity. But that isn't a truth. The truth is, we predicated a certain result and we did 10 experiments and they all validated the proposition. There is a high probability that we have a valid proposition. That is scientific theory. Or the theory of scientific process.

Reality is a completely different subject.
Definitions are important-pay attention when they are used incorrectly and you will improve the precision of your thinking. Nuff for now? More questions?
Best, Dennis