Truth poll

[ciphergoth]

I should really post this on a Monday but I might as well do it now. A whole bunch of assertions to do with truth that it occurred to me to poll about...

[Poll #1365485]

Comments

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

There are some things that, if I'm wrong about them, I'd rather not know. But I'd be wrong. It would hurt me to know that I'm wrong, and I might be happier if truth (or those conveying it) chose theeir time and manner carefully. But, er, yeah. I'm aware that my preferences don't alter most kinds of facts

[pengshui-master.livejournal.com]

"Some things reason is powerless to throw any light on",

Sounds like a restatement of Godel's incompleteness theorem to me. But if that is not what you meant , then probably don't agree with the statement

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I want to know if I'm wrong but can't honestly promise to enjoy the initial part of the experience.

Those flowers are total flakes and their plans will surely come to naught. For one thing they have little conception of what constitutes a 'secret' plan.

[andrewducker]

There _is_ such a thing as Truth, but it only exists out there in the real world, and have access only to models of it created through analysis of our sense impressions.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

There are some things that, if I'm wrong about them, I'd rather not know

I ticked this, but I was thinking more of the possibility of personal things in my life where it doesn't really matter if it's true or not, but might make me stressed if I found out about it. When it comes to things such as learning about how the Universe works, I would rather know the truth.

[aidan-skinner.livejournal.com]

What he said.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

2nded.

In a way that pretty much sums up my dissertation at uni :oP

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Some people have fingernails: unticked as I reckon more than some...

Some things reason is powerless to throw any light on: If you add "at current levels of knowledge" then yes, but I don't think there is anything that couldn't be eventually explained by science, it's just that the available tools (mental or physical) are not yet available to address the problem. (eg, I don't believe in the "super"-natural as I am not so sure they aren't "natural", but do believe there are phenomenon that cannot currently be explained, eg ghosts & spirits.)

If the iron is hot, I wish to believe that it is hot; if it is cold, I wish to believe that it is cold: Nope, I know it is hot/cold through investigation. There is no matter of faith here!

Where science fails to grasp what it reaches for, other approaches may be needed: Nope, just isn't suficiently advanced... :)

NB: all opinion, of course!

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in the "super"-natural as I am not so sure they aren't "natural", but do believe there are phenomenon that cannot currently be explained, eg ghosts & spirits

Yes, this. I sort of think describing religious/spiritual belief as 'supernatural' is derogatory, if it exists then surely it's natural? (Er, FSVO 'natural' - not wanting to get into arguments about people wearing clothes/using computers/eating cooked food &c!)

[dreamsewing.livejournal.com]

"It's important to me that my beliefs be as accurate as possible"

This made me pause. I don't (hah) believe that beliefs are necessarily about accurate ( measure/prove/test).

I would say that it is important to me that my beliefs be as consisent as possible, and proved by my actions/interactions.

"If the iron is hot, I wish to believe that it is hot; if it is cold, I wish to believe that it is cold"
made me smile; if the razor is sharp, i wish to believe it will not hurt me. If the razor hurts me, I wish to believe my brain capable of altering the response paths from pain to pleasure ;)
Think that even, for example brain scan able responses, can be changed purely by belief.

[zotz]

Beware of the flowers, because I'm sure they're gonna get you.

Yeah.

[uon.livejournal.com]

The poll seems to make the assumption that one has a single belief system that is applied at all times; that's certainly not the case for me. I actively enjoy participating in ridiculous hippie ceremonies or believing that the flowers or trees are talking to me, because these can be fun things to believe under certain circumstances, and believing them alters my interactions with the world in (what I think are) beneficial ways. However, at the end of the day, deep down, I still don't necessarily really actually believe that the flowers are talking to me, in the sense that if asked under oath in a court of law whether or not the flowers were talking to me, I would say no.

You could argue that in this case I don't believe this nonsense about the flowers, and everything else is just layers of affectation or pretense on top, but I don't think this is the case either. I don't live a life which is completely consistent with all of the beliefs I profess, and I have a nagging guilty feeling that I would not enjoy it if I did. (This is not helped by the fact that a lot of people I've encountered who have led particularly ideologically pure lifestyles in one way or another have also been gigantically insufferable arses in one way or another).

I'm not sure I understand where the line is drawn between "believing X" and "behaving as if you believe X", or the extent to which such a line exists.

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Exactly. My mom really hated me? Please just let's not share that info.

[henry_the_cow]

Exactly. You can't trust the little blighters.

[henry_the_cow]

I've had similar experiences. For me, the question is whether I'm in control of the beliefs (and can draw what I need from the experience) or whether the beliefs are in control of me (and limiting my behaviour and/or understanding).

This links to Paul's question, "Where science fails to grasp what it reaches for, other approaches may be needed". My initial reaction was to think of politics; we have far from perfect knowledge yet still have to make decisions. Uon's comment reminds me that this is true of the psyche too, only more so. It also holds for relationships and dealing with people in general.

[henry_the_cow]

"I have some illusions I don't want shattered" - apparently, research suggests that we are better off (or at least happier) being optimistic than realistic.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

That's enough for me - it means that it makes sense to speak of the accuracy of a model, that there's something to compare it to.

[cyberinsekt.livejournal.com]

Too much use of the word "belief" for my liking. It means different things to different people, and any conversation regarding belief seems to inevitably get bogged down in definitions. Frustrating.

It's the same with "science" and "religion", nouns with different levels of abstraction for different users. Here's an experiment for you: start talking about "scientific thought" and "religious thought" and treating them as tools rather than ideals. As henry_the_cow says, it's largely about control.

[elsmi.livejournal.com]

I find this (the division between objective reality and our models of it) a useful model for many purposes, but I'm not willing to call it a capital-T Truth. (I mean, how would you know?)

I'm essentially a pragmatist.

[elsmi.livejournal.com]

Where science fails to grasp what it reaches for, other approaches may be needed

I'm not sure this question as phrased can be discussed in a rational manner ;-)

I'd be happy to say that if those other approaches work, they *are* science... but the terms of the debate are so loaded at this point that many people would react to that as outright cultural appropriation, with Science as the privileged culture.

I guess the trick is distinguishing between science-the-practice and science-the-category-of-techniques-that-have-certain-properties.

[nameandnature]

I like Richard Carrier's definition of "supernatural" as being the idea that there are minds which don't run on physical stuff (see his blog post). If there are such things, then naturalism (in the philosophical sense, not the nudist one) is wrong, so such things are supernatural. If there are ghosts and they're actually made of physical stuff, then they're not supernatural in his sense.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

Funny, I'd say the opposite: Truth only truly exists in the mathematical world. The real world has too many complexities, inconsistencies and shades of gray.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Some people have fingernails: unticked as I reckon more than some...

"Some" is an odd word. "Some people have fingernails" implies that not that many people have fingernails really. "Some people have fingernails; some don't" doesn't; I'm not sure whether it implies the split is about 50:50, or whether it doesn't imply anything about the relative proportions at all (except that they're non-zero).

[keirf.livejournal.com]

Perhaps there are some things that no formal system can simplify, and that are so complicated that the mind required to know them would need to be bigger than the universe?

[keirf.livejournal.com]

If we only have access to "Truth with a capital T" through inaccurate models filtered through analysis of our sense impressions, then how can we know that it's actually there and that it's absolute?