This is a great video illustrating the techniques utilized to determine truth! :
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Does truth lie in eye of the beholder?
Part 2 of a 3 part series exploring the nature of truth.
So what is truth?
The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.
In fact according to WIKI there are no less than 14 different theories on truth.
For the sake of this blog I will use the most common, the Correspondence theory. Correspondence theory states that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. So we can say that there is a “fact” of matters or events. The ball is red. The sky is blue. Night is dark. We can all agree on the fact of these things. But what about questions like, will Obama fix the economy? That question is amazingly more complex then it seems on the surface. Republicans say no, democrats say yes. But why the confusion? 200 years from now we could look back and say, yes or no to that question with some authority, just as we can now say who won the civil war. So there is a fact of things, a truth to them, separate of opinion. With our bias, our opinions, and our faulty senses, how do we come to this truth?
Science and critical thinking my dear friends…
So what is this “Critical thinking”? Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. It is a way to process the data that we receive from our senses in order to come to a truth.
What about science? Why the hub bub about that? It is defined as systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. In other words it is a method of determining facts or truth by utilizing tools such as critical thinking and the scientific method. At its most basic form it is:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2.
Let’s say we have a ball, we are trying to determine the color of this ball. Let us also suppose that in this case the ball is red.
First of we observe the ball, we believe it is the color blue. We look at other balls, their labels, their characteristics. We form the hypothesis, “I think the ball is blue because my perception tells me it is blue”. We deduce “all persons must see this ball as blue”. And we create a test to determine this. So how to do that? Well, we would want this test to be independent of or senses and opinions, we would want it repeatable, and we would want our peers to look at it for mistakes. So we create a test. We take ten people, and ask them to write down what color they think the ball is. We also take another ball, a white one and ask ten more people to write down what color they think it is. This is the control group. It is there to make sure that the data we get is not skewed by something we may have missed. In addition we will be publishing our results in the magazine “Ball weekly” the premiere ball color magazine in the world for the public to review.
So what were our results? Well, our study showed that 10 out of the ten persons said that our ball was red not blue. What about our control? They all said that their ball was white, so their perception was not skewed in any way. In addition we published and our “ball enthusiast” public all also agreed that our ball is red not blue.
Our hypothesis was wrong. We run the study again, this time with the assumption that the ball is red, and our results verify our hypothesis. At this point we can call out hypothesis a theory. A theory is the highest level any answer can attain in science. Do not mistake it with the common use of the word. A theory states within 99.99999999999999999% accuracy that the data fits the theory, consistently.
In contrast faith and psudo science say that the ball is blue, because god, the bible, some divine being, some ancient wisdom, tell us it is so. This is despite the evidence, despite our study. As much as we would distort the word blue, rationalize the point, the ball would still remain factually red, not blue.
So how accurate is this wacky thing you call science? Well it depends on just how complicated a system is and how much we know about it. For example, we can predict the movement of the planets and eclipses to extraordinary accuracy. We can measure the distance to the moon to within millimeters, which is the width of a pencil lead. We can predict an eclipse to within nano seconds. In fact almost all science theory is accurate to this level. Even the Theory of evolution accurately predicted that we would find the fossils that we have, and found them and at what time in the past they would have lived. Without this accuracy in science your computer, car, phone, lights, air conditioning, stove, microwave, radio, cd player, dvd’s would not exist. If you are older than 33 you would also most likely be dead as the life expectancy has risen from 33 to 79 in just over 200 years! This is due to Science.
So thus is the power of truth.
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth,
which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in
self-delusion and ignorance which does harm."
[Marcus Aurelius]
So what is truth?
The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.
In fact according to WIKI there are no less than 14 different theories on truth.
For the sake of this blog I will use the most common, the Correspondence theory. Correspondence theory states that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. So we can say that there is a “fact” of matters or events. The ball is red. The sky is blue. Night is dark. We can all agree on the fact of these things. But what about questions like, will Obama fix the economy? That question is amazingly more complex then it seems on the surface. Republicans say no, democrats say yes. But why the confusion? 200 years from now we could look back and say, yes or no to that question with some authority, just as we can now say who won the civil war. So there is a fact of things, a truth to them, separate of opinion. With our bias, our opinions, and our faulty senses, how do we come to this truth?
Science and critical thinking my dear friends…
So what is this “Critical thinking”? Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. It is a way to process the data that we receive from our senses in order to come to a truth.
What about science? Why the hub bub about that? It is defined as systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. In other words it is a method of determining facts or truth by utilizing tools such as critical thinking and the scientific method. At its most basic form it is:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2.
Let’s say we have a ball, we are trying to determine the color of this ball. Let us also suppose that in this case the ball is red.
First of we observe the ball, we believe it is the color blue. We look at other balls, their labels, their characteristics. We form the hypothesis, “I think the ball is blue because my perception tells me it is blue”. We deduce “all persons must see this ball as blue”. And we create a test to determine this. So how to do that? Well, we would want this test to be independent of or senses and opinions, we would want it repeatable, and we would want our peers to look at it for mistakes. So we create a test. We take ten people, and ask them to write down what color they think the ball is. We also take another ball, a white one and ask ten more people to write down what color they think it is. This is the control group. It is there to make sure that the data we get is not skewed by something we may have missed. In addition we will be publishing our results in the magazine “Ball weekly” the premiere ball color magazine in the world for the public to review.
So what were our results? Well, our study showed that 10 out of the ten persons said that our ball was red not blue. What about our control? They all said that their ball was white, so their perception was not skewed in any way. In addition we published and our “ball enthusiast” public all also agreed that our ball is red not blue.
Our hypothesis was wrong. We run the study again, this time with the assumption that the ball is red, and our results verify our hypothesis. At this point we can call out hypothesis a theory. A theory is the highest level any answer can attain in science. Do not mistake it with the common use of the word. A theory states within 99.99999999999999999% accuracy that the data fits the theory, consistently.
In contrast faith and psudo science say that the ball is blue, because god, the bible, some divine being, some ancient wisdom, tell us it is so. This is despite the evidence, despite our study. As much as we would distort the word blue, rationalize the point, the ball would still remain factually red, not blue.
So how accurate is this wacky thing you call science? Well it depends on just how complicated a system is and how much we know about it. For example, we can predict the movement of the planets and eclipses to extraordinary accuracy. We can measure the distance to the moon to within millimeters, which is the width of a pencil lead. We can predict an eclipse to within nano seconds. In fact almost all science theory is accurate to this level. Even the Theory of evolution accurately predicted that we would find the fossils that we have, and found them and at what time in the past they would have lived. Without this accuracy in science your computer, car, phone, lights, air conditioning, stove, microwave, radio, cd player, dvd’s would not exist. If you are older than 33 you would also most likely be dead as the life expectancy has risen from 33 to 79 in just over 200 years! This is due to Science.
So thus is the power of truth.
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth,
which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in
self-delusion and ignorance which does harm."
[Marcus Aurelius]
Monday, June 15, 2009
Is there in truth no beauty?
Disclaimer:
Today I want to start a new 3 part blog post on the nature of truth. Mind you, I am not referring to the subjective truth that we all feel from time to time, but rather the objective truth, the fact, the reality. This post shall also reveal things that one might find offensive and or objectionable, but after all, that is the nature of truth.
Is there in truth no beauty?
Ever since I was a small child I have always been asking questions. I have always been interested in the reasons behind things, the truth of the matter if you will. This of course led to some rather uncomfortable confrontations in catholic school. Inevitably this evolved to the usual curiosity that most children have, although I suspect most children didn’t try to disassemble a television. In college I had the good fortune to attend several classes on Western History. Please forgive me, I do not remember the professors name, but if you can imagine a class being taught by an atheist jesus you get the picture. One of the most valuable thing he or anyone for that matter has ever taught me was that there was a truth to history, to people, that was quite different to the popular view. For example the events attributed to Paul Revere and his famous ride, was a fiction, created by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and detailed the account of three different riders. I became fascinated with this.
As a society we tend to glorify individuals, to raise them on a pedestal or deify them. In a very real sense we remove their accomplishments from the realm of the possible. An analogy would be saying that the pyramids were built by Aliens. This implies that humans are incapable of building them on their own. To illustrate this point I will need three volunteers……. Ok, you in the first row The Dahli Lama, and you next to him, Gandhi, and what about you in the back with the blue scarf, Mother Theresa.
When we think of all three of these people we get this mental image of great peace keepers or incredible humanitarians. I’m not here to dispute that claim, but did you know that one of these people was a vocal racist against blacks? That one of these people accepted millions of dollars from the CIA to fund guerrilla warfare in his former country? Or that one of these created a cult of suffering and denied basic health care to those that she professed to help all the while traveling and collecting millions of dollars to open more “hospitals”. Don’t believe me? Look it up, the record is clear.
The Dalai Lama admitted that he received 1.7 million dollars a year from the U.S. Government to fund guerrilla operations against the Chinese. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA’s payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $180,000 a year. In addition, the Tibet that he wants to go back to was a horribly unequal social situation where the peasant class comprising 95% of the population lived in abject poverty so that the remaining 5%, the priest class could live in opulent wealth. The Dalai Lama is widely considered one of the greatest humanitarians alive today.
Gandhi not only spoke out against blacks while he was in South Africa he wrote about it quite extensively in the local newspaper “ The Indian Opinion “. Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city. Gandhi was elevated to the status of Mahatma, a title reserved for the greatest of thinkers, analogous to the western “saint” and one Gandhi himself denied.
Mother Theresa and the Missionaries of Charity took in millions from whatever source they could including the family of Papa Doc, The “butcher” of Haiti. There are many accounts from prior nuns, who left the order in disgust, after seeing how the money was being squandered instead of going to the poor as promised. In addition she believed that suffering was important for the soul and denied those she sought to help basic health care. Mother Theresa has been venerated and is well on her way to Sainthood in the Catholic Church.
So what is the point of this? Why should we remember these people as they were and not as society perceives them? Well it is precisely because they have done amazing things that I want this. The Dalai Lama is the premiere humanitarian alive today. He has done untold good in the world. Gandhi started the non violent resistance movement that freed India from colonial rule and ultimately lead to the civil rights movement in the United States. And Mother Theresa went on a public awareness campaign that raised awareness for the horrible conditions and desperate poverty worldwide. She opened our eyes.
When we raise people up to the level of Sainthood, when we deify them, and create an idealized version of who they are, we set them out of reach. They become unattainable. But when we accept them as human beings, on the same level as us, with the same flaws, and fears as us, all of a sudden their great accomplishments enter the realm of the possible.
We all have the capacity for compassion that the Dalai Lama has or the strength of Gandhi or the compassion the Mother Theresa had. We all have these abilities in ourselves. We are capable of these things and so much more if we only learn to listen to ourselves, and the truth.
Today I want to start a new 3 part blog post on the nature of truth. Mind you, I am not referring to the subjective truth that we all feel from time to time, but rather the objective truth, the fact, the reality. This post shall also reveal things that one might find offensive and or objectionable, but after all, that is the nature of truth.
Is there in truth no beauty?
Ever since I was a small child I have always been asking questions. I have always been interested in the reasons behind things, the truth of the matter if you will. This of course led to some rather uncomfortable confrontations in catholic school. Inevitably this evolved to the usual curiosity that most children have, although I suspect most children didn’t try to disassemble a television. In college I had the good fortune to attend several classes on Western History. Please forgive me, I do not remember the professors name, but if you can imagine a class being taught by an atheist jesus you get the picture. One of the most valuable thing he or anyone for that matter has ever taught me was that there was a truth to history, to people, that was quite different to the popular view. For example the events attributed to Paul Revere and his famous ride, was a fiction, created by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and detailed the account of three different riders. I became fascinated with this.
As a society we tend to glorify individuals, to raise them on a pedestal or deify them. In a very real sense we remove their accomplishments from the realm of the possible. An analogy would be saying that the pyramids were built by Aliens. This implies that humans are incapable of building them on their own. To illustrate this point I will need three volunteers……. Ok, you in the first row The Dahli Lama, and you next to him, Gandhi, and what about you in the back with the blue scarf, Mother Theresa.
When we think of all three of these people we get this mental image of great peace keepers or incredible humanitarians. I’m not here to dispute that claim, but did you know that one of these people was a vocal racist against blacks? That one of these people accepted millions of dollars from the CIA to fund guerrilla warfare in his former country? Or that one of these created a cult of suffering and denied basic health care to those that she professed to help all the while traveling and collecting millions of dollars to open more “hospitals”. Don’t believe me? Look it up, the record is clear.
The Dalai Lama admitted that he received 1.7 million dollars a year from the U.S. Government to fund guerrilla operations against the Chinese. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA’s payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $180,000 a year. In addition, the Tibet that he wants to go back to was a horribly unequal social situation where the peasant class comprising 95% of the population lived in abject poverty so that the remaining 5%, the priest class could live in opulent wealth. The Dalai Lama is widely considered one of the greatest humanitarians alive today.
Gandhi not only spoke out against blacks while he was in South Africa he wrote about it quite extensively in the local newspaper “ The Indian Opinion “. Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city. Gandhi was elevated to the status of Mahatma, a title reserved for the greatest of thinkers, analogous to the western “saint” and one Gandhi himself denied.
Mother Theresa and the Missionaries of Charity took in millions from whatever source they could including the family of Papa Doc, The “butcher” of Haiti. There are many accounts from prior nuns, who left the order in disgust, after seeing how the money was being squandered instead of going to the poor as promised. In addition she believed that suffering was important for the soul and denied those she sought to help basic health care. Mother Theresa has been venerated and is well on her way to Sainthood in the Catholic Church.
So what is the point of this? Why should we remember these people as they were and not as society perceives them? Well it is precisely because they have done amazing things that I want this. The Dalai Lama is the premiere humanitarian alive today. He has done untold good in the world. Gandhi started the non violent resistance movement that freed India from colonial rule and ultimately lead to the civil rights movement in the United States. And Mother Theresa went on a public awareness campaign that raised awareness for the horrible conditions and desperate poverty worldwide. She opened our eyes.
When we raise people up to the level of Sainthood, when we deify them, and create an idealized version of who they are, we set them out of reach. They become unattainable. But when we accept them as human beings, on the same level as us, with the same flaws, and fears as us, all of a sudden their great accomplishments enter the realm of the possible.
We all have the capacity for compassion that the Dalai Lama has or the strength of Gandhi or the compassion the Mother Theresa had. We all have these abilities in ourselves. We are capable of these things and so much more if we only learn to listen to ourselves, and the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
