How can you debate if you believe in relative truth?

[LadyMilla]

This whole relative truth according to ones opinion is the dumbest thing I have ever heard as an opening premise . It doesn't work because no matter what anyone says about anything in particular it can always be refuted according to one personal idea of relative truth . Its like an argument that will go on and on and never stop . Sorry people up is up and down is down and truth is truth and a lie is still a lie no matter what your personal or relative opinion . To believe in relative truth is to believe in a lie and is just plain dumb . No wonder politicians have such a field day with the electorate .

 

Actually, relative truth is fairly well described in the theory of relativity and the relativity of simultaneity. Measurements that establish the simultaneity of events are objective and reproducible / predictable within their own frame of reference and still they may be contradicted by measurements taken from a third reference frame. Apparently, you should always provide a reference frame for your 'relative truth' to turn it into an 'objective truth'.

[Harbringe]

Not the same thing each frame is objective , according to scientific laws and principles of physics (its reproducible) , not subjective according to one's belief or opinion. so in the case of a simultaneity 2 things can be observed by one frame of reference yet in another frame of reference 1 of those observable things does not exist , that is not arrived at subjectively but objectively. All it means is that within that particular frame of reference it does not exist and that's absolute not relative. See what people do with this sort of reasoning is say because it exists within one frame of reference it therefore need exist within another , yet when another frame proves it does not they presume the truth (observable object) is relative . The real question people fail to ask themselves is does the frame of reference change the nature of the observable object itself . And that is how a lie is told and that is what liars do , change the point of reference on the object so that people no longer even know what the original object looked like . (what the original truth was) .We also do this to ourselves when we are confronted with some truth that we don't like , change its reference point so we can say to ourselves I'm alright or that doesn't affect me .

 

The vanity of our self (minds) is the deadliest of our sins .

 

PS: Btw there are theorist's doing experiments on the physics of observation itself , asking the question does observation itself change the nature of the object (truth) or is the change in observation . So what was once objectively observed (truth) no longer is, once observed. They have theorized that the only way to know the absolute nature of the object (truth) is to be able to observe all simultaneity from all frameworks of reference all at the exact same moment. Which would be like being God I assume , but they are trying to figure out how to do that .

Edited November 4, 2013 by Harbringe

[LadyMilla]

It also means that your objectivity is relative to your reference frame. What you objectively regard as a simultaneous occurrence in one reference frame will be an objectively non-simultaneous occurrence in another frame. However, since you cannot choose an absolute reference frame, objectivity becomes relative. You cannot claim that this specific reference frame is the right one. Hence, as you wander between reference frames, objectivity becomes an illusion, and the truth of a statement (A occurs after B) becomes relative and bound to a certain reference frame, which is only special because you selected it so that the statement can be declared 'true'. But that's 1 reference frame, and theoretically you can pick an indefinite number of other reference frames where the statement will be false.

 

Add to that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and it appears that even local simultaneity is squashed by the fact that you cannot measure the time of an event beyond a certain precision. This relegates the entire concept of simultaneity to an abstract notion. The sad thing is that as we deal with our abstract notions, we tend to believe that there is an objective reality behind it even though the abstract notion always deviates from 'reality' (whatever it is) because in our mind we can violate the Heisenberg principle and imagine that there is a definite event or entity beyond that fuzzy cloud that our measurements cannot penetrate. We can fool ourselves that we are getting closer and closer to an objective description of reality, but apparently reality defies that attempt and throws the uncertainty principle into our face.

 

And we do not even need to conjure up Heisenberg. A simple statement like "This sentence is false" gave numerous excellent philosophers a serious headache. Or should I mention the incompleteness theorems.

[HeyYou]

 

Where did my argument contain a non-sequitor.

 

 

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie.

 

 

This.

 

It is a bald assertion and a conclusion.

 

All logical leaps are non sequiturs.

 

Not a bald assertion. A fact.

 

Truth is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Now, I will grant that there are specific examples of a 'truth' that will be true for 99% of the population, but, the more common variety is simply based on perception, or the society in which you find yourself living.

 

Take for example: "The United States is the great satan." To a fair number of folks, that is indeed the truth. For the rest of the world, it is not.....

[Keanumoreira]

I don't understand where this "lying" concept originated. Up is indeed up, down is indeed down, a lie is a lie, and so on and so on, but a fact is what is commonly observed and not what we say it is. Just because you or I believe in something does not mean it is true. Similarly, just because I don't believe in something does not mean it isn't true. How do you know that our concept of "up" or "down" or "gravity" and what have you is the same for other intelligent life? Down could mean up, stop could mean go. Just because we call it a fact does not make it a fact. And no, it is not called "lying." That's like saying "I like blue; blue is the superior color" and someone else refutes that by saying "you're a liar." An opinion is not a lie. There is no room for mendacity in perception. So it brings up the question: what is really true? Nothing is. Humans like to put labels on things. Whether or not you believe that, or anything I just said, is up to those who are willing to exercise their opinion. In the scheme of things, when placed before the opinions of other people, we are all right and we are all wrong. If there is one fact that cannot be disputed, it is this one. Of course, there will be someone out there who is willing to disagree with that, which works, because that's exactly what I was aiming for. :P

[Ghogiel]

 

 

Where did my argument contain a non-sequitor.

 

 

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie.

 

 

This.

 

It is a bald assertion and a conclusion.

 

All logical leaps are non sequiturs.

 

Not a bald assertion. A fact.

 

Truth is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Now, I will grant that there are specific examples of a 'truth' that will be true for 99% of the population, but, the more common variety is simply based on perception, or the society in which you find yourself living.

 

Take for example: "The United States is the great satan." To a fair number of folks, that is indeed the truth. For the rest of the world, it is not.....

 

Semantics. You are using the term true to mean an opinion or belief.

 

That example is actually just an opinion.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

Where did my argument contain a non-sequitor.

 

 

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie.

 

 

This.

 

It is a bald assertion and a conclusion.

 

All logical leaps are non sequiturs.

 

Not a bald assertion. A fact.

 

Truth is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Now, I will grant that there are specific examples of a 'truth' that will be true for 99% of the population, but, the more common variety is simply based on perception, or the society in which you find yourself living.

 

Take for example: "The United States is the great satan." To a fair number of folks, that is indeed the truth. For the rest of the world, it is not.....

 

Semantics. You are using the term true to mean an opinion or belief.

 

That example is actually just an opinion.

 

Alrighty then, give me an example of an 'indisputable' truth.

[Hardwaremaster]

Alrighty then, give me an example of an 'indisputable' truth.

 

Well I've been watching this thread for a while, because I sort of raised this very issue a while back, but I can't recall where it was exactly. Therefore I shall drop a few of my thoughts in here for consideration, In my opinion, I don't believe there even is such a thing as truth let alone anything as indisputable. Because of the simple reason, that you can argue about anything you want to, you don't even really need a reason for doing so either, often times what is true for one person is not true for someone else. Take for example the simple act of trolling, is fundamentally arguing for the sake of arguing, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

 

Also of interesting note is the result that people have believed in, and will continue to believe in inaccuracy's, which is what Joseph Goebbels task was for instance. I suppose in a way, truth is basically more subjective then objective, and more accurate then the word relative, which is more to the actual problem that people will believe, whatever they want to believe, and here is the debate.

 

I'm going to quote from the movie the Matrix here, to expound on what I'm trying to get at, substitute the word real for truth and you get my point. In conclusion this is a complicated problem that stems more from information rather then a thought problem.

 

"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." ~Morpheus: (Also another problem is that most debates are nothing more then Pedantics wrapped in a cloak of Semantics.)

Edited November 6, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[Ghogiel]

 

 

 

 

Where did my argument contain a non-sequitor.

 

 

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie.

 

 

This.

 

It is a bald assertion and a conclusion.

 

All logical leaps are non sequiturs.

 

Not a bald assertion. A fact.

 

Truth is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Now, I will grant that there are specific examples of a 'truth' that will be true for 99% of the population, but, the more common variety is simply based on perception, or the society in which you find yourself living.

 

Take for example: "The United States is the great satan." To a fair number of folks, that is indeed the truth. For the rest of the world, it is not.....

 

Semantics. You are using the term true to mean an opinion or belief.

 

That example is actually just an opinion.

 

Alrighty then, give me an example of an 'indisputable' truth.

 

Math is probably the best example.

[HeyYou]

Like the 1 + 1 = 2? or was it 10?

 

Again, it just depends on who you are talking to. (both gotta be on the same page.)