How to find the truth?

Should we teach our kids how to find the truth?

If so, what should we teach them?

Thoughts on a rainy day.

I vote for Occam's Razor and the scientific method.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

That method could quite easily get you being called a conspiracy theorist.

The reality is that most folks have very little understanding of the physical laws that the Universe 'sometimes' operates under (sometimes as in to keep the quantum physicists happy )

Then there is what the Government wants you to conveniently believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Then there is 'faith' which is sold quite heavily throughout the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ

More importantly, teach them to question everything and everybody, to rely on facts and their own ability to think and analyze and not simply rely on what someone tells them. The ability to think and analyze for themselves is something that I hope is being taught to them.

Doing this may not lead you to the truth, but it will get you closer than just going along with the crowd and accepting everything you are told.

Grandpa used to tell us: "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what your read!"

When I was young, I thought he was a cynic.

Now, many years later, I think he was too trusting.

I would teach them to think beyond the usual knee-jerk reaction.

Get them thinking of what the likely results would be of each possible course of action, the longer-term results, not just the immediate results.

Sue

I would teach them to not rely on Wikipedia.

Of course I think we should teach our children critical thinking. "Truth" is elusive! The scientific method doesn't proport to discern "truth" really, it sets hypotheses and methods to test those hypotheses. The results are expressed in probabilistic terms, not absolutes.

To me that's as close as the pursuit of truth gets. Different hypotheses are (by convention) tested to different criteria. For instance, expert testimony in courts is typically expressed as "to a reasonable certainty" which means "more likely than not" (51%). The published scientific research with which I am familiar is typically expressed to a probability level of 95-99%. That means that 95 out of 100 times those results were not "attributed to chance." I have also (haven't we all) experienced certain groups (often religious) which represent certain positions as absolute and infallible truths.

So, I think "truth" is an ever-moving target.

With respect for everyones opinions, I have to weigh in on this.

Of course 'truth' is a shifting target when attached to nothing, defined by nothing, and subject to nothing other than the whims of the day. How would you know if you found it? What is 'it' anyway; a collection of current opinions? Of what value is 'truth' like that when life's crisis strike?

For me and many like me, your question has already been answered and the answer has withstood fire, sword, and the test of time:

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His rightousness..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8bV7rUVaU&feature=related

Flaws and all and regardless of the tradition chosen, these truths provide the bedrock for everything else. There is no substitute in what is offered by secular humanists.

Truth is relative.

Teach your children how to reason; how to take a complex problem and break it down into solvable parts; to never take anything for granted as being "true"; and to never stop learning.

Many things I thought were true, weren't. Some things I thought impossible, aren't. Life is learning.

The Truth is"Life is Everything we know,But it isn't Alway's Fair"!

Truths are always limited and provisional. They are trapped in time, place, and world-view. They can be misapplied if the context is not understood.

Many religious texts get misused when people read a verse that says to go forth and do XYZ if you fail to look into the historical context and understand that XYZ is not a universally valid response but was, rather, applicable only to that specific time, place, situation, often only the personalities involved.

Good advice, received truth, can be very specific. A friend of mine has a snippet he picked up: 'Have a plan to kill everyone you meet'. It is fine advice if your locked up on Devil's Island with mass murderers where life is a 24/7 death match. He has largely outgrown it as the consequences of that mindset, alienation and isolation, manifested itself.

It also has to be noted that there are no entirely reliable outlets for truth. People often tell lies when they think they are telling the truth. People want, often need, to believe. They can also expose truths when they lie. A used car salesman that jokes that he is going to take advantage of you is telling you something. Answers suggest questions. Anyone who tells you: You can trust me', is bringing their own honesty into question. A lot of conspiracy theories fail, in part, because they assume a source, or set of sources, always lie. Funny thing is that over MSM is right far more than not. What gets lost is context.

The one thing that identifies greater from less truths is that greater truths form a coherent and functional world-view that allows you to predict, and deal with, the future in practical ways. A world-view that more closely matches the preponderance of the credible evidence, provides testable conclusions, and promotes both function and further useful insights.

The biggest error I see in gathering truth/s have to do with the failure of people to discriminate between what is demonstrably true, often painfully true about themselves and their situation, and what feels right and sits comfortable with their existing world-view.

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.

Generally, "science" is probably the best answer to the original question. Here are some examples of how scientific truths may be explained to kids:

-The area inside of a circle equals the radius times half the circumference, until somebody proves otherwise. As far as I know, nobody has proven otherwise.

-The earth rotates around the sun, until somebody proves otherwise. As far as I know, nobody has proven otherwise.

-The earth was flat until somebody proved otherwise. The discovery of the earth not being flat involved an application of the scientific method. By the way, that's a good example of why a young scientist should question everything.

Science does not seem the be-all or end-all of human effort, but it is a handy tool when its limitations are properly understood. If interested see the thread just started on truth in the hierachy of information [or whatever I called it exactly].

Dagny wrote:
'I would teach them to not rely on Wikipedia'

Evidence please?

qjs

With respect, I'm sure the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Pagans, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc would have used the same argument for their version of a supreme being/beings/God/Gods. My Zeus can beat up your Ra can beat up your ... you get the picture.

It hasn't stood the test of time. It too is an ever changing target. After all, Jesus and his disciples wrote down scripture, the early Catholic church chose which books to use to form the basis of our modern day Bible (probably losing all sorts of relevance in translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to whatever language you want to read it in today). Then came the Protastent reformation and the tendrils of non-Catholic Christianity. Let's not forget (while you're quoting Biblical scripture) that the Jews and Muslims are also folks that believe in the same God (and look where those views have lead us). And, oh yeah, every other active and not-so-active religion out there that aren't based on that particular deity.

Anyway, I'm sure this'll be censored. Religious views have a way of spiraling out of control on forums and inciting all sorts of ill will.

The point of my post though, is you haven't really answered the original post's question (though neither have I): how to FIND truth. You can find a lot, but being spiritually in tune doesn't help one pass a multiple choice test, skip a polygraph test or come up with the laws of physics (I mean, heck, the Catholic Church's official position was that Galileo was wrong for like 300 years - not exactly a great track record!)

Edit: Please don't read this as condescening or trying to be sarcastic (except perhaps my last line, but it's OK! I'm a Catholic!). I'm trying to make a logical argument to a viewpoint that tends to refute one's version of logic with another - hence the never ending cycle and above mentioned spiraling.

pi is a consequence of Linear Euclidian geometric logic. The Universe is non Euclidian as demonstrated by experimental relativism, so although it is a good approximation to the purest form of logical thinking with pi being the ratio of the diameter to a circular circumference this isn't necessarily true in a real universe or multiverse (what ever a multiverse actually means)

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/the_n...cott_walter.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

They all end up playing Numberwang



Only if your a mathematical reductionist, there is plenty of observational evidence to suggest otherwise. Galileo Galilei thought he was being clever. Nearly cost him his life

Am, you showed how everything should be questioned. On the other hand, the context of this thread is teaching kids. When I think about a kid discovering the "truth" about the area inside of a circle, I think about a kid taking out a piece of string and a ruler and performing experiments. If we're going to debate the "truth" about the area inside of a circle by using higher level math, then kids will remain confused and will happily go back to their texting.

I cannot answer as eloquently as some, but I will try to give my view.

Truth is everywhere. Truth is in all that we experience. The problem is how do see (perceive, discern) what it is? It is through both the processes of science and the vitality of one's personal belief system. I truly believe they need to be used without mutual exclusion. With all that said, remember that we all filter things differently. Hence, the beauty of the human condition.

Now, what do we do with the kids? Teach them to respectfully question and investigate things. I agree with the poster who says their young children trust him with truth. As they grow older is when we teach them to investigate.

This is interesting because of the conversation I had with my daughter as when I dropped her off for her freshman year in college. As a warning this has to do with religious beliefs (truths). I told her that she now has to decide whether of not to continue in the tradition she was raised in or to go another way. I encouraged her to make her faith her own. She cannot live mine because it is, well; mine. I asked her to talk with me about any other experiences she had. This was just so I could see how she was investigating and processing the experiences. I wanted to ensure the lines of communication stayed open.

All of that to say this: Regardless of the truths being sought, it requires a willingness to be open to new and different ideas. Along the way the truths we encounter will challenge or confirm what we already hold to be true.

I am not sure if this advanced the conversation at all, but I feel better for having contributed. And that is the truth.

All this Writing of Science,Religion,Etc. & Not a One Has even Mentioned,Darwin! Sorry Sheriff,The Devil made me do it!

"With respect, I'm sure the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Pagans, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc would have used the same argument for their version of a supreme being/beings/God/Gods. My Zeus can beat up your Ra can beat up your ... you get the picture."

[i] [/i] We, as humans, have limited ability to understand. Mans innate knowledge of the sprirtual has led to many variations, and some have used this as a pathway to power over their fellow man. The details of the tradition don't really matter here, only that one knows there is a higher power. That realization forms a matrix for all other actions, and informs the search for truth.

"It hasn't stood the test of time. It too is an ever changing target. After all, Jesus and his disciples wrote down scripture, the early Catholic church chose which books to use to form the basis of our modern day Bible (probably losing all sorts of relevance in translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to whatever language you want to read it in today). Then came the Protastent reformation and the tendrils of non-Catholic Christianity."

There are many ancient holy scriptures. For the purposes of this discussion on 'truth' I submit that it doesn't matter which one you choose. The belief in a supreme being informs the search for truth.

Let's not forget (while you're quoting Biblical scripture) that the Jews and Muslims are also folks that believe in the same God (and look where those views have lead us). And, oh yeah, every other active and not-so-active religion out there that aren't based on that particular deity.

All of the major religions have a set of beliefs and teachings that are peaceful, but those can be perverted in big ways by those in power, and little ways by others. During the Crusades, the Christian religion was used as an excuse for young disinherited French noblemen to pillage the Middle East and amass personal fortunes through war. The Knights Templar started out as 'warrior monks' but became perverted by wealth. King Philip later had them murdered and demonized over money that he owed them. Similar perversions of religion are being used now by a small group of Muslim leaders and fanatics to achieve a political goal. What is ignored in all this is the millions of quiet Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Bhuddist etc that use the ancient philosophies of their religious traditions to inform their life's decisions and teach their children about truth.

Anyway, I'm sure this'll be censored. Religious views have a way of spiraling out of control on forums and inciting all sorts of ill will.

You won't get that reaction from me; we are sitting at the campfire here and talking about an important topic. I'm a little older and I have spent a lot of time in the woods thinking about things. I would no more get angry at someone who didn't share my spiritual views than I would at a person who disagrees with my choice of shot size for grouse hunting late season. I would hope that others would be tolerant also.

The point of my post though, is you haven't really answered the original post's question (though neither have I): how to FIND truth. You can find a lot, but being spiritually in tune doesn't help one pass a multiple choice test, skip a polygraph test or come up with the laws of physics (I mean, heck, the Catholic Church's official position was that Galileo was wrong for like 300 years - not exactly a great track record!)

I believe I did answer the original post, if not in so many words. To find truth (or anything for that matter) you have to look in the right place, persist as long as you must, all the while praying for the wisdom to recognize it. Many great men and women spent their lives seeking truth, secure in their traditions and their faith that they were, indeed, looking in the right place......

Hey! 3& 1/2"-#4 shot,& It's Oct.18th for Ruffed Grouse?Someone has eaten too much,Squeaky Cheese,lol! Kinda' like,Charles Darwin Praying that,He find,What he was looking for!

Pretty good discussion, everyone!

Good reply.

I agree with most of what you say - we're human, liable to fail and stumble, and that, oh yeah, religion can be perverted. In fact, I tend to think that (personally) the idea behind religion is good - it's the Church (pick whichever variety you like) that eventually twists the message to their own uses. For example, do people really think that the Catholic church wasn't, for centuries, a second "government" in Europe? Look at their gilded cathedrals, and tell me that God told the Pope that he wanted that much bling. It was a search of power, money and control. People corrupt religion.

But, I'm off topic!

I suppose the answer depends on how you define "truth." If you're looking for the answer to life, then religious/spiritual ways are probably the way to go. If you're trying to find a specific question or concept answered, you can't just expect God to provide you an answer.

Finding truth requires knowing the "question," and then going about trying to find a solution. I don't think there's any one way that's right. Scientific method, Socratic method, serendipidy, all tend to give the right answer, eventually.

As long as we're talking about truth, and "questioning everything", I would suggest that people might question all those tired, worn-out anti-catholic cliches.

I suggest there are some tried-and-true ways to find truth.

Practicing truth finding is one, whatever actual method you use. Getting kids to practice truth-finding skills should probably also be fun and not too hard to begin with.

Any game they like that develops reasoning ability would seem to qualify. Twenty questions, battleship, clue, even go fish, require thinking to discover some kind of truth.

Participation in activities in the world that reward truth finding should help. School newspapers that teach the who, what, why, where, when, and how make sense. Anything that teaches research to find original sources and to read them carefully sounds like a good idea.

Some exposure to logic, especially exposure to the concept of logical fallacies, through things like debate or critical thinking couldn't hurt. Experiences that teach the value of maintaining doubt, even after coming to any number of tentative conclusions or interim truths, would serve well.

We could encourage learning the history of discoveries to illustrate how often we can be wrong before we are right, the value of perseverance, the challenges - even dangers - of being right in environments that do not necessarily welcome being right, and the roles of observation, serendipity and creativity.

Maybe steer some of those homework assignments a bit? Try a dinner table challenge or two?

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a provocative and interesting subject and worthy of discussion Around the Campfire. HOWEVER, let's keep the politics and religion out of it or we will shut this thread down.

One of the fundamental concepts of chemistry is electron duality. It is possible to prove that electrons are physical bits of matter with mass, charge, and velocity. It is also possible to prove that electrons are continuous waves with amplitude, wavelength, and the ability to cause interference patterns.

The problem is a particle can not be a wave, nor can a wave be a particle. Being one negates the possibility of acting like the other. Yet an electron can be either depending on how you test it. The truth is it is neither a particle nor a wave but something mysterious and wonderful beyond our ability to grasp. A "wave" or a "particle" are simply models we use to describe something, they are not what the object truely is.

Now think about this: an electron is also one of the simplest things in the universe. What does that say about "big" things?



And now for a little housekeeping. This thread has been very deep and when things go deep they are both fascinating and dangerous. Deep subjects stir up deep feelings and few things are deeper than religion. I suspect there are people reading this thread who a week ago liked everyone involved but now may have some hard feelings towards some. Part of me says, "So be it" but in the long term interest of this forum I suggest we cut back on the religious side of things.

-Blast

p.s. Seems that while I was composing my sermon Doug was posting a much shorter version of the same thought.

In my humble opinion, much of what is considered truth is relative to our experiences be they cultural, religious, time period, socioeconomic status, etc. Therefore, the process by which we seek truth is the key to discovering and adopting the various truths we encounter in life. The process has been given many catchy terms like critical analysis, process analysis, data analysis, experimental process and a whole host of other terms. The bottom line in teaching truth to our children is to instill in them a sense of wonder.

The human spirit is curious by nature, our goal should be to encourage and foster independent investigation. We should seek to avoid monolithic thinking in our children and while we naturally desire that they adopt our truth as parents, their experiences may lead them to a completely different set of truths than ours. I try to teach and instill values, in my children, how they ultimately take those values, implement and formulate truths will likely be different from my truths, because they are different and unique individuals.

Without involving religion, my approach to life is based upon three things: knowledge, volition and action. For me, all three are required to accomplish any task, large or small. I must possess the knowledge to make intelligent decisions, I must have the desire to implement the knowledge I have acquired and finally I must act, if the knowledge and desire are to have purpose. I believe if I can instill those three pursuits in my children, I have provided them with the tools to tackle most things in life.

Pete

I love your post! Nothing like robust and well-meant contrarianism!

So, how should we teach the recognition of lies?

I was thinking of it as a more advanced way to finding the truth, but let's see where the brain trust takes it.

Teaching someone to recognize a lie includes the process of recognizing the truth. Recognizing a lie involves extra layers of complexity in my opinion. It's not easy. For example, there are thousands of salesmen who are pushing "get rich quick" books. How do you know who's lying? Is it the guy who sounds like a scumbag? No, that guy could very well be telling the truth. You don't know who's lying unless you already understand fully the subject matter at hand. In other words, you must first know the truth or at least the proper steps to get to the truth.

It is helpful to understand that truth is not a destination. You don't get there and settle contentedly. Truth is a continuum. There are greater and less truths. Greater truths don't invalidate less truths. Quantum physics didn't invalidate Newtonian physics.

Lesser truths are not often entirely false and they never go away entirely. Geo-centrism was correct in saying that it looks like the sun travels around the earth. That is our natural experiential reality and default. Careful observation shows this to be an incomplete understanding but it isn't entirely wrong. In fact it contains, for people not focused on astronomy, more important truths than the heliocentric model. If you want to understand people it helps to understand that the default assumption for human consciousness is to assume that we, as individuals, are standing still in space and time.

Look around. Have you noticed that kids seem younger and less mature than back in the day? Have you noticed that distances seem shorter? Have you noticed that authority figures are less impressive and competent. Certainly when I was a kid we were more mature, the distance to the store was longer, politicians were more trustworthy. I haven't changed. I don't feel like I've changed.

Truth is also not fixed. You can't contain it or put a leash on it. One of my complaints about most western religions is that they gain a truth and then stop. A religious friend tells me that every truth I will ever need is in his one book. He treats truth as if it was a lap-dog to be trotted out, petted, let out occasionally. He worships this set of truths but has stopped struggling and looking for better explanations and insights.

Technically, they did. The observed orbit of Mercury only makes sense if you involve quantum mechanics. Same with any satellite communications. Physics 101.

The real question is how accurate do you need the truth too be?

-Blast

The only reason I'm using "worn-out anti-catholic cliches" is that I'm not a Biblical scholar. I can't tell you a darn bit of difference between Lutheran, Born again, Quaker, Mormon. I barely scratch the surface with knowledge of the non-Christian groups.

But, I did pretty well with history, and most of European history features (to some degree) the only Church for the majority of the past 2000 years.

If I could bring cogent points from other religions to prove my point, I would.

This is the age old question of engineering. Scientific "truths" are actually descriptive models that can (for a given circumstance) be relied on to correctly predict the observable results of an experiment. Depending on the nature of the experiment, and the precision required, multiple descriptions/interpretations may provide equally "correct" predictions of the outcome.

For most applications, a rough approximation (i.e. Newtonian physics or basic electrical circuit theory) is good enough. Some applications require more specialized models. Quantum theory seems to be very useful at predicting observable results in high energy physics (and several other areas of scientific interest) but it is a lot less useful than much simpler models in other fields.

- Eric

Yep, exactly.



Newton's Four Failures. People first started realizing in the high-tech boom era of 1802 that Newtonian physics didn't always work.

Nothing we sense is what it truly is. Everything is just models created inside our brains out of the electrical impulses it is receiving. Every sighted (and non-colorblind!) will agree a certain wavelength of light reflected off a stop sign is "red". However, the way my brain visualizes "red" may be completely different than how your brain visualizes "red". We both agree it is red because we have been told that particular wavelength is called red.

There have been some fascinating studies of people who have been given sight after being blind all their life. Even though biologically they now have the ability to see, their brains can not interpret the incoming stimuli in any meaningful manner. For all intents and purposes they are still blind.

Everything is just a model. If you seek the truth of things in the physical world you need to understand this. If you seek the truth of things outside the physical world...then things get complicated!

-Blast

In learning about perception, I often think of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Here is a nice version in poem form:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~wae123/misc/prose/hinustan.htm


It also reminds me of the old joke about: how do you eat an elephant - one bite at a time!

Suitable for kids of all ages.

Behavioral analysis has developed tools that can increase the likelihood of detecting lies when you are talking with people through body language, speech patterns, etcetera. A fascinating study, as any internet search on "lie detecting" can show.

For fun, study up on lie detecting a bit and then watch any political debate!

Have the kids study up a bit and then take them used car shopping! Warning: the kids need to understand lie detecting is an art that is not infallible, requires practice, and is often of best use if you do not confront the suspected pervaricator [do not show your hand].

One pretty smart guy's take on how to recognize truth:

“How can we recognize truth? It is, of course difficult. But there are a few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It should not contradict itself; that is, there are some logical criteria. It ought to be consistent with what else we know. That is an additional way in which miracles run into trouble. We know a great many things- a tiny fraction, to be sure, of the universe, a pitiful tiny fraction. But nevertheless some things we know with quite high reliability. So where we are asking about the truth, we ought to be sure that it’s not inconsistent with what else we know. We should pay attention to how badly we want to believe a given contention. The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we have to be. It involves a kind of courageous self discipline. Nobody says it’s easy. I think those three principles at least will winnow out a fair amount of chaff. It doesn’t guarantee that what remains will be true, but at least it will significantly diminish the field of discourse. “

Carl Sagan, Varieties of scientific experience, pages 229-230

So, as we wade in a tidal pool in Oregon, we should feel that we understand the Pacific Ocean? Because miracles are by definition an unexplained occurrance, the fact that a scientist cannot explain them does not in any way diminish them. I beleive that the "courageous self discipline" that Sagan refers to must be the humble admission that all human knowledge resides in the tidepool of the ocean of possibilities.

After reading all of this I can "My brain hurts". And that my friends is the truth as I perceive and experience it.

This is great stuff.

I disagreee. More often than not, it is far simpler to prove that a false claim is false than proving a right claim to be true.

In a rigorous scientific framework, nothing can ever be claimed to be "proven true", although there are some theories that come pretty close.



Ah, I love this example - it is where you prepare the children for the real world by teaching them a healthy dose of cynicism: Some people will lie/sell junk/make false claims to get your money.

First: So... start with the general assumption that all (or almost all, if you're feeling slightly less cynical) of the "Get rich books" are written and sold by liars. To humor yourself you can examine a book or two to see if those are among the exceptions. If it is, then hey - you get rich, no complaints. If not, then this was exactly as expected. You've invested time and money to improve your your bull-o-meter.


Second: Follow the money. Where does those authors and salesmen earn their living? Likely there is less money to be made by reading that book than by writing or selling it....


Third - What are the actual success factors for those that have made their fortune? (See some biographs and inteviews). Most likely, you will see it is a combination of good ideas, a lot of hard work and a lot of luck (timing). I'll bet you $20 that you won't find a rich person that says he became rich because he read one of those "how to get rich" books.

A lot of things there is no truth to such as religion and politics.

There is also no truth to such questions as "what is the best...".

The only things that are truth are scientific facts, and it is common for things that are not facts to be misrepresented as facts.

Those behavioral analysis techniques (which, by the way, are not scientifically unchallenged) proport to detect "deception." So we're still caught up in the logic-loop here: what the individual believesto be the truth, whether or not he is speaking consistently with his belief or deceptively, and what are actual facts in the matter... all balled up in the same can of worms.

I believe science challenges any technique, even those based on science, that are not able to predict with certainty and repeatability. Behavioral analysis is based on statistics and patterns of behavior, which as you point out are not universal across all persons, cultures, etcetera. That is why the detection of lies is described in terms of likelihood rather than certainty.

It is also true that the more samples you get for a given person, to establish baseline truth-telling as well as variances from thst baseline that suggest lying, the higher the probability of being accurate in lie detection.

You are correct that a person who tells an untruth that they believe to be true is not lying, just wrong, so there is no "lie" for behavioral analysis to detect.

In other words, a person can tell the "truth" as the person perceives it, but the statement can actually be a false statement. For example, a witness of 9/11 may say that he saw meteors crash into the towers. A lie detector may show that witness is NOT being deceptive. However, that statement about meteors is false according to reliable evidence showing that it was not meteors that crashed into the towers.

A person's memory or perception is an unreliable indicator of what the truth actually is. The most convincing liar is the liar who is able to convince himself that he is telling the truth. I know two compulsive liars. They lie about almost everything, even if they don't have to lie. They lie so much that I believe they don't know when they are lying. Their skill is quite fascinating, at a distance that is.

Anyone Here Remember, The Short cartoon's of Commander McBragg?

Interview by Quentin Mac Anics with a famous scientist:

Quentin Mac Anics " I understand you have an infallible scientific fact for us".
I.N. Stein "Yes, E=MC2 explains everything"
Quentin Mac Anics "Everything?"
I.N. Stein "Yes everything".
Quentin Mac Anics " What about Black Holes?"
I.N. Stein......frantically scribbling
I.N. Stein......still frantically scribbling
I.N. Stein "I have a new infallible scientific fact: E=MC2 explains almost everything"
Quentin Mac Anics "I thought so."

If the tidepool is our only source of data about the ocean, then our understanding is necessarily limited. Analyzing the tidepool, because it is part of the ocean, provides data that can form the basis of theories about the ocean. No rational person would claim a complete understanding of the ocean without the opportunity to get data direct from the ocean. Even understanding the tidepool is, of course, subject to continued revision as science seeks to refine and enhance the known truths about the tidepool - including the exciting overturn of early things believed true!



Nobel prizes and a major place in history await any scientist who can get veriable data about a miracle. Sagan's point is only that the reported miracles are not "consistent with what else we know," by which I think it is fair to say he means exactly what you say - miracles remain unexplained ocurrences [so far].




Sagan said: "We should pay attention to how badly we want to believe a given contention. The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we have to be. It involves a kind of courageous self discipline. Nobody says it’s easy." I believe his point, fairly read, is that we should have the courage to resist forcing the data into a preconceived meaning no matter how badly we would like to to do it. Sagan agrees with you that we know only a tiny, pitiful amount so far.

[Carl Sagan, Varieties of scientific experience, pages 229-230.]

I am loving this thread, in part because it is going in direstions and into places I did not forsee! I thought we might be discussing how to find out the truth about things we observe in nature, get from the media, etcetera. Instead we are sharing out thoughts about the limits of science, and even a little about the intersection of belief and science, etcetera.

I can't wait to see what comes next!

P.S. I am impressed by the civil tone of most of the discussion. You guys are great!

P.P.S. Thank you moderators for having patience with us.

I certainly believe in science, and we are better off for it. The problem for me is something you allude to in this posting. A scientist emerges from his secret laboratory and makes a pronouncement. "Eureka! xyz is now a 'proven' scientific fact." This pronouncement remains a trumpeted fact for true believers until the inevitable day when a new 'proven' scientific contradictory fact is announced. Everyone celebrates and awards are showered upon all involved by old Scandinavian liberals. No one mentions the obvious fact that the original infallible pronouncement was wrong. Thus, science is an endless series of 'true and proven' facts celebrated by the believers, whereas the times traditional belief pronouncements are found lacking they are cited endlessly for centuries as obvious failures of faith-based belief.

A very true statement, but apparently some of the scientific community and the broadcast media would disagree with Carl when it comes to manmade global warming.

Of course some who do not understand science uncritically let their beliefs wave like a flag in the breeze of every new pronouncement. And of course there are some scientists who trumpet their latest result as proven and verifiable truth before in fact the scientific process to prove and verify has taken place. Both of these can prove to be unfortunate, unforced errors.

The scientific process, however, is usually quick to challenge, test, and demolish untruth of this kind. If it is not a result that can be replicated and verified as true, then whatever scientist says the earth is flat again gets hammered - by science. And so it goes, including sometimes re-establishing the thing initially proved false! [Cold fusion anyone?]

However the sometimes crazy zig-zag of science goes, it is over time impressive, self-correcting, and a truth-finder without compare - so far!

On a practical level some good rules are:

Listen to people and answer the things they actually say; not the 'easy to shoot down' arguments you would have liked them to put forward.
Sounds obvious, but I've lost count of the number of times people have demanded I defend things I never said, on this site. Inventing straw men to defeat, is practically all most UK newspaper columnist can do.

See if you would accept the standards you are demanding of others yourself. Try the same sentence, but with your name in there. See how you like it when the 'the rights of group x must be ignored' becomes 'my rights must be ignored'.

Something is true depending on if it matches reality not because who said it.
When lawyers start attacking the witness instead of the facts; it's because the facts aren't on the lawyers side.
If you can't produce facts to back what you are saying up; you are wrong.
People are innocent till proven guilty. In the absence of evidence the assumption is innocence.
These sounds so obvious and far below the high minded arguments I'm seeing in this thread. But the standard of debate on this forum doesn't even satisfy these obvious rules in reality. Invention backed up with abuse is the norm.
qjs

Having worked in the field of biomedical sciences for over 35 years, my one observation regarding this analogy is that (in my humble opinion) our collective scientific knowledge/observations for all the sciences is less than 1 drop of that tidal pool. I will go even further and say that despite all of our scientific studies, experiments, observations, etc. our collective knowledge accounts for less than 1 grain of sand of the sands in all of the desserts, oceans, beaches, etc. combined. The more we think we know, the more we really don’t know.

Pete

I sincerely hope so! Nonetheless we can only work with what we have, including whateever tools we have to improve our knowledge.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.

— Carl Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1997), 304

Some Buddhist thought on truth:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha, 563-483 B.C.), Kalma sutra

'A man has a faith. If he says, "This is my faith," so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion, "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false." In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say, "I believe this." So far he respects truth. But because of his faith or belief, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false." Buddha, Canki sutra, 93 of M.as set forth in What the Buddha Taught, p. 10, by Walpola Rahula, 1959 (2d ed. 1974), Grove Press.

Rahula explains:

"However you put it, faith or belief as understood by most religions has little to do with Buddhism.

The question of belief arises when there is no seeing - seeing in every sense of the word. The moment you see, the question of belief disappears. If I tell you that I have a gem hidden in the folded palm of my hand, the question of belief arises because you do not see it yourself. But if I unclench my fist and show you the gem, then you see it for yourself and the question of belief does not arise. So the phrase in ancient Buddhist texts reads, ' Realizing, as one sees a gem (or a myrobalan fruit) in the palm.' " Ibid at pp. 8-9.

[Disclaimer: I am not Buddhist nor do I have any financial interest Buddhism.]