[snapshot]

Originally Posted by Waves

This is sort of important since my whole post hinges on a different definition of truth than most people use.

If we don't have the same definition of truth, then we're not talking about the same thing. It doesn't matter what word we use, technically, but it does matter what we're actually talking about. Beyond that, it matters if we can actually understand what we're talking about, otherwise, our motives are completely misguided.

My belief is that truth is relative, like everything else.

If you say that truth is relative, you're really just saying that there is no such thing as truth. Because...

Every person has their own set of truths that form their beliefs, which dictates their thoughts and behavior.

Wouldn't, instead of "truth," the more appropriate word be "opinion?" You don't believe that the definition of "opinion" is different for everybody, do you?

I dont like to talk about truth in terms of objective accuracy or "what really happens" because i believe to humans, "what really happens" is irrelevant, we act on our desires and those are rooted in subjective motives which are not always based in logic.

I would say that's a bad thing, but I wouldn't say you're wrong. But I don't quite see why this is relevant.

What is your desire for seeking truth for instance?

My opinion is true for me and no one else. I'm only concerned about statements being made which attempt to say what is true for everyone.

For me, truth is my beliefs, its my perception, and it has nothing to do with objectivity.

Then why use the word truth? What do you think about my definition of "truth."

So to me the implication of opinion is just sharing. Having fun, discussing, and exploring mental concepts. If you agree, great. If you dont, thats fine too.

I'm the same way. Someone's opinion doesn't tell me what to think, but I do think science does tell you what to think. You don't have to accept empiricism, but denying empiricism is radical skepticism, which is untenable as I've hopefully, successfully fleshed out. (See how I go right back to defending my position when you bring up a new position? That is a character flaw.)

Well then we would discuss your feelings and we would eventually get to the fact that you are making baseless assertations. After exploring your beliefs we would eventually get to this fact and i would go "great- but i dont agree with your baseless assertations" and that would be that. Its not that i dont think we cant come to conclusions and concern falsity from truth, its just that i believe truth is relative from person to person and thus the conclusions are going to be different from person to person. which in reality is how it should be, imo.

Do you believe that there are certain things that are definitely true for everyone, such as the strength of the gravitational force? Are there not something things that we can definitively say are true for everyone, no matter how seemingly pointless or irrelevant?

I do believe you can discover truth outside of yourself. Its just that its not anyone else's job to tell you what belief is right for you.

Completely agree. But I also think that it's OK to point out contradictions in people's own personal logic.

I think all beliefs are equally valid and can be validated by a persons perception because thats what beliefs are designed to do, regardless of the fact that they are not rooted in objective truth and logic. i do not believe reality to be rooted in objective truth or logic as i explained above, and that includes our human realities. and when i say this i am talking about beliefs as real, objective things. beliefs are real, and you can see that reality in extremes in places like the middle east. people are not killing themselves for things they believe to be false. thats the nature of beliefs and human perception.

Wouldn't killing people in the name of religion (say) be a result of false reasoning, false assumptions, etc? It sounds like you're saying certainty is the problem, while I think certainty while being WRONG is the problem.

It seems like a lot of people have a problem with being certain because so many people who are obviously wrong are certain, and instead of having an aversion to being wrong, people have an aversion to uncertainty. (I think you would agree that if someone attempted to make the claim that objects fall at 99999.8m/s/s on Earth, you could call them wrong--just so we can both agree that it is possible for someone to be incorrect in their own reasoning (assuming they already agree to every other standard).

The fabric of reality is irrelevant to humans. What is relevant to us is ourselves and our perception of reality. And how we view reality is our reality and its real to us. So our beliefs are our reality. They might not be THE reality, they might not be TRUE, but they are our reality. I agree we can come to objective conclusions but these objective conclusions are subjective in nature given that they are done with subjective perceptions. For all we know there might be an infinity number of different universes all with their own laws of physics and reality. That would mean that our reality is just one configuration of energy, one result among an infinity and our objective conclusions only apply to us and our perceptions and our universe.

It seems to me like I'm ignoring the entire first part of your paragraph just to nip at the heels of the second, but whether there is an infinite number of universes or not wouldn't have an effect on what is true in this universe. No one is making claims about those other universes. And, going back to the first part of your paragraph, what is your definition of "truth"?

Im getting hypothetical i know, but my point is that its useless to try to make objective conclusions about reality in any kind of concrete way. All you can do is draw similarities just like two scientists can never make the same measurement twice.

Well, it's inductive reasoning. But how can you make the emboldened claim you just made without using inductive reasoning. I'm not denying the inability of inductive reasoning to make certain claims. It's just that people that hold similar positions to you and JcP (though I think you're more fun to talk to, and I'm not saying you hold the same positions) is that you can't make such a claim without also accepting that inductive reasoning is valid.

I agree. Doesnt mean we arent free to explore and share together.

Straaaaaight.