3 ms·

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. An exampl

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. An example that's so wrong that it's not even wrong. Newton's theory wasn't wrong, because it's a theory that describes observed reality pretty well, which is the main criterion for a proper scientific theory. Einstein's theory isn't an approximation to, or correction of, Newtons theory. Rather, it is a completely new theory, because it completely overthrows fundamental concepts. 'Mass' and 'simultaneity' are not nearly the same thing in Einstein's and Newton's theories. That they give nearly identical results in a certain domain doesn't mean the theories are nearly identical. They just give the same results, because they are both good scientific theories of that domain. Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility.

jerf 17y ago
"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." O, well, that's that then.
- Confusion 17y ago
  Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that. If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests the universe is non-local. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. If you are going to argue there is an absolute truth, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the knowledge we have suggests that the concept in itself doesn't even make sense. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. For most people, arguing there is an absolute truth, is like arguing you can make Houdini-like escapes. You can't and you'd drown. You know that, so you accept the consequence: you don't try an Houdini-like escape. In exactly the same way, people shouldn't try to argue there is absolute truth: it only leads to more confusion about truth and reality.
  - rue 17y ago
    Perhaps you should define what you mean by "absolute truth," because to me it seems you are arguing against either universal truths or possibly specifically considering "a truth" to be a statement made by some observer, rather than an actual state or condition?
phenwoods 17y ago
"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." How is the statement "there is no absolute truth", not itself an absolute truth?
- Confusion 17y ago
  It's just an assertion of a generally acknowledged state of affairs in the world. That's the only thing the phrase 'absolute truth' could possibly mean. The only thing 'certainty' can mean. If I proclaim any certainty regarding anything, the most certain I can possibly be is when I know that a relevant number of people has tried in a relevant number of ways to discover whether we should be uncertain. Scientific certainty does not exist, but a scientist can still say we are 'certain' about something. It just doesn't mean it's beyond any doubt. In fact, even the phrase 'beyond any doubt' cannot possibly mean something that in fact does not leave any doubt. The situation in philosophy is exactly the same. There is not a doubt on the mind of the vast majority of great philosophers that there could not possibly be any absolute truth. That the phrase itself makes as little sense as speaking of the vat in which you are supposedly a brain (essay by Hilary Putnam). That it cannot possibly mean what you think you are intending it to mean. And despite that, it may still be false. It's just that nobody can argue even remotely satisafactorily that it is.

jerf 17y ago

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." O, well, that's that then.

Confusion 17y ago
Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that. If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests the universe is non-local. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. If you are going to argue there is an absolute truth, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the knowledge we have suggests that the concept in itself doesn't even make sense. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. For most people, arguing there is an absolute truth, is like arguing you can make Houdini-like escapes. You can't and you'd drown. You know that, so you accept the consequence: you don't try an Houdini-like escape. In exactly the same way, people shouldn't try to argue there is absolute truth: it only leads to more confusion about truth and reality.
- rue 17y ago
  Perhaps you should define what you mean by "absolute truth," because to me it seems you are arguing against either universal truths or possibly specifically considering "a truth" to be a statement made by some observer, rather than an actual state or condition?

phenwoods 17y ago

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." How is the statement "there is no absolute truth", not itself an absolute truth?

Confusion 17y ago
It's just an assertion of a generally acknowledged state of affairs in the world. That's the only thing the phrase 'absolute truth' could possibly mean. The only thing 'certainty' can mean. If I proclaim any certainty regarding anything, the most certain I can possibly be is when I know that a relevant number of people has tried in a relevant number of ways to discover whether we should be uncertain. Scientific certainty does not exist, but a scientist can still say we are 'certain' about something. It just doesn't mean it's beyond any doubt. In fact, even the phrase 'beyond any doubt' cannot possibly mean something that in fact does not leave any doubt. The situation in philosophy is exactly the same. There is not a doubt on the mind of the vast majority of great philosophers that there could not possibly be any absolute truth. That the phrase itself makes as little sense as speaking of the vat in which you are supposedly a brain (essay by Hilary Putnam). That it cannot possibly mean what you think you are intending it to mean. And despite that, it may still be false. It's just that nobody can argue even remotely satisafactorily that it is.