robwill's WebLog

What is truth

# re: Is it real, or is it Memorex? 7/30/2004 11:15 AM AndrewSeven

I'm not certain that "believe" is the right word, so I'll use "assume".

I assume that many people assume that you can arrive at the truth through concensus.
Remove Comment 202409

Interesting comment.  I used to do basic research in organic chemistry. In science consensus is what it's all about. One can demonstrate that a theory holds for a given experiment but can never completely prove a theory because the exception case always could be one experiment away. All it takes is one solid counter example to disprove a theory.  So scientists are constantly testing theories and as more and more leaders in the field perform experiments and do calculations that refine the theory and/or fail to produce a counter example, a consensus of opinion emerges.  This is as close as one gets to truth in science. An example is Newtonian physics. This set of theories and math (calculus) was thought to be sufficient to explain the physical behavior of objects until physicists started studying objects with very high charge to mass ratios, eg. atomic and subatomic particles. The existing theories didn't hold because they did not take into consideration the wave-like properties of such particles, so a new set of theories was developed called quantum mechanics.  That was the new consensus for a period of time but now string theory and the like are being developed to explain behaviors that are not explained by quantum theory.  And on it goes. 

A couple of chemists named Woodward and Hoffman found a way around this conundrum.  They advanced a theory called the Conservation of Orbital Symmetry.  In their seminal paper on the subject they included a chapter titled Exceptions.  What followed was a basically a blank page with the words “there are none“ printed in the middle.  This was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Chemists all over the world immediately set out to prove these guys wrong, only to discover that Woodward and Hoffman had so carefully crafted their theory that all apparent counter examples, of which there were many, were by definition, outside the space defined by their theory.  Clever guys those two.  Could have been philosophy majors. Hoffman received a Nobel prize for this work.  Woodward missed out because he died and Nobels are not awarded posthumously, but not to worry, he already had one.

If one seeks truth the path is most likely spiritual in nature, because it's predominantly a matter of faith, but you could be onto something here.  It may be available in blogs :)

Have a great weekend

Published Friday, July 30, 2004 6:09 PM by robwill

Comments

 

John Galt said:

Read up on Objectivism. Concensus has nothing to do with it. You'll change your mind quickly. Faith has nothing to do with truth. In fact, it is anti-truth by defintion of the term. (Belief in something that cannot be proven and in fact is continually disproven on a day-to-day basis through the process of scientific method, and logical analysis. This is the volentary process of ignorance, otherwise known as faith.)

Mathematics allows for proofs that prove ALL cases for an equation. Since everything in reality can be descibed using mathematics (Real numbers which includes both the rational and irrational number sets), and all mathematical forumas (that are correct) can be proven using a simple process (to understand, one hell of a lot harder to actually do with any type of large equation) to be true for all cases, there MUST be universal truth and we MUST be able to A. Discover it, and B. Prove it.

Subjectivism, while convenient and helpful to never piss anyone off, is fundamentally wrong and the result of weak, lazy minds that are not willing to do the work to discover the truth and thus fall back on moral equivalence which states that no one person can be more right than another because no one person is any more capable of finding "the truth" then another and what might be "the truth" for one, is not for the other. (This is called preference, not truth, but hey, don't point that out to a subjectivist, they get anoyed.)
July 30, 2004 8:21 PM
 

pndmnm said:

To the Objectivist poster:

Recall Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems, which dictate that any consistent, axiomatizable theory of the Universe would be necessarily incomplete.

If there is, as you postulate, a consistent, complete Universal Truth [system], it's necessarily non-axiomatizable and thus we will never be able to fully understand it, or more specifically, there exists a truth that can neither be proven nor disproven.

I recommend Goedel's Proof, by Nagel and Newman.
July 31, 2004 1:26 AM
 

sweating monkey said:

Big R, little r. There is an ultimate Reality, which we do not know, and we each have our own personal percieved reality. Little r is not big R. Even the integral of little r over the entire human population is not big R. (Nor divided by the population, if you want to keep the math nice. :)

Each person sees their own little r, and to them it is indistinguishable from big R. If you show them something that matches their perception of reality, they will accept it as Reality. You can devise a consensus model that is not R, but in the eyes of all present is indistinguishable from R. That doesn't make it Reality any more than little r. A closer approximation, perhaps, but not truth itself.

But I'm not sure this is so much different from the scientific method. It can't give you big R either, only closer approximations. I suppose the real difference is that you're actively looking for differences between your reality and ultimate Reality, rather than the differences between eachother's percieved reality. If you only set your clocks off eachother, they'll eventually drift from the actual time.

And John Galt, your definition of faith is strange (though perhaps popular?). I define it as "trust based on history." cf. a faithful puppy, faithful lovers, money, basically every use of the word outside of religious contexts.
July 31, 2004 10:15 AM
 

Layne said:

Polar. What was the ochem research that you did? Was it published?
August 1, 2004 1:59 PM
 

David Beoulve said:

Rob, great post!

Whoever posted "(Belief in something that cannot be proven and in fact is continually disproven on a day-to-day basis through the process of scientific method, and logical analysis. This is the volentary process of ignorance, otherwise known as faith.)" is wrong. I hate to put it bluntly.

By his definition, I can see that there is nothing that he has faith in. Faith is not ignorance, but then, I won't bother trying to describe what it is - it appears some people can't swallow the word in any form.

Even in the context of science.
August 6, 2004 6:18 AM
 

robwill s WebLog What is truth | debt solutions said:

June 19, 2009 1:25 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

© 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use  |  Trademarks  |  Privacy Statement
Microsoft
Page view tracker