|
Okay, when I was training to be a criminal investigatior one thing our instructor hammered home again and again is the idea that we were interested in facts, not truth. So my question to you is this, do you think that truth and facts are different things? If so how are they different? What makes something afact and what makes something truth? Please discuss but keep it civil.
Okay, when I was training to be a criminal investigatior one thing our instructor hammered home again and again is the idea that we were interested in facts, not truth. So my question to you is this, do you think that truth and facts are different things? If so how are they different? What makes something afact and what makes something truth? Please discuss but keep it civil.
If I can hazard a guess, perhaps what your instructor was doing was one of two things.
First, that there is a danger in looking for "the truth" because if you believe something is true at some point during your investigation, there is the danger that you will miss facts, or subconciously minimize them if they are inconsistent with your percieved notion of the truth. I have seen this happen (not often, but it does) in criminal investigations in the past. It's interesting, really, as a neutral observer reading a police report, sometimes you can almost pinpoint the moment that it happens, and then further investigation finds facts that were disregarded.
The second reason could be that ultimately, in criminal investigations, the trier of fact, be that the judge or jury are the ones who are supposed to decide guilt or innocence, and it may be part of getting into that mindset.
|
|
You are right and I understandwhat he was saying. It's the same reason that I am one of thefew people who didn't think Tommey Lee Jones was a hard hearted bastard when he says "I don't care" in response to Harrison Ford's decleration of innocence in The Fugitive.
Edit: I was more asking from a philisophical standpoint.
|
Perception is reality to people. People filter their perceptions through their own life events. If a person really thinks something happened a certain way, that is the truth for them. Lie detectors are not fact detectors, and if you get hung up in looking for the truth, you will get the filtered perceptions of everyone you talk to. What you want to find are the facts, meaning what actually happened. Truth and facts can be different because everyone may not see, comprehend, or remember things the way they actually happened. Only the facts can tell you what happened without the personal filters of everyone involved.
Truth is a matter of perspective (paradoxial, isn't it). It's really just a supposition supported by facts. New facts can change the validity of the supposition and can therefore change the truth into a falsehood.
vis: the the Sun's orbit around the earth, the wisdom of arming taliban freedom fighters to drive Russians from Afganistan, the quality of Bernie Madoff's stock tips
|
|
Let me give you an example of how people's perceptions influnce their actions. I was in a car accident in Las Vegas many years ago. The people that hit me ran a red light and broadsided my car. Several other driver's witnessed the accident and confirmed that the other car ran the red light. The officer who arrived on scene took everyone's statements and then went and smoked a couple of cigirettes with the guys that hit me. When he came back he wrote the accident up as me being at fault. Luckly I had a friend in the LVPD that I convinced to take a look at the accident reports again and he managed to find some security camera footage from a pawn shop on the corner that showed what really happened so I was cleared, but it shows how different facts and "truth" can be.
A (proven) fact is just that - something like "there is a sun, and it moves across the sky".
Truth is more a matter of believing or accepting a certain view - I hold the scientific world view, in which the earth revolves around the sun, for the truth. I have no way to prove it on my own. For all I know, the sun might be lamp carried by some unseen giant across the sky every day. Still, I accept the scientific view as the truth. So, one way to arrive at truth is taking facts, explaining them under the guidance of a certain world view, and taking the result as truth.
Stefan
|
Truth is not a perspective. Truth is. Before we knew the fact that air is made up of oxygen we were breathing it in at night. Nothing can change this. There are trees in a forest regardless of whether we are there to observe this fact or not.
Facts are based on perceived knowledge and many times help us get closer to a truth.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened
Truth: ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience
Basically you don’t have to know about a truth for it to still be real. Facts are things we have understood about something and are subject to revision when new evidence is brought forth. A truth is still a truth, regardless if a fact currently supports it or not.
Philosophically speaking you just opened a huge vat of worms :D
In western philosophy knowledge is traditionally classified as a priori or a posteriori. A priori truths are logical truths, and do not rely on experience. They are not matters of perception. An example is the statement "all circles are round." Being round is part of the definition of "circle." The statement cannot not be true.
A posteriori knowledge comes from experience, and such statements are not necessarily true, e.g. "all cows are vegetarian." This statement is true, but it is possible to imagine a cow that eats meat. It is not possible to imagine a square circle.
To me a working definition of truth is that a truth is a statement, and that statement matches a state of affairs in reality or logic. A fact is an assertion of a truth, but it may or not match reality. When you assert that something is a fact you are saying "x is true", where "x" is the fact, and "is true" means "matches reality.
So if a fact DOES match reality, it is an a posteriori truth. If it doesn't, it is simply an incorrect fact. An a priori truth cannot be a fact, because it can't be incorrect and a fact must be verifiable, i.e. it has to have the possibility of being wrong or right and it must be able to tested against teh world to find out.
So if a fact DOES match reality, it is an a posteriori truth. If it doesn't, it is simply an incorrect fact.
Like "we don't see enough of kahoolin around these here parts" being born out by his low post:time ratio but high quality:post ratio?
So if a fact DOES match reality, it is an a posteriori truth. If it doesn't, it is simply an incorrect fact.Like "we don't see enough of kahoolin around these here parts" being born out by his low post:time ratio but high quality:post ratio?
Thanks mate ;) I dropped in to say merry xmas and got sidetracked by this thread. Hopefully I can increase my time:post ratio in the near future...
|
|
So if a fact DOES match reality, it is an a posteriori truth. If it doesn't, it is simply an incorrect fact.
'a posteriori knowledge' is proven through experience.
'a priori knowledge' is known independently of experience.
Truth is independent of our knowledge or lack there of it.
Facts are based on our knowledge, our experiences and our evidence there of.
Is that a fact?
|
|
As an aside Science is our understanding of facts based on our evidence at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our evidence grows)
Religion and Spirituality are our understanding of Truth based on our beliefs at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our "understanding" grows)
In my opinion anyway. =D
As an aside Science is our understanding of facts based on our evidence at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our evidence grows)
Religion and Spirituality are our understanding of Truth based on our beliefs at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our "understanding" grows)
In my opinion anyway. =D
The problem with religion and spirituality at times in comparison to science is that they try to remain static in a dynamic changing environment and tend to be unyielding to acceptance of changes. But that's probably for the other thread...
|
|
The problem with religion and spirituality at times in comparison to science is that they try to remain static in a dynamic changing environment and tend to be unyielding to acceptance of changes. But that's probably for the other thread...As an aside Science is our understanding of facts based on our evidence at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our evidence grows)
Religion and Spirituality are our understanding of Truth based on our beliefs at the time and as such changes. (or rather should as our "understanding" grows)
In my opinion anyway. =D
Probably
I will add since my defination is a bit different then most for these.Religion a communities search for Truth.
Spirituallity a personal search for Truth.
Two sides of the same coin that I feel many get confused.
Probably
I will add since my defination is a bit different then most for these.Religion a communities search for Truth.
Spirituallity a personal search for Truth.
Two sides of the same coin that I feel many get confused.
That's a fair definition. I'm not religious nor spiritual, but I also like to partake of a community as well as a personal path to determine what may or may not be 'the Truth'. For me, it's called contemplation, or being contemplative.
The problem with finding the Truth is that it is muddled by words that try to define the Truth, but it is those very words to which we assign definition that obscures us from grasping what is essentially Truth. But you have people hung up on definitions (we all do) and thus causes the conflict and schisms that we experience today. A lot has to do with the passage of time and the changes in languages from generation to generation where one description meant something to an earlier civilization than it does today.
But I think I'm probably going off track from David's original point of this thread and going into someplace a bit more esoteric, so I'll just take my 2 cp and rest for a moment. :P
|
|
That's a fair definition. I'm not religious nor spiritual, but I also like to partake of a community as well as a personal path to determine what may or may not be 'the Truth'. For me, it's called contemplation, or being contemplative.Probably
I will add since my defination is a bit different then most for these.Religion a communities search for Truth.
Spirituallity a personal search for Truth.
Two sides of the same coin that I feel many get confused.
To me that is Spirituallity.
I just fell that Spirituality is only half the equation. It works best in conjunction with Religion. In America we have 2 problems I have beheld.
Fear of Religion. Sometimes for good reasons.
and an reverse of that where people are so desperate for a community that they embrace, and will not let go of a community that is detrimental to themselves.
To me that is Spirituallity.I just fell that Spirituality is only half the equation. It works best in conjunction with Religion. In America we have 2 problems I have beheld.
Fear of Organized Religion. Sometimes for good reasons.
and an reverse of that where people are so desperate for a community that they embrace, and will not let go of a community that is detrimental to themselves.
The difference between my definition, and probably yours, is that I don't believe in spirits in the sense that we return to something after we die. I'm a from dirt - to dirt kind of guy.
Also, I edited your quote a bit. Especially those folks out in Westboro. :P (I realize that not everyone is like that, but I couldn't resist).
|
|
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
All "Religion" is by defination organized it just depends onto what level, and by whom.
Once again I am on the other side of the state. Westboro is not so much a religion as it is a family clan who wish to see everyone else in hell.
|
|
Interesting hypothosis CJ. How does one determine and discover truth then if it is not derived from facts. And what if facts contradict what one understands to be truth?
"although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience" Immanuel Kant
Discovering truth.
Facts allow us a glimpse of what a Truth maybe.
If facts contradict what we perceive as Truth you have two choices. Either adjust what you believe or test what you think is a fact.
I had a longer post but cut it short for easier understanding and well just length in general.
|
Facts are like the results of a mathematical formula. No matter who cranks the formula, everyone ought to get the same results. Problem is, most of these formulas exist in closed black boxes. We know some of the variables but not all of them. Our understanding of them evolves. Newton's Laws were formulas that explained almost all planetary motion, until we could measure things like Mercury well enough to realize they were just a little off. Then Einstein tweaks the formula, adds a variable here, a constant there, and - bingo! - it works again ... for now. And who's to say that the rules that we use to solve these formula have always been the same, or are the same everywhere? But it's the best we can do. Facts describe the world as it is, to the best of our ability to describe it.*
* Therein lies another problem, "to the best of our ability." We humans are subjective creatures. It may be that for a lot of soft topics, as a result of nature and nurture, experience and learning and beliefs, we CANNOT describe the world in certain terms, that we CANNOT add certain bits of information together and get the same results as someone wired differently. And here we approach the Truth. When I say what I believe to be correct, I am telling the truth. The truth is unabashedly filtered by each of our beliefs. Through experience and teaching, some truths are shared by many, sometime so many that it seems hard to believe that anyone could describe the same events/data in any other way. "truth" becomes "Truth."
But when you are talking about something that is almost by definition subjective, where one of the variables in the formula is "in my opinion ...", how could we ever expect to end up with facts? What is the best way to live your life? How could there be a Factual answer to that question? It's rigged from the start. There can only be honest, genuine, Truthful answers. How many Hershey bars would it take to encircle the Moon? There's a Factual question. Most if not all of the variables can be quantified and incorporated into the formula. No matter who cranks it, it ought to be the same. (BTW- the answer is: one big one).
Anyway, ruminations. Thanks for the great question and deep thoughts.
'a posteriori knowledge' is proven through experience.'a priori knowledge' is known independently of experience.
That's right. If you think about it though, for something to be known independently of experience it would have to be necessarily true by virtue of the elements that make up the statement, like my example "all circles are round." Anything else which can be either true or false (have a truth value) is a posteriori. So you can have a posteriori truths, which means in some cases our discovery of truth is based solely on our experience.
Truth is independent of our knowledge or lack there of it.
Facts are based on our knowledge, our experiences and our evidence there of.
See, that I'm not so sure about. How can a fact be judged true or false if truth is independent of knowledge? On what basis do we judge if not our perceptions and experiences? It seems like what you are calling Truth is a priori truth only. Unless I've misunderstood and you are saying something else...
|
|
But Truth (capitol T) is by definition independent of knowledge. Just because a person has never seen a circle or understand calculus does not mean that the Truth of said mathematics are false. It is merely unknown.
Which is why it is a priori and a posteriori are adjectives generally used on knowledge but also on truth (lower case T). These fill up our beliefs. What we think are true.
I believe in the truth of G~D but the Truth of reality eludes me.
I’m not sure if this helps or not, or if I am confusing the matter further. But I am trying =D
Move along citizen.