Veritology

What is mysteriously absent from direct academic pursuit is the study of Truth. I should exist as a science and a way of life in its own right. There isn’t really a name for it, something I’m in the process of attempting to correct by suggesting Veritology, from the Latin veritas, for truth.

We all refer to and use “truth” in our everyday lives, we attempt to undermine it or redefine it out of any usefulness; we even have a workable definition for it other than to use equally indefinite terms such as reality. We venerate epistemology, the study of knowledge; but knowledge is only part of Truth.

Truth is not in the Dewey Decimal System and we don’t offer college degrees or even courses in it. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s statement about the weather: everyone talks about the Truth, but no one ever does anything about it.

well i agree…

it seems like the inital reason for starting an academic career always gets shelved in dissapointment after about 2 weeks of study…

very quickly people learn that there is no one right answer to a question… that no opinion can always be valid and even that our brains are impossibly small to even begin to understand this universe in its true nature…

the only thing we can do is keep on trucking toward an end…

learning is the flood gate which can never be fully opened…

the truth is that any truth we can imagine or articulate is inevitably made out of peanuts…

I just had a thought though…

We construct our lives and knowledge out of peanuts…

Peanuts in the sense that we find these commonalities in our world and use them to make predictions and devices in order to help us live better…

let’s pretend that the Mona Lisa is a great truth…

Should it be denied on the basis that it is constructed out of peanuts?

explain

There exists no single narrow definition of truth and truth has become useless in the face of relativism.

Relativity is where it’s at . :wink:

Commonalities in our world are objective. Any Truth in the Mona Lisa is subjective.

I believer that there is both objective and subjective Truth. Natural law, and art. In between lie justice and love. Knowledge deals only with objective natural law. All else blends, using an increasing degree of subjective Truth, toward Art.

I don’t consider spanning the spectrum from objective to subjective, narrow. Yes, understanding Truth has indeed been damaged, almost entirely by relativists wishing to justify the double standard that favors them or that they want to.

truth starts out by understanding that there is only one way things exist and that is there is only one form(s) that produce another and that no other forms can do so

for example only H2O can produce water

no other combination(s) of elements can do so

That is true only for scientific Truth or natural law which is totally objective. Justice, love and beauty are other aspects of Truth that are derived from partial or complete employment of subjective Truth.

that still doesn’t prohibit us from happening upon some objectivity (even if we never know it)

way to not recognize a simple analogy…

The relativity of truth exists outside the logically deductive argument. A logically deductive argument begins with a set of premises and leads to a set of conclusions. Everything between is objectively undeniable. Everything outside is subject to debate. You will always get someone who wants to debate your premises no matter how irrefutable they seem to you.

When you mix apples and oranges, the analogy fails.

In an argument about an objective subject, what lies outside is undiscovered objective Truth. The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) if it exists, is just as objective before we discover it as after. Ditto any other natural laws of the universe. Just because it is unknown and subject to debate, doesn’t make it subjective. Likewise, subjective Truth always is and will aways remain, subjective. The beauty or repulsion of the Mona Lisa will never be a matter for objective debate because there can be no objective outcome. If I think a particular pile of shit is beautiful, for me, that is 100% subjectively true, and if I don’t change my mind, it remains so.

No matter how you cut it, you can’t get truth unless you begin with premises. Not even science is exempt from this. You can go out and discover these truths, but there will always be someone to cast doubt on the veracity of these truths, or the evidence for them. The evidence is, of course, empirical observation. But then you’re limited to sensory perceptions, and someone could argue a whole myriad of cases like we’re all living in a dream or we’re all plugged into the matrix or (like Descartes) we’re being tricked by an evil demon.

Granted, this brings us into the absurd, but the nature of Truth is such that it should be able to withstand even the absurd.

Science is the only form of Truth that is specifically NOT exempt from this. Beauty is totally exempt while love and justice are an amalgam.

Not always. Many times those who attempt to cast reasonable doubt on objective Truth will embarrass themselves. Someone can attempt to cast doubt on the fact that the World is spherical. Doesn’t mean they should have gotten out of bed that morning.

Yes, it’s possible this could all be a figment of my imagination. But that brings us back to the universe being a cosmic joke which is more unfathomable than atheism or deism.

Yes, absurd, thus my model for Truth

no the point of an analogy is that i can use apples to represent oranges…

i said “imagine if the mona lisa represented a great objective truth”…

you cannot see past this simple analogy? i expected a response and not someone telling me my analogies suck…

let me remake the analogy for you…

let’s say i spelt out a great objective truth in peanuts…

we shouldn’t reject the truth because its spelt in peanuts…

(the mona lisa the analogy had more meaning)

Unfathomable and falsehood are two different things. There are plenty of scientific truths we have today which, a few centuries ago, would have been thought absurd.

You have a specific model? I must have missed it. Can you enlighten me?

The Mona Lisa as art can only have subjective meaning. You could assign an objective Truth to it, but that would be totally arbitrary. “The Mona Lisa represents the great objective Truth that 2+2=4.” or even something more subtle like, “enigmatic human life has evolved on Earth”, but that’s still arbitrary and has nothing to do with its subjective artistic beauty or lack of it. A “Starry Night” can be an inspired artistic impression of the beauty of the actual night sky, which is subjective. But the objective subject matter and natural law that governs it remain objectively immutable and universal.

I agree of course.

I’ve touched on it here and there, and I plan to cast my pearls in a separate thread as soon as I can steel my self to being rent by the swine of soundbyte sarcasm.

Is relativity true or false?

I think it’s neither since such school of thought refuses to be categorized as such.