Keep in mind that uncertainty only exists against a background of truth. We only know there are novel viruses because we know there are viruses. Medical professionals are actively looking for problems with the vaccine, and for long-term health issue from the virus, against a background of knowledge of our immune systems. That background knowledge is constantly growing.It is against a background of 'uncertainty' that such confusion about 'truth' often emerges. — Jack Cummins
Uncertainty exists in relation to 'established truth', but that truth is not absolute — Jack Cummins
If truth was simple there would probably be no need for philosophy because everyone would agree. — Jack Cummins
I am interested to know how you define truth — Jack Cummins
My basic working definition would probably be that truth involves clear, reliable, trustworthy and certain established information or knowledge. — Jack Cummins
All Cretans are liars. — Epimenedes
Perhaps you would be better thinking of what you have said here as a definition of what you ought believe, rather than of truth. — Banno
No one brags about being post-truth do they? — Tom Storm
Where it gets particularly uncomfortable for me is where we might have a viable constituency which believes something untrue (let's say The Protocols to the Elders of Zion) and is ripe to be coopted into a political force by a predatory candidate. — Tom Storm
And as to the faculties of the mind I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than any vulgar person. But this proves that men are in that point equal, rather than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share. — Hobbes, Leviathan
I don't understand how you see truth as being so simple because I see it as complicated in most instances. I am interested to know how you define truth, because it may be that we define it differently. — Jack Cummins
It's trendy for every generation to define lying and deception in politics again. Hopefully from a new angle.How do you understand the concept of 'post-truth" itself? — Jack Cummins
I think the notion of "post-truth" is a bit misleading; it's more a case of post-honesty, of promoting beliefs which have little or no justification, or of just plain lying in order to sway or deceive others to serve an agenda. — Janus
But when I think about this post-honesty/post truth issue I find myself wondering more and more about the average person and what they believe and why. Is the accuracy of reporting a criterion of value anymore? Is evidence important? Does something have to comport with actuality in order to be believable? For a lot of people the answer seems to be no. Are people more credulous now than they were in the mid or early 20th century? Is there some other factor going on in relation to what people will believe? — Tom Storm
We have an attitude of reliance on the informedness and honesty of the "experts" in the various fields of inquiry, knowledge and information. — Janus
Probably people believe what they want to believe or what is presented by those whose ostensible values they identify with, — Janus
These days even the notion of an expert is highly contentious. And setting aside philosophical questions about epistemology for a moment, it does seem that people chose the experts or commentators who provide the scaffolding in support of their preexisting biases or beliefs. — Tom Storm
I am still wondering about factors like QAnon and how it is that this emerging religion and untruths told in its wake seems to be attractive to people. Is it what happens when people no longer trust a mainstream narrative? Or is it a concatenative end result of economic and social factors, like diminished education, lack of opportunity, primitive forms of Christianity and a spread in magical thinking as a kind of protest against scientism? — Tom Storm
A giveaway is when people use 'experts' who don't really have qualifications in the area but hold a view they agree with and have some kind of nominal credibility somewhere else. — Tom Storm
I would privilege an expert qualified in the subject for starters, and then maybe pay additional attention to someone who holds a different view to mine because they may know something I don't. — Tom Storm
I'd also add that, although it's not always clear cut, one can identity (and so rule out) obvious conflicts of interest. For example, if a climate expert is directly paid by a fossil fuel company. — Isaac
That's an interesting approach, but then, what would you use as your criteria for then believing that expert? What's the convincer? — Isaac
Take the so-called many worlds theory versus the Copenhagen interpretation. In this instance it's a case of buggered if I know. But I do know on judgement I am more likely to accept Sean Carroll than Deepak Chopra. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.