Multiculturalism is dead

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time.

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

[al Roumi]

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

I am using: true
you are using: "true"

But those are not the same. Saying that it is

"true" to them

Is just another way of saying they believe it. So what you said is that someone who believes in god believes in god, and someone who believes that 1+1=2 believes that 1+1=2. And as you say, someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Basically I am talking about truth, and you are talking about belief, except you call belief "truth". Don't do that.

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

Yes.

[al Roumi]

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

[gaelic cowboy]

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

In any situation where one or more of the parties involved has incomplete information that still does not make there reasoning or beliefs true for whatever they are doing or thinking.

Some years back we would use asbestos to fireproof a house because we had incomplete information we felt it had no health risk this was still wrong even though we did not know it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

[al Roumi]

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false. Why is this thing a truth for them? Why isn't it a truth for me? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

Does anyone have a rope ladder? Only I seem to have disapeared up the [Place of little Sunshine] of philosophy and would like to get out now. No, frankly I couldn't give a [substance commonly associated with Place of little Sunshine] if that is true or not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false I don't believe. Why is this thing a truth for them do they believe it? Why isn't it a truth for me don't I believe it? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

Fixed

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

[Rhyfelwyr]

someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Or do you just believe it to be false?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well as with all Mathematical proofs: either they are correct, or the axioms from which they derive do not hold. For an “impossible” scenario wherein it is possible that all natural numbers are in fact equal to 21:

There's this village with a barber shop.
All the village's men are shaved.
All the men who do not shave themselves are shaved by the barber from the barber's shop.
The barber is one of the village's men.

If you can find this village it follows that 0 = 21, 1 + 1= 21, etc. etc.