5 ms·

Some questions to ask about truth: - What if someone claims that your truth is based on different data or perspectives than their own? - How can you reliably

Some questions to ask about truth: - What if someone claims that your truth is based on different data or perspectives than their own? - How can you reliably expect to cement truth when data or educated perspectives may change with time, especially if they are based on news or new events/research? - Who gets to decide what truth is? Do you? Why? Is it because you're convinced that you're a "truthful" person as a subjective-experiential observation? - How do you identify a liar? What is to be done with them? Who gets to decide? My subjective experience is that the establishment of truth, or reconciliation with such questions, is a deeper topic than many are willing to credit. I'll be controversial and offer that it may be helpful to view "truth" as just one more mental model; broken in some ways, just like any other mental model. (If this leads to fears of e.g. rampant dishonesty, maybe that also points to the fragility of the model) If interest in truth is really lower than ever before, it may be related to aspects like these.

psim1 6y ago
Thoughtful questions like these, and the thoughtful people who ask them, do indeed lead to truth. My concern is more with intellectual dishonesty and naive, shallow understanding. An uneducated person who knows he is uneducated has more truth to him than an uneducated person who thinks he knows a lot and holds forth with BS.
- cglace 6y ago
  An uneducated person doesn’t think of themself as “uneducated”. They view it as having a different set of experiences that has led them to a different truth. A truth that you won’t be able to understand because of all of your “education”.
- Claudus 6y ago
  Spoiler alert, everyone is uneducated. And everyone has naive shallow understanding of the future. There is more knowledge in the world than a single person ever learn.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > intellectual dishonesty Unfortunately if one has a mental model for this or that, and that model yields only a perception, that person has _maybe_ half a mental model. That means one can expect little traction and lots of frustration. The effective model will yield energy (instructive, actionable, or otherwise) toward the execution of this or that action or group of actions. Perceptions alone can be really concerning for sure... > naive, shallow understanding I'd say the same here, but add that there's usually a depth in there somewhere. For example, shallow understanding but deep empathy--_therefore_ that person showed up to support your opponent, for example. So can you expect to teach that person, in order to sway them? Probably not. Working the empathy side of things though--this could even be a really fruitful discussion for both sides. Concerning, and frustrating, for sure...still, the journey may be worth the stretching and growing.
Gupie 6y ago
The earth is not flat. Smoking causes cancer. Global warming is happening and is man made. The problem with relativism is that it gives a justification to someone who says these statements are false.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  Those are all also false, depending on the perspective. Flat from where, to whom. Cancer in who, and how many, after how long, from which ratios, with which error rate on which factor. Global warming to who, where, and which men. (I'll offer that these may be maddening perspectives, but that does not itself mean they are invalid) If you want to reconcile or come to a shared understanding with flat-earthers, it may help to meet them where they are at, and show them why their mental models are effective and truth-yielding in some ways, while also limited in others. It may also help to understand their psychology, and work from a different angle. Wielding "wrong" as one's only tool can limit the opportunity to try a variety of such approaches, and test for effect. Absolute truth is a mental model. It may have its uses, but its own absolute utility or validity is not guaranteed. Further it may do one great intellectual or psychological harm to remain caught in this logical trap: It feels so right, but its key doesn't fit all these locks (others' annoying positions). So why keep using it over and over? Humans can be amazingly flexible thinkers, holding contradicting mental models in the same mind. So why not take advantage of this? Absolutes and fixed thinking are a huge liability in this way. Edited to add: In most cases the stakes are lower, too. Global warming probably won't be solved by one person's mental models, no matter how absolute or flexible and thoughtful. So there's also a misleading aspect, perhaps a falsehood-perspective, to the given examples. See also: Was so-and-so the dictator good in some ways, or pure evil, etc. These questions may belie the hyperbolic beginner mind more than they form a high-quality test of the framework.
  - drewboo 6y ago
    I think people get frustrated since even if you actually get through to someone and understand their perspective, it doesn't guarantee that person will be open to learning and abandoning their previously held beliefs. It's difficult to accept that some individuals will never be open to a change of mind, or maybe that the patience required is too much.
specialist 6y ago
Some value acceptance by an in group, so will proclaim whatever is demanded, as the price of admission. Belief as attire. Some prefer actionable predictions, so will favor beliefs which lead to higher quality predictions. Belief as optimization. Which value is represented by statements such as there is no truth, truth is unknowable, we make our own reality? Edit: Grateful for chance to articulate my own heuristics. Decided to add third category. All the stuff people do and say just to get thru their days. Knowingly or not, sincerely or not. Social graces, agreeability, cooperation in the form of habits, idioms, norms, and culture. Belief as social cognition.
- sgillen 6y ago
  Not incompatible to view belief as an optimization while also realizing our measurement of the truth function is biased and noisy (with everyone measuring getting different biases).

psim1 6y ago

Thoughtful questions like these, and the thoughtful people who ask them, do indeed lead to truth. My concern is more with intellectual dishonesty and naive, shallow understanding. An uneducated person who knows he is uneducated has more truth to him than an uneducated person who thinks he knows a lot and holds forth with BS.

cglace 6y ago
An uneducated person doesn’t think of themself as “uneducated”. They view it as having a different set of experiences that has led them to a different truth. A truth that you won’t be able to understand because of all of your “education”.
Claudus 6y ago
Spoiler alert, everyone is uneducated. And everyone has naive shallow understanding of the future. There is more knowledge in the world than a single person ever learn.
themodelplumber 6y ago
> intellectual dishonesty Unfortunately if one has a mental model for this or that, and that model yields only a perception, that person has _maybe_ half a mental model. That means one can expect little traction and lots of frustration. The effective model will yield energy (instructive, actionable, or otherwise) toward the execution of this or that action or group of actions. Perceptions alone can be really concerning for sure... > naive, shallow understanding I'd say the same here, but add that there's usually a depth in there somewhere. For example, shallow understanding but deep empathy--_therefore_ that person showed up to support your opponent, for example. So can you expect to teach that person, in order to sway them? Probably not. Working the empathy side of things though--this could even be a really fruitful discussion for both sides. Concerning, and frustrating, for sure...still, the journey may be worth the stretching and growing.

Gupie 6y ago

The earth is not flat. Smoking causes cancer. Global warming is happening and is man made. The problem with relativism is that it gives a justification to someone who says these statements are false.

themodelplumber 6y ago
Those are all also false, depending on the perspective. Flat from where, to whom. Cancer in who, and how many, after how long, from which ratios, with which error rate on which factor. Global warming to who, where, and which men. (I'll offer that these may be maddening perspectives, but that does not itself mean they are invalid) If you want to reconcile or come to a shared understanding with flat-earthers, it may help to meet them where they are at, and show them why their mental models are effective and truth-yielding in some ways, while also limited in others. It may also help to understand their psychology, and work from a different angle. Wielding "wrong" as one's only tool can limit the opportunity to try a variety of such approaches, and test for effect. Absolute truth is a mental model. It may have its uses, but its own absolute utility or validity is not guaranteed. Further it may do one great intellectual or psychological harm to remain caught in this logical trap: It feels so right, but its key doesn't fit all these locks (others' annoying positions). So why keep using it over and over? Humans can be amazingly flexible thinkers, holding contradicting mental models in the same mind. So why not take advantage of this? Absolutes and fixed thinking are a huge liability in this way. Edited to add: In most cases the stakes are lower, too. Global warming probably won't be solved by one person's mental models, no matter how absolute or flexible and thoughtful. So there's also a misleading aspect, perhaps a falsehood-perspective, to the given examples. See also: Was so-and-so the dictator good in some ways, or pure evil, etc. These questions may belie the hyperbolic beginner mind more than they form a high-quality test of the framework.
- drewboo 6y ago
  I think people get frustrated since even if you actually get through to someone and understand their perspective, it doesn't guarantee that person will be open to learning and abandoning their previously held beliefs. It's difficult to accept that some individuals will never be open to a change of mind, or maybe that the patience required is too much.

specialist 6y ago

Some value acceptance by an in group, so will proclaim whatever is demanded, as the price of admission. Belief as attire. Some prefer actionable predictions, so will favor beliefs which lead to higher quality predictions. Belief as optimization. Which value is represented by statements such as there is no truth, truth is unknowable, we make our own reality? Edit: Grateful for chance to articulate my own heuristics. Decided to add third category. All the stuff people do and say just to get thru their days. Knowingly or not, sincerely or not. Social graces, agreeability, cooperation in the form of habits, idioms, norms, and culture. Belief as social cognition.

sgillen 6y ago
Not incompatible to view belief as an optimization while also realizing our measurement of the truth function is biased and noisy (with everyone measuring getting different biases).