3 ms·

There are absolute truths, but there is no impartial authority to decide what they are. The only way to reach truth is through discussion (ie, interaction betwe

There are absolute truths, but there is no impartial authority to decide what they are. The only way to reach truth is through discussion (ie, interaction between opposing viewpoints). Eliminating polarity also eliminates the possibility of determining truth.

advael 3y ago
Found the logical positivist. Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth", just as armchair pondering about idealized versions of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead to actionable predictions about it. Most phenomena aren't amenable to being studied purely in logical abstractions and thus a search for "absolute truth" seldom makes sense for them in the first place. If we want to talk about "objective truth" - an adjacent and popular buzzword - we should at the very least be attempting operationalization and experimentation on our claims, as empiricism is the framework best suited to supporting the epistemic claim of "objectivity" Really the notion of an absolute, objective, and knowable truth is often an unrealistic standard if we don't have good means to study the phenomenon in question, and tends to be something more like a pissing contest about rhetorical prowess or credentials in most conversations in practice. Reaching agreement is a valuable but far from certain outcome of a dialogue. It is not the same thing as ascertaining "truth" in some epistemically meaningful final sense
- loa_in_ 3y ago
  > Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth" Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. The aim of discussion is discussion itself, not posing a guarantee that someone will walk away enlightened.
  - magicalist 3y ago
    > Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. Your GP post literally says "The only way to reach truth is through discussion", so take it up with them.

advael 3y ago

Found the logical positivist. Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth", just as armchair pondering about idealized versions of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead to actionable predictions about it. Most phenomena aren't amenable to being studied purely in logical abstractions and thus a search for "absolute truth" seldom makes sense for them in the first place. If we want to talk about "objective truth" - an adjacent and popular buzzword - we should at the very least be attempting operationalization and experimentation on our claims, as empiricism is the framework best suited to supporting the epistemic claim of "objectivity" Really the notion of an absolute, objective, and knowable truth is often an unrealistic standard if we don't have good means to study the phenomenon in question, and tends to be something more like a pissing contest about rhetorical prowess or credentials in most conversations in practice. Reaching agreement is a valuable but far from certain outcome of a dialogue. It is not the same thing as ascertaining "truth" in some epistemically meaningful final sense

loa_in_ 3y ago
> Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth" Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. The aim of discussion is discussion itself, not posing a guarantee that someone will walk away enlightened.
- magicalist 3y ago
  > Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. Your GP post literally says "The only way to reach truth is through discussion", so take it up with them.