Are some ways of knowing more likely than others to lead to truth?

[adinu]

Ways of knowing:

-sense perception
-emotion
-language
-reason

What do you think, guys? :yawnb:

[bibliophile190]

It seems to me that the first three (sense perception, emotion, language) can't be relied on as much as the last one (reason) to find truth. I think they can be useful to "gather data", but not rely on them solely. One has to use reason to piece the clues that one gathered from the first three to find truth. Of course, I'm probably completely off, but I tried.

[Midas]

First, I feel, you have to define 'truth'. For example, do you mean what one personally is prepared to accept as truth; or, what has been proven by empirical study, as in a scientific truth; or what the media/government/law/you name it tells us is the truth, including that which in some nations if you do not accept what you have been told is a certain historical truth, I mean not even question it or you will be imprisoned; kind of truth; or what is just generally accepted as being true by the majority.......

You see, to me, truth, like love is a four letter word and one that has become over used, and misused - like certain other four letter words of a base or expletive, nature. They sort of roll off the tongue so easily, and are instantly recognised by the masses - educated or not.

In the UK, but this happens all over, a man has just been found guilty of a crime committed over 30 years ago, and for which another man had been found guilty and served a long prison sentence. This resulted from more recent advances in DNA testing and matching which proved the first 'truth' wrong.

Many lives have been lost, and much suffering endured over accepted 'truth'. And many more will be.

There is much more to this question, a question that recurs again,and again
in forums, than I wish to get involved in too deeply. I could almost write most of the responses that you are likely to attract. (and even me from this post).

You see, we all, I include myself, believe we know the truth - well, most of the time. For the simple reason that what we, ourselves believe, is, to us, the truth. I mean, if we didn't, then we would not believe it. (see where I am leading?)

My intention here is merely to draw attention to the need to first decide what you mean by 'truth' in the context of any argument on the subject. It has become a very vague, and distorted word. But politicians, law enforcers, people in 'hairy' relationships and preachers of all kinds like to stress their interest and devotion to honouring it, or 'arriving at it' as it always goes down well when strengthening a particular stance, or cause.

[NikolaiI]

Truth is a relative term; and by that I mean that what's "Proven true by empirical science" is not true in the least. That's just my opinion, but if you don't believe me look how we've basically never figured something out that hasn't been overturned or at least refined.

Truth doesn't need to be described, though, Midas, to answer the question. We know what it is, and even though, yes, we all have different 'feelings' of language, we could skip all that and get to the part where we have the same understandings of words-- regardless what our views on life or whatever are.

To answer your question, I think a mixture of all of them is pretty much necessary to understand truth. Language is the worst one, I think it obscures reality more than the others. Reason is good, too, but if we reason, we're most likely to be incorrect. Truth and reality are basic, and to understand truth we have to "transcend language," rather, set it completely aside, and simply "Be." Humans are Gods compared to language; what I mean is, a single breath, a touch, a feeling, a wish, each of these is monumental not to say cosmic, where as language is just words written on paper. The reason? We are the universe being conscious of itself. Language isn't conscious.

Lastly, I think that everyone can come to true understanding. The path is different for everyone, but everyone can understand truth (and beauty) and it doesn't even have to be that difficult.

[oracle13]

I've always been very hesitant to question even my own beliefs about 'truth.' When I do, I seem to lead myself in a circling argument and end up with a bunch of clashing statements that seem to be true but can't coincide with one another.

Ignoring that, I'm not quite sure I understand what the difference is between language and reason. Reasoning between two people involves the communication of mutually intelligible ideas via a mutually intelligible medium. True, it doesn't have to be 'language,' as in English, or French, specifically, but I feel that its hard to define language without including all forms of communication, such as algebraic expressions, etc.

As for emotion...Wow this is tough.

Ok, forget all the above. This is a thought experiment I was cooking up while reading Descartes. The whole idea of hyperbolic doubt which leads to a mistrust of the senses, all the way to reducing the self to a thinking thing, seemed graspable to me. But I had this idea. Imagine a man born without any sensory abilities - no hearing, taste, touch, smell, or sight. Would this person still be able to think?

This is a crucial question, it seems to me. Because if the answer is yes, then sensory perception is not neccesary to gather information. But if the answer is no, then emotion, language and reason seem to be bundled as offspring of sensory perception. What do you think of this idea?

[adinu]

thank you for your responses, they're very useful.. it really helps me deal with stressing school assignments. thanks!

[Midas]

"....when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
('Sherlock Holmes', Conan Doyle)

Though, what is the accepted truth depends on the belief of who is judging, and holds the accepted authority.

To explain. If what is true depends on the individual who is expressing that 'truth', then that which he, or she believes is the truth, is the truth (to that individual). However, if there is an arbitrary process above, and outside the individual, then that becomes the accepted truth to the non-aligned. This, though. rarely overrules the belief to the individual and his/her supporters, of what is the truth.

That 'truth' to that individual has been arrived at through conditioning from nature and nurture over the period of time the individual has lived. Belief is a mind process, and can change; and input to the mind comes from the senses. It is from this input that we get understanding which eventually leads to belief. It should be stressed though, that if there is a mere feint shadow of doubt then that is not true belief.

A word about the senses. Some people have been born without one, or some of, the normal senses, and some with malfunctioning senses, and some with what we have termed, 'extra sensory perception', but I have not heard of anyone being born alive without all of the senses. I would therefore consider it non productive to envisage anyone with this condition. But if anyone likes to ponder on the unanswerable, then that is their choice.

'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.' ( Samuel Johnson from The Idler, 1758)

In war, truth is the first casualty (Aeschelus 525-456 BC)

So, it is said that the first casualty of war is truth. Here the machinery of government in order to mobilise people to put their lives at risk, and be prepared to take, or assent to take in their name, the lives of others, attempt to deceive by imparting lies as truth.

When it is done effectively, and it usually is with the backing, today, of powerful media, they can make many believe that black is white, and white is black, and that's the truth. Well, to me it is, because that is what I believe, however, you may believe otherwise.. And that also is the truth, as I am sure at least one of you will attempt to prove.

[NikolaiI]

I don't see at all why you turn this into a question of "what is truth?", Midas!!

Can't we set that aside and make our starting point be the common ground we share of language? It is probably true that truth is relative. But since the question needs there to be truth; it shirks the question to go on about what truth is. How can I put this? I know you didn't say it doesn't matter what people believe to be true, but it's almost like that. A person chooses a stance to believe, and no, in fact, that doesn't make it an absolute truth for everyone; however, if we take that fully to mean that truth is relative, then in a sense it doesn't matter. Since the question is what senses lead more to truth, can you see how your answer is not such a good answer? Er, more likely to lead to truth. So I'll say there's all this stuff we have to go through to get to truth; whereas it turns out any damn opinion is fine, because it's subjective anyway. Am I making any sense? I'm not meaning to criticize.

Yes; the problem with reason and language is that they're both part of "forming concepts." And you need reason for grammar. So there's some reason in language. However, I prefer the term logic and language, at least because logic fits better with ontology.

I truly think the first two- perception and feeling- are of equal or better significance than reason and language. They are more fundamental if nothing else, so you couldn't have the others without them. At least perception is totally fundamental.

Oracle, I believe yes, your person lacking senses could still think. Even though they couldn't have any reference to the world at all, as long as they were alive, there'd still be a brain ticking and so it'd think of something, even if it were only a vast empty darkness it was contemplating. Since we are assuming, I guess, that this person grew up from birth like this; it would probably be years before it became conscious, or perhaps it never does? They might die. If they lived, it would be interesting to see what kind of arm movements they made! It's such an interesting question because without any senses at all, you couldn't even know you existed! Anyway, another thing is that in Buddhism they consider there to be six senses; the five physical ones and then imagination or mind. So anyway that's my opinion. Great question!

[Midas]

Nicholai, I have so far avoided picking on your post. One of the reason is that there are far too many holes in it. Another is, if I am going to cross verbal swords with someone, I prefer them to be a worthy adversary and on the same, or similar mental plain.

Now, before you increase your blood pressure, I said 'on a similar, or same' plain. I did not say whether I viewed your plain higher or lower. You may put yourself wherever you like.

In both your posts you have referred to my post and named me. So, therefore, one can say I am entitled to make some comment in return.

You say:-

I don't see at all why you turn this into a question of "what is truth?", Midas!!


I know you do not see. You have made that evident. You obviously do not consider word meaning important. Whereas I place it high on my list in order to get understanding and smooth communication.

The central theme relates to 'means of 'knowing' leading to TRUTH - truth being a key element'. It is therefore, in order that a meaningful discussion on the subject, and provide meaningful answers, and comments, that the word TRUTH should be clearly defined, or made clear by inference. As also one needs to understand how our senses that provide the 'knowing' can be manipulated, if we are not aware to make us see 'truth' where it isn't.

Now, as I told Oracle (I suppose the follow-up response will come from that source, at least that is how it worked last time) I am making these responses for others benefit - not to persuade, but to give them a wider perspective.

Your response is no surprise to me whatsoever. I even pointed out I could have written the responses, even to my post - though I mentioned no names.

[oracle13]

I got really excited when I was thinking about the 'no senses person' quesiton, Nikolai, because for a split second I thought that I had just completely overturned the main contention of Descartes Meditations. But after thinking about it some more, I'm just really, really confused.

It prompts all kinds of weird questions. Like, what do we consider thought? If you have no senses, do you still feel things like hunger and thirst? If you have no senses would you know how to move your arm, or whether you were moving your arm even if you were? Also, if you can't learn any form of communication, or have no-one to communicate with, can you still think? Troubling stuff.

Midas, about its usefulness as a question, yes it probably is impossible for such a person to be born. But is it any less impossible than imagining Descartes evil demon? Or the brain-in-the-jar experiment?

To go back to the truth question that Midas raised, the predicament I have is this. Truth is clearly a human created concept used to enhance communication. So does this mean that there are no universal truths, truths that are true even outside the plane of human experience? If so, what about someone saying 2 + 2 = 4. Is there any way that that statement cannot be true? Again, if so, is there any way that a statement like 2 + 2 = 5 can be true? I'm sorry, I really don't have any answers on this particular topic, just questions. What are your opinions?

[NikolaiI]

Midas- you are obviously a very confused person- every post now you just try to twist things. Good luck sorting it out...

I am not able to refrain from being affected at least somewhat-
Your posts are toxic to me. They contain negativity----
Do not say my posts have holes.
Posts do not have holes.

I am not a worthy adversary?
Midas, all I can say to you is that I am an enlightened individual who cultivates my good heart, virtues and knowledge, which is the sword that cuts through confusion.

I have healed people in ways more profound than anything I've heard or read about- I am merely stating this...I have no doubts about myself...
It seems like you try to provoke me with these awful statements;
All I see is confusion in you;
And this is a very low level.
I just want to restore some dignity to this conversation.
We are not adversaries.

[Midas]

.Oracle: You are right, I commented at some length in at least one other thread on 'philosophers' about how they get carried away in their mental
exercises. There is, one finds, when studying (or glancing through) the works of so many a tendency to take theorising, and questioning, to extremes that they lose their balance, sense of direction, and 'go over the edge'.

As for the 'universal truths' as in science, and particularly mathematics, these have stood all the tests of truth. It is one I was going to point out to Nicholai when she said:


"Proven true by empirical science" is not true in the least. That's just my opinion, but if you don't believe me look how we've basically never figured something out that hasn't been overturned or at least refined.

I mean - 'not in the least true'?

Einstein did not change the basic truth of Newton's theory on gravity. An apple still falls down, not up, as it responds to gravitational pull (and is not acted upon by an equal, or greater unbalanced force. (1st law of motion) He merely, enlarged on the theory, or 'law'. And 2+2 will always make four no matter how many kids in the lower grades ( and some in the higher grades) try to make it otherwise.

The variations in what is truth comes when it is purely a behavioural one that depends only on the senses and individual (personal) interpretation, or well entrenched belief from conditioning. This is particularly evident in religious belief where many surpress their often excellent ability to reason in other areas yet question nothing where their religion is concerned

[NikolaiI]

Nope, not true in the least; not if those truths lead to the deaths of people.

2+2=4 is true; but if that leads to the death of people, then it's not true anymore.

[Midas]

Nicholai
'I have healed people in ways more profound than anything I've heard or read about- I am merely stating this...'

I have just one comment: 'Physician, heal thyself '(Luke 4:23)

[kilted exile]

Nope, not true in the least; not if those truths lead to the deaths of people.

2+2=4 is true; but if that leads to the death of people, then it's not true anymore.

In what way does a truth that causes harm cease to be true?

I believe it was Aristotle who said "the law is reason, free from passion". More often than not a dead greek guy said it best, for the purposes of this discussion lets just adapt it slightly - the truth is reason free from emotions

*** For the purposes of this post I am using truth as meaning things we can prove to be true within a general 95% CI ***

[ecstacy911]

oh my gosh! are you an IB student?

This is totally for your TOK essay am I right? I'm doing the same one!

The way i approached it was I looked at three different theories of truth

coherence theory, pragmatic theory and correspondence theory, then I discussed which was most correct, then I used that theory of truth (the coherence theory) to explain how each way of knowing fit in with leading to a truth conclusion, and which was best overall.

i'm not finished yet, so I haven't come to any definitive conclusion, but i would say that reason is probably the best.

[subterranean]

Ways of knowing:

-sense perception
-emotion
-language
-reason

What do you think, guys? :yawnb:

how bout doing it...putting it in to action?

[SMALL]

I did this topic for my TOK essay as well. I looked at it from a different perspective though. I basically said that perception is the basis for all the other ways of knowing, because without perception, the rest dont' really work.

[lumine99]

Umm... i am a little confused with the definition of truth itself....
in my opinion, it doesn't matter which ways of knowing that you like the most. the main thing is how do you use it...

[jgweed]

It seems that if one is going to discuss the appropriate rules and methods of attaining truth, then the definition of truth must be logically prior, and one must establish whether truth is always the same in every instance, or dependent on the human horizon in which it is posited.
It seems to me, that if we undertake a meditation about what truth means, we find that the common mental "picture" we have is a useful shorthand for a whole series of ways something can be asserted to be true, and that the rules and processes used to determine truth will vary.

[Page Sniffer]

sorry for the double post

[Page Sniffer]

Truth is all subjective and politically biased and fallible. The "truth" dogmatically pushed by those in power is not necesarily our truth. If we the people see a "truth", yet the powers to be willingly and knowingly ignore it, then for all intensive purposes at that intellectually repressed moment, truth does not exsist because it is not considered or acted on by those that can make change.

I think truth -- or really basic elemental goodness -- can be found in nature. Shambhalla discusses our (man's) problem of being too far from the natural goodness in the world because we are so distracted by material things and superficial nonsense. The grass, the air, trees, water are all elements of true goodness. Man is the alien and often negative element.

I think the first hurdle in allowing ourselves to realise what might be true or not are our own biases and fallacies that might invade our intellect to keep us from true reason. All of the senses help develop our powers of reason, but I think they can be over-riden by inner denial. Ideally we should make decisions aimed at a balance, or middle path of logic formulated by part emotion and part intellect. When one overpowers the other the balance is thrown askew and perhaps a poorer descision is made. We are human and most emotionally driven, unless someone is like "Spock" on Star Trek. Keeping an open mind and being able to continually question our own perceptions is often easier said that done, because of hubris. Most don't want to admit they made a mistake. Many mistakes can be avoided if an understanding of the actual negative affects of history on people in tangible terms can be considered, instead of unemotional numbers and words on a static page.

I think "truth" when used in parallel to the "worth and identity of each and every single individual human, as a being with the right to live" is overshadowed and demeaned by political blanketing. where the individuals are forgotten, and the world becomes some huge nihilistic board game to the politicians. They forget (or don't care to start with) that thier actions yesterday will cost innocent lives today, and probably more tomorrow. Mankind is it's own worst enemy.

Every single living being on this earth deserves a right to live in my opinion, and an abstract emotionally driven idea that alters that is no less criminal than if I go into a gas station and shoot the clerk behind the counter, and then to even add more insult to injury, go to his house and kill everyone inside. Does a person minding their own business behind a counter, at a cafe table, or say sitting in the middle of the floor on a rug, reading a book deserve to die because they are different than us, or bad luck put them in the wrong place (thier own home) at the wrong time? I find this obsene and criminal, and from the cause and affect point of view, the person that set this whole domino affect into motion is responsible for the negative results.

Judgement at Nuremburg (movie, 1961) takes an amazing look at truth, justice, the corruption of power, what is "right & wrong", and the worth of a single human being. I highly recommend it. The screenplay (written by Abby Mann) is available in a complete screenplay anthology ed. by Sam Thomas, pub. by Crown titled Best American Screenplays 2.

I had a talk with a guy that was a former head of an ethnically based organization that kept telling me, "there is only ONE truth..." over and over again. So I kept asking, "OK, what is it? What IS your ONE truth? I really want to know."

He couldn't tell me. He was anti-science, and heavily biased on an emotional bandwagon. So I believe in an intellectual sense, he is and was his own worst enemy because of his inability to open his own mind. His "truths" had no reality because he could not even express what it was , so what good was his "truth" to him -- or me? I was not enlightened as an empathetic open-minded human being because he was incapable of communicating what he thought was the "truth". I really wanted to know...

...peace for us all...

[jgweed]

Philosophical comments on sundry statements:
*****
"Truth is all subjective and politically biased and fallible."

How does political bias effect the truth-value of this statement: Chicago is west of New York.
*****
"I think truth -- or really basic elemental goodness -- can be found in nature."

Think of a wolf killing and eating the guts of a rabbit while it struggles. Where is the basic elemental goodness there? Why should truth be "goodness." Is it true to say that nature exhibits "elemental" goodness? Asking that question is to separate truth from goodness.....
*****
"Ideally we should make decisions aimed at a balance, or middle path of logic formulated by part emotion and part intellect."

This seems to inject a normative value to ascertaining truth, or at least our acting upon it; logic as such is certainly not a middle path formulated by an admixture of reason and emotion---if anything logic is the methodology of reason, and relies for its truth in the validity of its forms.
****
" Are some ways of knowing more likely than others to lead to truth?"

The very question assumes that there is one "best" way to arrive at the "truth," whatever truth is. What if the "best" way is different for different kinds of truth? And what are the criteria for saying one particular way is "best"?
"...it doesn't matter which ways of knowing that you like the most. the main thing is how do you use it..."
*****
"perception is the basis for all the other ways of knowing..."

Perception (or I would prefer intention) may be the occasion for the act of knowing, but not in the sense that all we can know is derived from sense-perception; we do have knowledge---and talk about the truth---of data not derived from the senses (e.g., formal logic).
We walk in a desert and perceive a lake which turns out in fact to be a mirage. The lake does not exist, and we are fooled by our sense-impression, but can we use "truth" in statements about it at the time, or only when we realise it is a mirage?
*****
The correspondence theory argues that X is true because it corresponds to the "real" or "true" X. Isn't this just an instance of begging the question or circularity? The obvious objection to the correspondence theory is that it is impossible to "stand outside" the correspondence to determine if it is actually a correspondence.

[Trystan]

Sense perception lets us know that there is something that exists outside of minds; we come to this conclusion by using reason.

Emotion: Hmm, is what context? If it's a religious or metaphysical thing like "I know God exists because I can feel him" then I think it's pretty useless.

Language? We can only say we know something or doubt something depending on the language we use (i.e. in what contexts we ask questions/make claims).

[jgweed]

But sense-perception can fool us, in the case of the mirage, for example, where the lake does not exist. And what if sense-perception were a figment of our delusions? Reason might, and has, often led to the opposite conclusion
Let us assume that "emotional knowing" actually has some sort of meaning, if only by analogy. If so, are the objects of knowledge the same as (for example) the senses or reason?

Certainly it seems that language, thinking, and meaning are mutually dependent, or perhaps words for the same thing or process. And it seems that thinking is not dependent upon any particular language (in the sense of French, German, etc.) but upon the possibility of language itself. Or perhaps it is the other way around.....

One man's "context" is another's "perspective" or another's "horizon." And I maintain that it is the context that determines both the definition of "truth" as well as the processes and procedures we consider appropriate. And further, that we are often led to confusion because the way we put the questions or statements look the same, or have the same syntactical form, or use the same words but without the many nuances and precisions of meaning of which they are capable.

[Page Sniffer]

sorry again for the double post

[Page Sniffer]

Jgweed, thanks for your comment. I agree that Chicago's geographical position being west of New York is quite safe, and political bias and fallability will have absolutely no bearing on it as a charted, mapped and surveyed municipality unless some boundaries are changed or re-zoning takes place.

It also seems to which I agree -- while my terminology is obviously lacking -- that there are different catagories of "truth" in relation to animal, vegetable, mineral, metaphysical, stellar or galactic, and human. I imagine my groups are probably not the way they are represented in text books, and are probably not as a scientist would describe my thoughts, but thank you for your patience.

I believe the wolf eats the rabbit for survival, as part of a natural food chain. Not trying to be flippant, but I think it is safe to say the wolf doesn't kill the rabbit for philosophical or ideological reasons like man does, nor does it kill the rabbit for monetary gain. The wolf would not probably kill the rabbit and just walk off either.

I don't think "truth" has to = goodness. Not at all. In fact as we relate to it "truth" as humans, truth is often just the opposite, horrendous, senseless, etc. This probably depends too on to what affect is caused to what subject. Dead baby + sociopathic parent = a dead baby that will not come back to life with a sociopathic parent possibly at large. A truth that I think most decent humans with a conscience would agree is horrendous.

My example of nature is in the context of nature simply as it is what it is and the positive affect it can have on us away from the human rat race and distractions of everyday life. Someone may go to the park when they are stressed, distraught, or just want to chill, and the park (nature) will not be judgmental towards them.

Thanks again for your viewpoint.