I always tell my daughter to do her own research and form her own opinions. She's 12 now and I'm very proud of her ability to do so. When one of her teachers tells the class about so-an-so at school, she takes it with a grain of salt if it's something we've already discussed especially, then she researches it when she gets home.

The advocate as witness problem

I wanted to explain bit about what I recognize as the advocate-as-witness-problem and why I think discussions should try to avoid it.

First, no one doubts the sincereity of your experience, or that you believe it, etcetera. The problem is that to trot it out is a discussion-killer. it ends any particular truth-seeking.

Basically, when you decide to be a witness, to become part of the evidence, you disqualify yourself as an advocate. Attorneys, for example, have an ethical obligation to avoid such situations because it weakens their effectiveness in court [they are seen as having an axe to grind which weakens both their witness testimony and confidence in them as a reasonable advocate].

In debate, arguing from personal experience is considered a faux paux, an unforced error, and an admission the premise you advocate must have little supporting evidence [because otherwise you would have presented it].

It can be considered an off-base argument because it unilaterally and without consent of other participants [changes the topic from the premise being discussed [from, for example: can people receive truth through inner realization without input from this world, to, for example, is Don right that he can receive truth through inner realization without input from this world]. This is sometimes called hi-jacking.

It is also considered somewhat rude because it acts to require anyone who disagees with your premise to be so rude as to disagree with you personally rather than the ideas or evidence you advocate; it is sort of a look-away-in-embaressment-for-you error.

So, in addition to figuring out how to find the truth, I propose we figure out what not to do in seeking truth. My first nomination: avoid being an advocate-as-witness.

Absolutely. Due to limited and hightly variable abilities and motivation of the individual to do this, a set of foundational principles is necessary to give everything else a context.

In a simplistic example, a sign on the road says 'Speed Limit 70'. Do we all discern for ourselves the meaning of this?

Is it 70 KPH?
Is it 70 MPH?
Is it the maximum speed?
Is it the minimum speed?
Why is there a limit at all?
Why does my speedometer go to 140?
If I think Im a better driver than most, does it apply to me?
Who are 'they' to tell me how to drive?

Absent an overriding and agreed apon set of guiding principles (mores), everything else floats and becomes the domain of the philosopher and demigogue. Look at the quagmire and machinations that have resulted in the legal and educational systems as we try to replace our shredded cultural mores with laws. I believe that all people have an innate desire for the foundational truths. Their human limitations acknowledged. the religious traditions of nearly all peoples across the ages have provided them. These religious and culteral mores have always worked to promote peace and to provide meaning and context unless perverted by individuals seeking power.

Without these principles (truths) you can justify any action or inaction, and life is an empty and meaningless struggle with a bitter and lonely end.

Byrd_Hunter, you rightly add your speed sign example to demonstrate there are challenges of context, perception, and interpretation on the path to truth. The practices of science include studying exactly such things and figuring out ways to correct for them, such as having people all around the world with and without different world views, schools, cultures, religions, mores, etcetera, duplicate experiments to see if results can be confirmed or not.

If they are repeatedly confirmed, then those things are provisionally accepted as true enough on which to base further experiments seeking further truths.

Taking scientifically verifiable truths and using them to guide actions in the world is often controversial, especially when they seem to contradict a given world view, school of thought, culture, religion, set of mores, etcetera. Over time it appears that regardless of the popularity of a given world view, school of thought, culture, religion, set of mores, etcetera, if science demonstrates the world is not flat enough times, the truth-seeking power of science prevails.

O.K., but which set of "foundational truths?" Christian scholars have written about 4 foundational truths, 10 foundational truths, 14 foundational truths (in my brief Google search). And might not Hindu, Bhuddhist, Jewish, and Moslem have perhaps a different set of "foundational truths?"

In this context, how does one discern Truth from Belief?

Science.

I believe in the concept of "question everything". That's a concept I learned and practiced when I was studying to be an engineer in undergrad. The professors taught it freshman year. In fact, the teachers intentionally set up lab experiments where there were no definitive answers, but they didn't tell us. For the students who were listening, we knew there were no definitive answers. We were supposed to "question everything". The point of the experiments was to learn how to record data, analyze processes and formulate our own conclusions.

15 years later, I sometimes have to remind myself to practice that way of thinking. As far as I know, questioning everything is the surest way to get to the so-called truth. If Einstein had not chosen to question everything, he would not have developed general relativity, special relativity and other theories.

It's interesting to see how many people on this site know about the concept of questioning everything, while a few people will become a fan of a product because some celebrity survivalist used it on TV or whatever. That other way of thinking involves blindly accepting what someone else says. It's so much easier, but it's not the best way to get to the truth.

I will admit though that it's not always practical to question everything. For example, a successful businessman cannot afford to question everything. Many times, a businessman has to accept information from a reliable source and act upon it without doing too much research. Time is limited.

Should we teach our kids to find the truth?

Wow. I feel Plebeian in my simplistic response.

My son must believe he can come to me and I will tell him the truth, whether that truth helps or hinders his ultimate decision.

I have my own personal biases on religion, politics, pop culture, etc., and yet he must be his own person so I give him balanced input as best I can.

Byrd_Huntr: 'O.K., but which set of "foundational truths?" .... In this context, how does one discern Truth from Belief?'

dweste: "Science."


I don't think that's unconditionally true. Science has come up with some 'truths' that are actually false. Scientists often study such a small facet of a thing that they ignore all the other things that affect it, and come up with incorrect conclusions.

Sue

Sue, the beauty of science is that it then goes on to demolish what it conditionally established as true. Proposition, experiment, result, new proposition, endlessly.

Scientist being human make mistakes. Science being a darn good way to think about and find truth is a self-correcting system by and large.

I hope and believe that if the species survives the science of the future will disprove most all falsehoods and establish most all truths. And I further hope and believe that folks in the future will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so crude, barbaric, ignorant, etcetera.