3 ms·

Objective truth - where do you find that?

by noiv 2y ago

ValleZ 2y ago
Observe it
- contagiousflow 2y ago
  So how do you observe objective truth of history?
croes 2y ago
Math.
- contagiousflow 2y ago
  See: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
simmerup 2y ago
If you stop believing it, yet it remains there, it’s probably true enough
xeckr 2y ago
Certainly not in the words produced by the Russian disinformation apparatus.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Or on any major US news network
  - xeckr 2y ago
    You have to be awake to the fact that there is absolutely no comparison to be made here.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      ever heard of the collateral murder video? Freedom of the press can be revoked at any time for any reason. When the Snowden documents were released, US media didn't cover it until foreign media did.
      - sepositus 2y ago
        The argument isn't that one is doing and the other isn't. It's the _degree_ that it's happening in each country. Given the tight control of the Kremlin on media, my gut says more stories break in the USA than Russia.
        gosub100 2y ago
        RU are in war time, are they not? Remember what happened to Bill Maher when he said something uncouth when _our_ country was at war? If you want to say the penalties of saying uncouth things are more severe in RU, I'd agree with you. But then it's just a matter of which offenses. US will lock you up for decades for possession of marijuana. Even after it's "legalized", competing with businesses without a license is still severely punished: https://mynews4.com/news/local/traffic-stop-leads-to-889500-marijuana-bust-in-washoe-county# https://mynews4.com/news/local/traffic-stop-leads-to-889500-...
        sepositus 2y ago
        > Or on any major US news network I think we've lost the context here. The point was that, compared to Russia, our media has much more freedom to break stories. But, I'll admit, I've never lived in Russia. I only work with friends that have (previously) lived there. In our discussions, it's never really been a question that the Kremlin has much more control over the media than US administrations (despite their best effort, otherwise).
        xeckr 2y ago
        >US will lock you up for decades for possession of marijuana. Guess what happens in russia for the same? Not to mention that they will also lock you up and/or shove a bottle up your ass and/or kill you for any political action whatsoever challenging the Gremlin. >RU are in war time, are they not? Have you heard of what happened to Boris Nemtsov who dared to speak out about the fact that putin was grooming his country for war?
6177c40f 2y ago
These kinds of semantic arguments are as pointless as they are unhelpful. There are shades of accuracy- state-controlled media often ranks lower than other sources on topics in which the state has a vested interest.
- inetknght 2y ago
  > state-controlled media often ranks lower than other sources on topics in which the state has a vested interest. When the state can control (subvert) media without public knowledge then how do you determine accuracy?
  - 6177c40f 2y ago
    Consume multiple sources which are subject to forces with different incentives. All information is wrong, some is useful, and not everything is wrong in the same direction.
Spooky23 2y ago
Certainly not in Pravda.
sepositus 2y ago
If we're working under the definition that it's something which is true regardless of how a person feels about it, then I think it can be found through non-verbal means. For example, if I claim to my insurance company that my house burned down yesterday, they are going to want objective measurements to ensure that's true. The problem comes down to what happens the further away from an event you get. I can claim my house burned down twenty years ago and it would be more difficult to prove me wrong. But you could still use things like police reports, satellite photographs, interviewing people alive at that time, etc. to provide what I would consider objective truth. Of course, you can always play the pessimist view and assume everyone and everything is a lie. Which is valid, I suppose, but not very useful.
simion314 2y ago
>Objective truth - where do you find that? Outside, people might claim that Pepsi has microchips in it put there by Soros to control you. You can buy a pesi a microscope or some other clever device and check it then share your findings with your group. Same with flat Earth, you can buy a balon, a camera and find the truth. What if you think Putin is a saint? You can go in Ruzzia capital and test this out by saying something bad about Putin, if youget fucked you know you were wrong and your group will also know. The issue is that propaganda made people deny the truth, like idiots would deny that there is a war in Ukraine and said it is fake news. Some big orange idiot still pushes the narrative that Ukraine started the war when we had live streams of the invazion happening, not sure if USA has the ability to fix the crisis and a civil war is probably IMO
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  This is a very shallow analysis of what truth is. One of the main purposes of the scientific method is to ensure that researchers don't fool themselves about the nature of truth. If just observing something is sufficient to determine truth, why bother with double blind tests? The examples given are also convenient in the sense that they have relatively easy answers. What about something like the existence of quarks? What kind of equipment would I need to see for myself that they exist? What if I want to "see" the Higgs Boson for myself? That's not even getting into non-falsifiable ideas like "last Thursdayism" that can't really be proven to be not true no matter how many observations you make. Edit: Here's another example - Elon Musk. Is he a brilliant engineer? A ruthless businessman? A fool? A Nazi? You can probably make a case for any of these conclusions by picking and choosing things he's said and done. How do you even start to determine the objective truth of his capabilities and intentions?
  - simion314 2y ago
    why so disingenuous??? any Zed propaganda you are pushing? We are talking about propaganda, about paid Ruzzians that create for example fake documents daily, some show that Zelensky bought some sports car today, a mansion yesterday, an apartment last week. Is it very possible to figure out that they are fake, maybe not for each of us, but as a group we could find someone that has experience in the domain and can tell you that the document shown is not how such a document looks in real life and is an obvious fake. or a super recent example, you have a protest or gathering and some people claim there were 400k people present and others say there were only 10k people i that town square, there are videos and photos, sure not every person has the ability to evaluate the number but if we combine as a group we can gfind someone intelligent that can figure out what number is correct (except if the group is filled with less intelligent people then someone needs to take pity on them and explain as to children how you can count and estimate a crowd size) And there is always absolute truth if you want to be scientific, like "I do not know" or 2+2=4 where 2 is s(s(0)) , + is well defined, and 4= s(s(s(s(0)))) , and is also truth that 1>0 for real numbers(where...definition of all those symbols) etc
UltraSane 2y ago
By analyzing as much information as possible with as few preconceptions and little bias as possible. So the opposite of Prada.
jarek83 2y ago
If you zoom in close enough, nothing what you perceive as principle, will be true. Physicians can always prove you wrong. There is always a line beyond which everything can be negated. This line is where disinformation thrives and you have to develop your own sense of how to find it.

Objective truth - where do you find that?

by noiv 2y ago

Objective truth - where do you find that?

ValleZ 2y ago

Observe it

contagiousflow 2y ago
So how do you observe objective truth of history?

croes 2y ago

Math.

contagiousflow 2y ago
See: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

simmerup 2y ago

If you stop believing it, yet it remains there, it’s probably true enough

xeckr 2y ago

Certainly not in the words produced by the Russian disinformation apparatus.

gosub100 2y ago
Or on any major US news network
- xeckr 2y ago
  You have to be awake to the fact that there is absolutely no comparison to be made here.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    ever heard of the collateral murder video? Freedom of the press can be revoked at any time for any reason. When the Snowden documents were released, US media didn't cover it until foreign media did.
    - sepositus 2y ago
      The argument isn't that one is doing and the other isn't. It's the _degree_ that it's happening in each country. Given the tight control of the Kremlin on media, my gut says more stories break in the USA than Russia.
      - gosub100 2y ago
        RU are in war time, are they not? Remember what happened to Bill Maher when he said something uncouth when _our_ country was at war? If you want to say the penalties of saying uncouth things are more severe in RU, I'd agree with you. But then it's just a matter of which offenses. US will lock you up for decades for possession of marijuana. Even after it's "legalized", competing with businesses without a license is still severely punished: https://mynews4.com/news/local/traffic-stop-leads-to-889500-marijuana-bust-in-washoe-county# https://mynews4.com/news/local/traffic-stop-leads-to-889500-...
        sepositus 2y ago
        > Or on any major US news network I think we've lost the context here. The point was that, compared to Russia, our media has much more freedom to break stories. But, I'll admit, I've never lived in Russia. I only work with friends that have (previously) lived there. In our discussions, it's never really been a question that the Kremlin has much more control over the media than US administrations (despite their best effort, otherwise).
        xeckr 2y ago
        >US will lock you up for decades for possession of marijuana. Guess what happens in russia for the same? Not to mention that they will also lock you up and/or shove a bottle up your ass and/or kill you for any political action whatsoever challenging the Gremlin. >RU are in war time, are they not? Have you heard of what happened to Boris Nemtsov who dared to speak out about the fact that putin was grooming his country for war?

6177c40f 2y ago

These kinds of semantic arguments are as pointless as they are unhelpful. There are shades of accuracy- state-controlled media often ranks lower than other sources on topics in which the state has a vested interest.

inetknght 2y ago
> state-controlled media often ranks lower than other sources on topics in which the state has a vested interest. When the state can control (subvert) media without public knowledge then how do you determine accuracy?
- 6177c40f 2y ago
  Consume multiple sources which are subject to forces with different incentives. All information is wrong, some is useful, and not everything is wrong in the same direction.

Spooky23 2y ago

Certainly not in Pravda.

sepositus 2y ago

If we're working under the definition that it's something which is true regardless of how a person feels about it, then I think it can be found through non-verbal means. For example, if I claim to my insurance company that my house burned down yesterday, they are going to want objective measurements to ensure that's true. The problem comes down to what happens the further away from an event you get. I can claim my house burned down twenty years ago and it would be more difficult to prove me wrong. But you could still use things like police reports, satellite photographs, interviewing people alive at that time, etc. to provide what I would consider objective truth. Of course, you can always play the pessimist view and assume everyone and everything is a lie. Which is valid, I suppose, but not very useful.

simion314 2y ago

>Objective truth - where do you find that? Outside, people might claim that Pepsi has microchips in it put there by Soros to control you. You can buy a pesi a microscope or some other clever device and check it then share your findings with your group. Same with flat Earth, you can buy a balon, a camera and find the truth. What if you think Putin is a saint? You can go in Ruzzia capital and test this out by saying something bad about Putin, if youget fucked you know you were wrong and your group will also know. The issue is that propaganda made people deny the truth, like idiots would deny that there is a war in Ukraine and said it is fake news. Some big orange idiot still pushes the narrative that Ukraine started the war when we had live streams of the invazion happening, not sure if USA has the ability to fix the crisis and a civil war is probably IMO

AlexandrB 2y ago
This is a very shallow analysis of what truth is. One of the main purposes of the scientific method is to ensure that researchers don't fool themselves about the nature of truth. If just observing something is sufficient to determine truth, why bother with double blind tests? The examples given are also convenient in the sense that they have relatively easy answers. What about something like the existence of quarks? What kind of equipment would I need to see for myself that they exist? What if I want to "see" the Higgs Boson for myself? That's not even getting into non-falsifiable ideas like "last Thursdayism" that can't really be proven to be not true no matter how many observations you make. Edit: Here's another example - Elon Musk. Is he a brilliant engineer? A ruthless businessman? A fool? A Nazi? You can probably make a case for any of these conclusions by picking and choosing things he's said and done. How do you even start to determine the objective truth of his capabilities and intentions?
- simion314 2y ago
  why so disingenuous??? any Zed propaganda you are pushing? We are talking about propaganda, about paid Ruzzians that create for example fake documents daily, some show that Zelensky bought some sports car today, a mansion yesterday, an apartment last week. Is it very possible to figure out that they are fake, maybe not for each of us, but as a group we could find someone that has experience in the domain and can tell you that the document shown is not how such a document looks in real life and is an obvious fake. or a super recent example, you have a protest or gathering and some people claim there were 400k people present and others say there were only 10k people i that town square, there are videos and photos, sure not every person has the ability to evaluate the number but if we combine as a group we can gfind someone intelligent that can figure out what number is correct (except if the group is filled with less intelligent people then someone needs to take pity on them and explain as to children how you can count and estimate a crowd size) And there is always absolute truth if you want to be scientific, like "I do not know" or 2+2=4 where 2 is s(s(0)) , + is well defined, and 4= s(s(s(s(0)))) , and is also truth that 1>0 for real numbers(where...definition of all those symbols) etc

UltraSane 2y ago

By analyzing as much information as possible with as few preconceptions and little bias as possible. So the opposite of Prada.

jarek83 2y ago

If you zoom in close enough, nothing what you perceive as principle, will be true. Physicians can always prove you wrong. There is always a line beyond which everything can be negated. This line is where disinformation thrives and you have to develop your own sense of how to find it.