listening to:
https://www.skeptic.com/skepticism-101/what-is-truth-anyway-lecture/?mc_cid=4faf75f4bc&mc_eid=a51253749f
What I hear so far is that truth is determined by proving a causative relationship between the elements that constructed the truth. Something is true because we understand how it got there.
I don't understand why 'truth' should be related to understanding causative relationship. Or said differently, as M. Shermer himself says, since correlation is not causation and there are many confounding variables, it is very difficult to prove causation. I would argue, impossible to prove causation, just different degrees of confidence/Information/energy in a system that provide for causation. Hence, there is never 'absolute truth', and without that what is the point of a definition of 'truth'?
Rather, I would say that a feature of truth is that it must be communicated. Perhaps a feeling need not be communicated to others, but a truthful fact is only interesting if it is objective truth. Hence there are at least two people, to remove the subjective element of the fact.
If we agree that any definition of truth includes the ability to communicate that truth, then we should agree that truth like language requires an agreement between parties. Hence truth has nothing to do with causation and everything to do with mutual consent.
Causative relationships are good tools for convincing arguments, and help build mutual consent. But in of itself a causative relationship is not 'true'
No comments:
Post a Comment