Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (11573)	4/16/2001 5:43:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How do we agree if we can never know the truth of anything? We agree on the basis of probabilities. Enough peopple have seen the sun rises in the East that we accept it as true, even though it's possible that they were all wrong and the one shepherder in the Andes who thought it rose in the West was really the only person in the world to see it correctly. All our "truth," at least that based on human observation, is really only probability to varying degrees of confidence. And before you get too committed to the idea that observation is worth something, read the work of Elizabeth Loftus. Any trial lawyer who doesn't know Loftus is incompetent, IMO.

To: jlallen who wrote (11573)	4/16/2001 5:45:47 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You have missed the part of the discussion where we talked about objective and subjective standards. We can be taught (or indoctrinated, if you prefer) that running around in the nude in public is wrong. This is not true everywhere, but we can be taught it is wrong here. When we do not comply we are first punished (as children) and later arrested, as adults. Most of us comply. And so it goes.

To: jlallen who wrote (11573)	4/16/2001 5:53:46 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"How do we agree if we can never know the truth of anything?" We can agree on principle and on our interpretation of observable behavior and phenomena. We make agreements on many levels. We some times let criminals out of prison if we believe that we have thier agreement to behave according to some standard set by society. It doesn't necessarily mean that they think the standard is a good one. We have performance agreements that thread themselves through all aspects of life. We use the word truth to represent things that can be observed as well as to represent the essential essence of things which can only be known by belief systems or through speculation. We can define a standard that is observable and measurable. We can observe and measure behavior against that standard. We can declare as evidence the extent to which the standard was met. It is tricky though as our observations and determinations do not always stand up to the test of time. We can know that we are hungry and we can agree to do something about it. Like, go to the pizza parlor on the corner and eat a peparoni pizza. Can we measure whether or not that standard was met? Yes we can. Can we measure whether or not the experience was satisfying? Yes, to a degree, but we might find less agreement in the latter. Over time you may decide that peparoni is a bad thing and change your determinations on that event. "How do we know these things if we can know the truth about nothing?" I know the truth about lots of things. When it comes to what I see in the world, however, I always leave room for doubting my senses.