3 ms·

There is universal truth (though there may be many perspectives - some biased purposefully, some merely imperfect), and that truth is rooted in the fact that th

There is universal truth (though there may be many perspectives - some biased purposefully, some merely imperfect), and that truth is rooted in the fact that the real world is an objective thing that exists. Claiming that "there is no universal truth" just feeds the recent concept of "alternative facts" and lends validity to absurd worldviews that don't take the objectivity of the physical world as foundational feature. I agree that it's good to try to see things from various angles, but "there is no such thing as universal truth" seems like a very damaging idea.

alisonkisk 5y ago
Do you claim to know the solution to the age-old problem of epistemology? A Nobel Prize awaits you.
- lwouis 5y ago
  The GP is mentioning "recent" things. None of this is recent. I studied the idea of truth in high school. We studied it through the historical lens of Greek philosophy and how it influenced and evolved through following European philosophers up to modern times. I'm often seeing people react to "fake news" and other trends like this is the first time humanity is dealing with such things. Historical revisionism, propaganda, all of these are as old as the first human settlements
HKH2 5y ago
While I do think there is one reality, our ability to get to what is true is always limited by time, information overload etc. I think what people react against is the hubris of claiming an intimate knowledge of reality and acting as if it can be successfully contained in abstractions of language.
lwouis 5y ago
Yes there is one physical truth about where atoms are at a given point. However the type of statement discussed in this thread, and by most humans most of the time, are not about "how many of this, and at what velocity". They are statements of judgement, value-systems, morality, etc. This is most of the discussion we produce as a species, on the topics we care the most about. People like to talk about whether things are moral or righteous. These discussions are by nature not about truths but perspectives and preferences. Someone is going to call trump "unpatriotic" and trump is going to reply "fake news". At no point here was the physical world/truth involved. What I'm defending is that encyclopedias shouldn't pick a side on these events but reflect the controversies and let each reader make their own mind, from their own preferences/biases. Very little of human discourse is about physical facts

alisonkisk 5y ago

Do you claim to know the solution to the age-old problem of epistemology? A Nobel Prize awaits you.

lwouis 5y ago
The GP is mentioning "recent" things. None of this is recent. I studied the idea of truth in high school. We studied it through the historical lens of Greek philosophy and how it influenced and evolved through following European philosophers up to modern times. I'm often seeing people react to "fake news" and other trends like this is the first time humanity is dealing with such things. Historical revisionism, propaganda, all of these are as old as the first human settlements

HKH2 5y ago

While I do think there is one reality, our ability to get to what is true is always limited by time, information overload etc. I think what people react against is the hubris of claiming an intimate knowledge of reality and acting as if it can be successfully contained in abstractions of language.

lwouis 5y ago

Yes there is one physical truth about where atoms are at a given point. However the type of statement discussed in this thread, and by most humans most of the time, are not about "how many of this, and at what velocity". They are statements of judgement, value-systems, morality, etc. This is most of the discussion we produce as a species, on the topics we care the most about. People like to talk about whether things are moral or righteous. These discussions are by nature not about truths but perspectives and preferences. Someone is going to call trump "unpatriotic" and trump is going to reply "fake news". At no point here was the physical world/truth involved. What I'm defending is that encyclopedias shouldn't pick a side on these events but reflect the controversies and let each reader make their own mind, from their own preferences/biases. Very little of human discourse is about physical facts