How do we know what is true?

[Mendalla]

So if my searching revealed that cupcakes cure cancer and that human sacrifice will stop global warming, I don't have to prove them, just be open to them? I'm thinking that that is not really what you meant, WF. There must be a point where proof is required, isn't there?

 

[Seeler]

I see no reason why we do not use all our resources and combine both methods.

It seems to me that a good doctor, to use his example, would not only use all the facts of scientific research and discovery, but she would also use intuition, compassion, insight, and vision. I recently changed specialists because the one I had, who was supposedly tops in his field, was cold and impersonal, and didn't believe in or lacked the ability to communicate with his patients. Both my long term chronic conditions respond best when there is a good relationship between the patient and the health care professionals.

 

[Hermann]

So if my searching revealed that cupcakes cure cancer and that human sacrifice will stop global warming, I don't have to prove them, just be open to them? I'm thinking that that is not really what you meant, WF. There must be a point where proof is required, isn't there?

Well, we don't know how the placebo effect works, but we know that it works, somehow and sometimes. To discount the placebo effect (faith) just because we don't know how it works, or because it's effects aren't reliably verifiable by repeated experimentation, is discounting the power of faith which, according to the proverb, moves mountains.

 

[Waterfall]

So if my searching revealed that cupcakes cure cancer and that human sacrifice will stop global warming, I don't have to prove them, just be open to them? I'm thinking that that is not really what you meant, WF. There must be a point where proof is required, isn't there?

There are philosophical truths, historical truths, scientific truths, etc. and all are subject to change. Truths "become truths" only because we have decided to accept them as such, either individually or collectively.

 

[Mendalla]

Except that in the case of science and philosophy, change in what is true does not just happen. Truths aren't just a matter of what someone wants to be true or what is "revealed through our searching for it". There are rules and methods. For science, it is the scientific method (make observations, form a hypothesis, make predictions based on hypothesis, experiment to test, rinse and repeat). For philosophy, it's the rules of logic. Even in history, while things are often fuzzier, you are still supposed to be supporting your hypotheses with evidence from archaeology, written history, etc. Your statement was:

You don't have to prove that something is true, you just have to be open to it when it becomes revealed through our searching for it.

And that simply is not how it works in most fields. Maybe in religion, that can be the case (even UUs acknowledge personal experience of awe and wonder as one of our sources) but in most fields, there are definitions to what is accepted as "truth". It isn't just "revealed through our searching for it". Science is the paramount case. There is a lot that is passed off as "science" that is not accepted by the majority of scientists because it has not met that definition.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Except that in the case of science and philosophy, change in what is true does not just happen. Truths aren't just a matter of what someone wants to be true or what is "revealed through our searching for it". There are rules and methods. For science, it is the scientific method (make observations, form a hypothesis, make predictions based on hypothesis, experiment to test, rinse and repeat). For philosophy, it's the rules of logic. Even in history, while things are often fuzzier, you are still supposed to be supporting your hypotheses with evidence from archaeology, written history, etc. Your statement was:



And that simply is not how it works in most fields. Maybe in religion, that can be the case (even UUs acknowledge personal experience of awe and wonder as one of our sources) but in most fields, there are definitions to what is accepted as "truth". It isn't just "revealed through our searching for it". Science is the paramount case. There is a lot that is passed off as "science" that is not accepted by the majority of scientists because it has not met that definition.

There are certain truths for most people that don't need science - like peace and harmony are preferable conditions to live in than war and strife. Texts that convey those truths do not require science to prove they are true if they are perceived to convey those truths. Science is useless at conveying those sorts of higher truths. Actually, science might even disprove that, from a purely non-emotional preditor/ prey, view of the natural order. Whereas, you could say that we are naturally endowed with such emotions that produce intuition that favours peace and harmony - and that is a truth that is apart from science but is vital for humanity.

 

[Mendalla]

Right, and I conceded that about religion. However, waterfall's original post was a blanket statement with no qualifiers implying truth as a whole is something revealed with no need for proof or testing and that just isn't so. Even in religion, ideas get tested and rejected (e.g. religious objections to gay marriage are being dropped by an increasing number of churches), there just isn't a rigorous method for doing so, save possibly in biblical scholarship and theology which shade over into philosophy.

Even scientists use intuition but they do not regard intuitions as "truth" until they become tested hypotheses. Einstein, for one, relied heavily on it. Intuition is not a reliable guide to truth, even in the moral sphere. Two persons in the same situation may have different intuitions depending on background, experience, etc. Look how much conflict is generated just because a person does not "feel right" about another person, on some grounds or other. If simple intuition could bring about peace and harmony, it would have happened millenia ago and we would not need Jesus and The Buddha and other moral teachers.

Intuition is a first step and a guide but it does not lead to truth unless it is tested. And that is true even in the moral sphere.

 

[Waterfall]

A "Sermon" for today.....just over an hour long.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Right, and I conceded that about religion. However, waterfall's original post was a blanket statement with no qualifiers implying truth as a whole is something revealed with no need for proof or testing and that just isn't so. Even in religion, ideas get tested and rejected (eg religous objections to gay marriage are being dropped by an increasing number of churches), there just isn't a rigorous method for doing so, ave possibly in biblical scholarship and theology which shade over into philosophy.

Even scientists use intuition but they do not regard intuitions as "truth" until they become tested hypotheses. Einstein, for one, relied heavily on it. Intuition is not a reliable guide to truth, even in the moral sphere. Two persons in the same situation may have different intuitions depending on background, experience, etc. Look how much conflict is generated just because a person does not "feel right" about another person, on some grounds or other. If simple intuition could bring about peace and harmony, it would have happened millenia ago and we would not need Jesus and The Buddha and other moral teachers.

Intuition is a first step and a guide but it does not lead to truth unless it is tested. And that is true even in the moral sphere.

There is something in the bible about testing the spirits. I agree, intuition can be wrong when other factors aren't taken into account, but it is a starting point. But I don't agree that rigorous testing by science is what will reveal a deeper truth to every issue. Actually, I can say "war is wrong" because throughout history it is never really over, just a precursor to a future war. Therefore, loving neighbours and enemies, non-violence, and peace seeking are the only cures for war and the only pursuit that won't end in catastrophy. That doesn't mean everybody's going to stop fighting overnight - some factions may never figure out that it's futile - it's even to their own detriment. But it's the absolute truth. No science needed. Science came late to the party on that one, and made things worse.

 

[Hermann]

Intuition is a first step and a guide but it does not lead to truth unless it is tested. And that is true even in the moral sphere.

Yes, intuition is best complemented by reason, and vice versa. Intuion and reason are the opposite poles of the human spirit. Either one alone can lead us astray, but the two in unison can work miracles.

 

[Seeler]

I see no reason why we do not use all our resources and combine both methods.

It seems to me that a good doctor, to use his example, would not only use all the facts of scientific research and discovery, but she would also use intuition, compassion, insight, and vision. I recently changed specialists because the one I had, who was supposedly tops in his field, was cold and impersonal, and didn't believe in or lacked the ability to communicate with his patients. Both my long term chronic conditions respond best when there is a good relationship between the patient and the health care professionals.

Bump. Am I invisable? Or just overlooked?

 

[Hermann]

Bump. Am I invisable? Or just overlooked?

Yes, seeler, you were just overlooked. You are are a prominent presence, and have been for the past seven years.

 

[Mendalla]

Bump. Am I invisable? Or just overlooked?

My apologies. I had intended to highlight your post since it hits the kind of middle ground that I am aiming for but by the time I got to a machine where I could easily respond (I read WC on my Blackberry a lot and the editor doesn't work so well in the BB browser on my antique), other posts distracted me. You are actually right on the money.

That said, if the doctor with compassion and intuition is using 20 year-old treatments that are now discredited or a controversial treatment like homeopathy, then I'll likely risk the cold, impersonal one who is using up-to-date, well-researched treatments.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Some homeopathy works...like arnica for inflammation and bruising. I had an English doctor trained in both conventional medicine and homeopathy suggest it to me when I got some sand or dust in my eye and the white of my eye was alarmingly blood red. It was a surface injury but the arnica did speed the healing. Subsequently, I bought topical arnica gel for bruising of the skin and it cuts healing time in half. Really. Sooths sore muscles, too. It's the only homeopathic one I really know about. That and Bach's rescue remedy for temporary anxiety relief...but I think that's because it's in a grain alcohol tincture! People give it to pets, too..

 

[Jaebius]

Right, and I conceded that about religion. However, waterfall's original post was a blanket statement with no qualifiers implying truth as a whole is something revealed with no need for proof or testing and that just isn't so. Even in religion, ideas get tested and rejected (e.g. religious objections to gay marriage are being dropped by an increasing number of churches), there just isn't a rigorous method for doing so, save possibly in biblical scholarship and theology which shade over into philosophy.

Even scientists use intuition but they do not regard intuitions as "truth" until they become tested hypotheses. Einstein, for one, relied heavily on it. Intuition is not a reliable guide to truth, even in the moral sphere. Two persons in the same situation may have different intuitions depending on background, experience, etc. Look how much conflict is generated just because a person does not "feel right" about another person, on some grounds or other. If simple intuition could bring about peace and harmony, it would have happened millenia ago and we would not need Jesus and The Buddha and other moral teachers.

Intuition is a first step and a guide but it does not lead to truth unless it is tested. And that is true even in the moral sphere.

The vast majority of major world religions - including most Christian denominations still oppose homosexual marriage - so the idea has hardly been rejected on religious grounds.

 

[Delightful Life]

one of my favourite fools, committing suicide in front of a live audience

thank g_odness he was able to use the power of his will to survive/thank g_odness it was fake/thank g_odness Deity intervened/thank g_odness he also took an antidote//thank g_odness for INSERT HYPOTHESIS HERE

(could also be a report on humanity's homeopathic addition to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? oops, another damned thing)

chansen, ty for making this thread -- i hope people here continue to have fun with finding things out

 

[chansen]

The vast majority of major world religions - including most Christian denominations still oppose homosexual marriage - so the idea has hardly been rejected on religious grounds.

You can reject or permit homosexual marriage using Christianity. Rejection is the more simple biblical reading, yes.

 

[Seeler]

My apologies. I had intended to highlight your post since it hits the kind of middle ground that I am aiming for but by the time I got to a machine where I could easily respond (I read WC on my Blackberry a lot and the editor doesn't work so well in the BB browser on my antique), other posts distracted me. You are actually right on the money.

That said, if the doctor with compassion and intuition is using 20 year-old treatments that are now discredited or a controversial treatment like homeopathy, then I'll likely risk the cold, impersonal one who is using up-to-date, well-researched treatments.

 

[Seeler]

Thank you, Mandella, for getting back to me.

Naturally, if I thought my kind, compassionate doctor was incompetent or outdated, or had more patients than he could handle, I would probably prefer the cold, impersonal one who had excellent qualifications. But many chronic conditions require a combination of diet, medication and life style modification - and possibly surgery and it seems to me that I will have a better chance of healing if I understand what is happening to my body and can trust my doctor to work with me for the best chance of healing. Yes, I want a competent, up-to-date doctor. I also want one who communicates with me and treats me as an important part of the equation - not as an inanimate machine that he has to keep running.
Also, at my age, I am reaching the time when quality of life will be more important than quantity and if radical surgery might result in another six months, or even six years, that might see me deteriorating, I might choose to have a lesser invasive treatment. Again, I have to have a doctor I can relate to, and who, if he doesn't share my values, at least he understands them.

So I will look for a combination of both technical skill and science and a more spiritual approach who shares some of my values.

 

[Delightful Life]

Seeler,

what you are mentioning above sounds quite rational and even scientific -- you've lived long enough and have been fortunate enough, educated enough, perceptive enough, patient enough to be able to suss out your body, your mind, what you like, what you don't like, etc...

Your health record is supposed to keep track in a way that stuff? Yours must be as thick as a bible :3

And doctors can't be mind readers or time travellers so they can't know you entirely as you do. I've chuckled at how my current GP has taken what information I have given him and then made it his reality...no dangerous stuff, yet.

I don't know how the health care is done there, but here the local Health Authority has been trying to change from Doctor-centred care to Patient-centered care; not completely successful -- its very difficult to change people's Belief Systems, especially 'experts'...