3 ms·

How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know? Most people operate under a subjective interpretation of Truth. For example, take

How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know? Most people operate under a subjective interpretation of Truth. For example, take the statement: "China wants accountability for US operating biological weapon facilities in Ukraine." Objectively it's either True or False. Either US had bioweapon facilities in Ukraine or Not. So is it True? If you ask a Chinese person it is. If you Ask an American, it hasn't even crossed their mind. Americans don't even contemplate that this is a sticking point in Chinese/American relations. This information has simply not been told to them. And even if was, and not censored, most would dismiss it as misinformation. So Chinese people and Americans people operate in a world with opposing interpretation of a factual event. There might be objective truth. But people live in a world of subjective interpretation of it.

hayst4ck 4y ago
Timothy Snyder (linked video of his on a post below) talks about this somewhat frequently. Here is an interview in written form: https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/9/14838088/donald-trump-fascism-europe-history-totalitarianism-post-truth https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/9/14838088/donald-t... This whole idea we're dealing with now about the alternative facts and post-factuality is pretty familiar to the 1920s. It’s a vision that's very similar to the central premise of the fascist vision. It's important because if you don't have the facts, you don't have the rule of law. If you don't have the rule of law, you can't have democracy. Sociologists say that a belief in truth is what makes trust in authority possible. Without trust, without respect for journalists or doctors or politicians, a society can’t hang together. Nobody trusts anyone, which leaves society open to resentment and propaganda, and of course to demagogues. If a community or country can't hold together horizontally by way of an idea of factuality, then someone comes along vertically with a huge myth, and that person wins. > But people live in a world of subjective interpretation of it. Everyone's subjective truth is not equal. What are the consequences of that? What are the consequences of believing your subjective truth is more authoritative than someone who has spent more time understanding a problem than you or a consensus of such people? What you've described, via subjective truth, is the core ideology of might makes right. If you equate the truths, you are saying that the subjective truths are equal, therefore who can shout the loudest is who can spread their truth. If you believe in objective truth, then it is a clear conclusion that not everyone's subjective truth is equal and you must figure out ways to determine which truths are lower quality. > How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know? Contradictions are the one thing we can be confident means something is wrong, so truth can be explored through contradictions. Entities that frequently contradict themselves are bad faith, and that creates a strong indication that their truth is probably not the truth.

hayst4ck 4y ago

Timothy Snyder (linked video of his on a post below) talks about this somewhat frequently. Here is an interview in written form: https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/9/14838088/donald-trump-fascism-europe-history-totalitarianism-post-truth https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/9/14838088/donald-t... This whole idea we're dealing with now about the alternative facts and post-factuality is pretty familiar to the 1920s. It’s a vision that's very similar to the central premise of the fascist vision. It's important because if you don't have the facts, you don't have the rule of law. If you don't have the rule of law, you can't have democracy. Sociologists say that a belief in truth is what makes trust in authority possible. Without trust, without respect for journalists or doctors or politicians, a society can’t hang together. Nobody trusts anyone, which leaves society open to resentment and propaganda, and of course to demagogues. If a community or country can't hold together horizontally by way of an idea of factuality, then someone comes along vertically with a huge myth, and that person wins. > But people live in a world of subjective interpretation of it. Everyone's subjective truth is not equal. What are the consequences of that? What are the consequences of believing your subjective truth is more authoritative than someone who has spent more time understanding a problem than you or a consensus of such people? What you've described, via subjective truth, is the core ideology of might makes right. If you equate the truths, you are saying that the subjective truths are equal, therefore who can shout the loudest is who can spread their truth. If you believe in objective truth, then it is a clear conclusion that not everyone's subjective truth is equal and you must figure out ways to determine which truths are lower quality. > How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know? Contradictions are the one thing we can be confident means something is wrong, so truth can be explored through contradictions. Entities that frequently contradict themselves are bad faith, and that creates a strong indication that their truth is probably not the truth.