Paul Crowley

Just to show that I’m not trying to avoid the debate about truth, I’ll take a step back to your previous JFK argument, as it’s less emotionally loaded.

Imagine that Monday, Alice wakes up, is convinced by the mainstream argument, that Oswald killed Kennedy. Tuesday she reads some conspiracy theory, and decides that’s right. Wednesday she reads the Warren Commission Report, and believes again in Oswald. Thursday she looks at the Zabruder tape, and goes back to believing in the conspiracy. Friday she smokes some dope after work, and decides that aliens must have abducted Kennedy to keep Marilyn company.

All week long, the “truth” is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant, that for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist (unless there’s a God to verify it). All that is relevant, is what people believe. People’s perception of the truth is real, and has consequences. Any actual “truth” is meaningless.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 09:19 am (UTC)

From:

ajva.livejournal.com

All week long, the “truth” is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant, that for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist (unless there’s a God to verify it).

I think it would be difficult for me to conceive of a non-aggressive statement that I could more completely and utterly disagree with than the one you have just made here.

When I use the word "truth" in this context, I mean "the fact of what actually happened, whether anyone knows it or not". It was certainly relevant to Kennedy himself at least.

From:

Yes, I understand that you're prepared to defend this position in an instance where we neither know nor care. What I'm trying to find out is whether you're prepared to defend it for any instance where we do know and we do care. You seem to be prepared only to test your beliefs against the easy instances - but you have to test them against the most difficult instances.

From:

OK, Let’s take the 9/11 example.

Imagine a scenario: It’s a world is just like ours, but there really were 4000 Israelis who didn’t show up for work, but all evidence of that has been erased by a pro-Zionist media (just like the nutters believe). You might argue that such erasure is impossible, but for the thought experiment, say that it is.

How does this change anything? Are the nutters in this new scenario equally nutty as they are in our world, because they have reached stupid conclusions (which just happen to be true) based on bizarro conspiracy theories? How does the “truth” matter? In fact, the truth in this scenario only exists because I have inserted it as an omniscient observer. All that matters is what people believe, their perception of the truth.

Your argument is that truth exists. Mine is that truth is irrelevant. What good would truth do you without evidence to back it up?

In your 9/11 example, all we can do it look at the evidence, and be swayed. Truth has no bearing on the issue.

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

What about logical fallacies? Can't they be said to be empirically false, because there's no way for them to be true and internally consistent?

From:

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

So if you hear the above conspiracy theory advanced in conversation - let's say it's not a raging anti-Semite, but someone at a party who's perfectly lovely but tends to believe everything they hear. What can you say in reply, if there's no "truth" by which what they say could be right or wrong?

Sure, you can provide evidence, but evidence is just a pointer - what is it pointing at, if there's no truth for it to refer to?

From:

Surely you’re not going to claim that evidence points to truth? The 9/11 nutters have plenty of evidence to back up their conspiracy theories. Evidence helps us form our perceptions of the truth, it doesn’t lead us to truth.

From:

OK, so if evidence doesn't point to truth, then what are you going to say to our nice-but-gullible partygoer about their conspiracy theory?

From:

All I could say is that I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion. If the person cared to listen, I might present my evidence and try to sway them to my perception.

Imagine we were at this party having this conversation. Now imagine that there was an actual truth out there, that neither of us understood. What difference would it make? How would that change anything? The existence of this actual truth would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? Until such a time as one of us came to consider this actual truth, then, and only then, would it become relevant.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 11:30 am (UTC)

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

No, I don't think I agree. Suppose I say to you, "There are children starving in Africa". You can deny this; you can even claim that Africa doesn't exist, and that it's all a conspiracy of cartographers. I can show you as much evidence as I like; introduce you to aid workers, show you photographs and news reports, but whether I convince you or not doesn't make Africa appear or disappear, or make the children less starving.

From:

You were right yesterday. I knew better than to get involved in the conversation :-)

ah.... I suggest we carry on in the pool at Meadowsweet after a couple of frozen margaritas.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 12:04 pm (UTC)

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

Probably not the best example, I admit - I've been reading about human rights etc all morning. But I think Paul was mistaken in using examples that were theories about things that happened in the past. More concrete examples are definitely better.

From:

I think you're right, it does become a different argument when we're talking about things that are, rather than things that have happened.

From:

Now that I'm looking forward to a lot!

From:

some-fox.livejournal.com

I think I'm going to impose some limits on how much people are allowed to hurt my brain that particular weekend :-)

From:

Genuine evidence does!

From:

Er, if looked at in the right way. Um.

From:

Irrelevant for what purpose? Matters for what purpose?

If you're looking for a good, reliable system for forming beliefs that will help you in your life, I'd say that true beliefs *are* important, but not the be-all and end-all.

Beliefs which are justified - which here means that they stem from some reliable system of forming them (which may or may not include complex logical reasoning, depending on the nature of the belief) - are also important.

Beliefs which randomly hit on truth (e.g. your horoscope turns out to be accurate this month) are, I suppose, more useful than false beliefs - but they do not make a good cornerstone of a reliable belief-forming system.

From: