From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 22:01:44 PDT
To: mnorton@cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton)
Subject: Re: Collection of personal info
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950906223208.12556D-100000@cavern>
Message-ID: <199509070507.AAA01347@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



> 
> Doesn't make it true, in Tim's sense--just makes it verifiable.
> 
> MacN
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jim Choate wrote:
> > Truth is that which can be verified to be reproducable by indipendant and
> > unbiased parties. All else is opinion.
> 

What exactly is Tim's sense to you? Perhaps Tim could clarify more clearly
what he means by 'truth'.  To me it sounds like he is saying that there is
some viewpoint that is absolute. I no more believe in absolute viewpoints
than I believe in absolute coordinates.

If it is the 'truth' what makes it unverifiable? If I can look at it and
claim it isn't the truth (because I can't verify it) how does one know it
is the truth then? What seperates this unverifiable truth from opinion
(which is equally unverifiable by definition)? What is the litmus test? And
how do we know the litmus test is true? (I see a circle coming up)

For example, lets say that I have a accident with another motorist. We each
tell our story but they are different (or the same for that matter). Which is
true? I would hold neither. The incident as described by either of us is
simply our recollection of happenstance, in other words our opinion of what
occured. It is not what occured. The only truth that could be derived would
be that an accident had occured. Why? Because we would have two bent cars
that anyone who cared enough could verify.

The truth is not some mighty sword we can wield to reveal some shrowded
mystery. It is the realization that the world is a complicated place and we
deal with incomplete facts (ie fog of war). From this meager litany of facts
we try to derive some conclusion that allows us to control our environment.
Truth is a mundane everyday sort of thing, not some magical force. The truth
will not free you nor will it guarantee a better tomorrow.

The whole argument breaks down to the simple question of whether it is
possible to know anything absolutely. If it is possible to know something
absolutely what else to call it but fact (and therefore true)? If it isn't a
fact then it is either a lie (ie the inversion of truth) or else an opinion.
I don't see how there can be any other division than these three.

Another way to look at it is to say that if it involves faith it can't be
truth. Truth can't be dependant on faith (ie observer).

[Looking over this I realize that we are talking about a form of
computability]