One truth for all.

[Impious]

Everyone should permanently share a common truth. In deciding which truth it should be, the following factors should be taken into account:

1. The simplicity of the truth in question (for ease of devolution and dissemination).
2. The relationship of the truth in question to forefront academic and scientific research (the friendlier the better).

[rule110]

@Impious

Everyone should permanently share a common truth

I agree. In reality there is only one truth. Whether or not we know this truth is a different matter. But there is still only one truth.

@Impious

1. The simplicity of the truth in question (for ease of devolution and dissemination).

I like this. Its very Occam’s Razor-y. As long as by “simple” you mean the one that makes the least assumptions. As opposed to meaning something like “the easiest one to talk about”.

For example: “God did it” is an extremely “simple” answer in a grammatical sense, but the implications and assumptions that go along with “God did it” are staggering. Hence making “God did it” NOT a simple answer.

@Impious

2. The relationship of the truth in question to forefront academic and scientific research (the friendlier the better).

I agree with the first part, but what exactly do you mean by “friendly” here? Do you mean most compatible with current knowledge? Or do you mean what wont make people uncomfortable?

Actually either usage of “friendly” has no bearing on what the truth actually is. People were content emotionally and academically with the geocentric theory. Then Galileo showed that theory to be wrong. I don’t see how “friendliness” is a relevant quality in truthiness. Could you elaborate more?

[Impious]

@rule110

@Impious

Everyone should permanently share a common truth

I agree. In reality there is only one truth. Whether or not we know this truth is a different matter. But there is still only one truth.

@Impious

1. The simplicity of the truth in question (for ease of devolution and dissemination).

I like this. Its very Occam’s Razor-y. As long as by “simple” you mean the one that makes the least assumptions. As opposed to meaning something like “the easiest one to talk about”.

For example: “God did it” is an extremely “simple” answer in a grammatical sense, but the implications and assumptions that go along with “God did it” are staggering. Hence making “God did it” NOT a simple answer.

By a simple truth I mean one that contains nothing superfluous.

@Impious

2. The relationship of the truth in question to forefront academic and scientific research (the friendlier the better).

I agree with the first part, but what exactly do you mean by “friendly” here? Do you mean most compatible with current knowledge? Or do you mean what wont make people uncomfortable?

Actually either usage of “friendly” has no bearing on what the truth actually is. People were content emotionally and academically with the geocentric theory. Then Galileo showed that theory to be wrong. I don’t see how “friendliness” is a relevant quality in truthiness. Could you elaborate more?

Basically, science and critical thinking should be valued.

[rule110]

@Impious

By a simple truth I mean one that contains nothing superfluous.

Ok, but what about fallacious or contradictory or illogical? Or more importantly, what about incorrect?

[Impious]

@rule110

@Impious

By a simple truth I mean one that contains nothing superfluous.

Ok, but what about fallacious or contradictory or illogical? Or more importantly, what about incorrect?

A truth should only be these things when neccessary. For example, I consider it wrong to deceive someone in intellectual matters, but I recognise that deception is often necessary in other things such as love play.