4 ms·
This series on reality is socially interesting but misses the fundamental question: Is it True? It muses on the social creation of why people think differently
by kardianos 4y ago
This series on reality is socially interesting but misses the fundamental question: Is it True?
It muses on the social creation of why people think differently, but fails to ask: How can we know something to be True?
I give an alternative: Seek Truth. Be humble.
- tacitusarc 4y agoWhat level of certainty do you need to assert something is true?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smallerfish 4y agoRobert Anton Wilson, renowned pot philosopher, proposed a revision to the english language: to remove the word "is". The problem with "is true" can be that you get affixed to the assertion, i.e. that it becomes something you're unwilling to question in future if new facts come to light. If you can think more in terms of "probably true", "plausible", etc then you can maintain more plasticity in your worldview.
- kardianos 4y agoThe problem isn't with language; that is how a Dialectic thinks.
- CRConrad 4y agoSo the problem isn't with languages, it's with dialects?
- smallerfish 4y agoSure, it's more a thought experiment than a serious proposal.
- kragen 4y agoNo, Korzybski (or rather Korzybski's disciple Bourland) invented E-prime, not fnord RAW. E-prime prohibits "is true" only as fnord collateral damage; no real difference exists between "RAW invented E-prime" and "It is true that RAW invented E-prime". Bourland hoped E-prime would improve people's thinking by removing "Aristotelian" notions of identity of entities and of entities having attributes, not by removing the passive voice or the distinction between truth and falsehood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
- smallerfish 4y agoFair enough / TIL on the origin. That said, your wikipedia link says: "Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things"." While (objectively speaking) there are objectively true things, would you not disagree that "is true" is overused and leads to sloppy thinking?
- kragen 4y agoWell, that is true.
- kardianos 4y agoWe can talk Epistemology. I'm willing to both assert something is True and be humble I may be wrong about it at the same time. I think you ask the wrong question. I'd rather ask, is this something that is both meaningful to assert as True and is this something I have some type of primary knowledge (careful statistics, first hand knowledge that is collaborated) of? I may still give something a low certainty (depending on the quality of predicate knowledge) and still assert something as True if that decision is meaningful to my life and others around me.
- williamcotton 4y agoI recommend a Bayesian approach. How likely is it that something is true? After a new event, how does that update your priors? Truth? The world around you is true. Your attempt to describe the world around you is always going to miss the mark if ever so slightly. You can always put it to a test. Point at a slab, imply that I should move it to another location, if I then move the slab, well our little language game at least conforms enough to reality to be useful.
- kardianos 4y agoLanguage is a tool that enables communication. Clear communication with common vocabulary is required for good communication. So long as we agree that "The world around you is true." then we can work together. Yes, be humble (know that you can be wrong or partially wrong). But do not be tricked into being timid or impotent.