I'm curious, do you think this applies to the physical world? In other words do you believe that there are any places, any people on this Earth for whom water did *not* freeze at 32 degrees F (0 C)? Do you think that there are any people or any place or any time at which a rock of some throwable weight wasn't subject to force which is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration? Now, I will admit that F=ma (Newton's second law) is an approximation but it is a close *enough* approximation that for most applications we can use it (for example, all space shots are calculated using Newton instead of Einstein because the math is more tractable). However, that equation describes an approximation of a physical reality that was true before Newton came along to explain it. All Newton did was quantify what is happening.

This is the problem I have with statements along the lines of the Wagner quote: it ignores the physical world. There have been cultures (including Western) that *believed* that the Sun orbited the Earth but every single one of them (including this one) was absolutely and completely wrong about that. The belief that the Sun orbited the Earth didn't change the physical reality. The same can be said about, for instance, the cause of thunder and lightning--people have, until fairly recently, believed that this was caused by the thunder god, or the sky god, or what-have-you but at no point was any of that *true* and to say it was 'true for them' really misses the point. Would one accept that the paramedic who is about to give you CPR believes that your heart is in your feet? Would one accept that this is 'true for them' while you die because they are giving you a foot massage? Should one accept that?

The other thing, the contradictory thing, is that the idea that reality is just a hunch is, itself, an epistemic statement. I'm only being half-cheeky here when I say that if the strong epistemic relativists are correct then their argument negates itself. If all of reality is just a collective hunch and not based upon some objective, empirical reality that would hold true even if this universe never contained a single sentient being, then that statement itself is the baseline reality and thus it negates the idea that there is no truth 'outside' our ability to construct it socially.

is it just me or did the conversation just shift from philosophical theory to physical science?

no, it didn't. I'm merely asking questions about epistemology using the physical world. I could just as easily asked if there are any *valid* worlds in which Barack Obama is the current President of the United States and that he succeeded George W. Bush who succeeded Bill Clinton. The question I'm driving at is do people believe that there is no objective world 'out there' that is at all amenable to empirical investigation. That's a non-trivial question when talking about epistemology and because (most) people will concede that the physical sciences can actually *demonstrate* their knowledge in an empirically valid fashion, I used those examples.

I must have misread you then. I thought that you were agreeing with the Wagner quotation. My apologies.

Cheers
Aj

I was agreeing with Wagner.

At one time, people thought the world was flat. It was their truth, at that time. Then, we discovered the world was round. A new truth appeared.

It would be presumptuous for me as a mere human to think everything I take for granted as truth at this point in time is the end all and be all of the truth. At some point, someone may indeed be able to prove a new truth.

Hence, a collective hunch is an agreed upon reality which is subject to change as our knowledge expands.

I'm curious, why call it their truth and not their belief? It wasn't true, they believed it to be true but that didn't make it any less a false belief for all that. I understand that people do not old beliefs they *know* to be false but it seems that calling something 'their truth' gives a false belief a pride of place it does not merit. Did a 'new' truth appear or did humans finally get it correct? I would argue the latter. Certainly, all our knowledge (well, very large swaths of it) should come with the proviso of "to the best of our knowledge, at this time, subject to modification without prior notice". However, when that day comes in some knowledge domain or another what would be so wrong about stating "in 2010, humans believed this to be true. They were, of course, wrong about that because...".

thank you, i see where this came into play now.

i'm interested in both the topic and the discussion, but will admit i'm having some difficulty following. i am lacking in formal education and the types of discussion that come with higher education.

i apologize for the interruption, and will likely do it again when i'm lost.


thanks!

Had to think about this but again, I believe we are saying the same thing using different words.

Call it truth or belief or hamburger, it is still the prevailing agreed upon thought/perception at a given time which is based on our understanding of a certain body of knowledge which is intrepreted in a certain way using certain words and concepts which are agreed upon to reflect the situation.

Simplistic interpretation of above....reality is a collective hunch at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people using a certain criteria by which to evaluate a certain thing.

Our knowledge and the ways we are able to apply it are growing at a tremendous rate. So, all in all, maybe the question should be is there an ultimate truth, an end all be all truth, at which point humans would say yes we are done searching because this is it. Or, is the potential for knowledge so great that our search for truth(s) is an infinite project.

I think this is an interesting question.

I know that my own tendency toward using the word "truth" or even "fact" about beliefs from the past which have been proven untrue has to do with imagining myself in the world of the past while speaking of it.

If I imagine myself in that world, the common "knowledge", the perceived "truth" and accepted "facts" seem to make up the skeletal structure of that world. The "beliefs" of that world would be something I might imagine as soft tissue.

The way you state things there at the end bridges the gap for me - "believed to be true" makes perfect sense to me - though I don't know if I would spontaneously come to these words on my own, nor would I mind referring to those past false understandings as "truths".

I think the word "truth" is also murkier because it is used so much in a spiritual context. If religions are always seeking the "Truth", if people are always looking for their inner "truth" - it's already understood that this definition of truth has nothing to do with physical reality and facts. So in some ways, "truth" might even be its own antonym.

Is it a false understanding or an incomplete understanding? Or, perhaps did we ask the wrong question?

Example. A generalize agreement over centuries and today is the sky is blue. But by todays knowledge we know that when transmitted light such as sunlight enters our atmosphere it collides with the oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The color with the shorter wavelength is scattered more by this collision. Because violet and blue are the shortest wavelengths the sky appears to be violet / blue. But because our eyes are more sensitive to blue light than they are violet light, we perceive the sky as blue.

So is the sky blue because it is blue or is it blue because human eyes perceive it is blue? Or is it blue because the neurochemistry of the brain is telling the eye what it is perceiving is the color blue? Or, have I now totally confused even myself?

for me, this tracks back to relativity. relative to time, perception and (as you've stated) generally agreed upon notions.

if you take into account folks who are color blind, animals that don't see color...where does that leave the 'factuality' of "the sky is blue"?

To say 'the sky is blue' is a close approximation and true enough for our species. Ultimately, we perceive it as blue for the reasons that Kobi gets into (more on that in a minute) and that makes it true for all the members of homo sapiens that can see color. (I suspect, given WHY we have color vision and where it came from, that if chimps, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos could talk that they would agree with us about the color of the sky. I suspect that the old-world primates probably would as well because our visual systems evolved to solve the same kind of problem.)

I want to make clear that when I'm talking about truths I am talking (mostly) about a localized (meaning here on Earth) phenomena. Sci-fi geek and aspiring science fiction author that I am, I can easily imagine sentient beings that see into a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum than we do who would see, for instance, radio waves or something.

LOL. I follow you. I give a lot of thought to this kind of thing. Since vision is a neurochemical process what we're really talking about is that our eyes evolved to see a particular part of the light spectrum and so we see the sky as blue. The sky is not *really* blue. However, the reasons why we see the sky as blue are objective and empirical. Any animal that has eyes tuned by evolution to be sensitive to the same part of the spectrum as ours will agree with us. If we ever meet another technological species we would likely agree on what was happening in our eyes even if they saw a different part of the spectrum than we do--they might disagree with us on what 'visible' light means but they would recognize, as do we, that what we call light is the same thing as microwaves which is the same thing as radio waves. I can easily imagine a slightly different homo sapiens with a slightly different visual system that is, say, closer to bees which see further into the violet end of the spectrum than we do. What bees see as color is valid and genuine for them. However, if a bee Stephen Hawking were to sit down with the primate Stephen Hawking, they would agree on *what* light was they would just disagree on how one defines 'visible' light.

The question of 'ultimate' truth is stickier although, again, I still think that there are some ultimate truths that can be known. Almost ALL of them fall into the realm of the physical sciences and all of the examples I can think of off the top of my head certainly fall into them. Unfortunately, we have an inconveniently small sample size for knowing about ultimate truth claims regarding living things because we only have the living things here. However, everywhere we have looked in the Universe we have seen certain things:

Gravity holds throughout the Universe.
Light is the fastest moving thing throughout the Universe.
As far as we can tell, all three laws of thermodynamics hold throughout the Universe.
This means that, most likely, very large swaths of chemistry will probably be true throughout the Universe.

One of the reasons why I bring in the physical sciences is because much of what we have discovered appears to be invariant wherever we look. When talking about truth claims the sciences give us a means of testing our claims, a language to use to talk about where we have it right, where we have it wrong and where we have no idea what-so-ever. For me, the physical sciences form the foundation of how we know about the world we live in. We can argue about why the Civil War happened. We can argue about the relative truth claims undergirding the various religions. We can debate whether Marx or Smith or Ricardo or Rand or Hayek was right about economics. However, there is nothing so real as a rock that has landed on your toe or that glass that you knocked off the table which shattered when it hit the floor.

That's an interesting question. I think there are SOME ultimate truths but I think that there are probably only a handful of them and almost all of them are going to fall into one of the physical sciences. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one such Ultimate Truth. As one eminent physicist put it:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

I think to know what ultimate truths there are, we will ultimately have to meet another sentient species at or beyond our technological level to see what they hit upon. I expect that if we ever do have such an encounter, we'll agree on the speed of light, we'll agree that the Universe is expanding, they will have some kind of formulation approximating classical mechanics, they'll have some kind of formulation approximating Einstein's theories of relativity, they'll have something along the lines of the atomic model and we'll agree on things like the approximate value of pi and they'll have something recognizable as quantum mechanics. I suspect that they'll understand our chemistry although not, necessarily, our organic chemistry if they aren't from a world where life is carbon based as it is here. (Silicon based life is possible, it just didn't happen here.)

After that, I think the areas that we would agree upon would fall off rather quickly. I don't think we can make any kind of pretensions to Ultimate Truth claims about the purpose of the Universe or the nature of a divine being if any such thing exists. All our religious claims are local affairs. All our history is local (although I still think that there are truth claims about history that can be made). By local, I mean here on Earth and I'm willing to be generous and extend it out to the whole of the solar system but not beyond that.

That's not *exactly* what I'm saying. I always hold out the possibility that, for instance, the laws of thermodynamics could be overturned although I think that's vanishingly improbable. I like to use a scale from 0 - 1 with 0 being "certainly untrue" and 1 being "certainly true". Very large swaths of physics, for instance, I think are in the .7 to .9 range. It's *possible* but extraordinarily improbable that we're wrong. There are other areas, string theory for instance, where I have moved from the .4 - .5 range (probably true) to the .1 - .3 range (almost certainly not true). I'm never absolutely certain because of one of the sayings that I keep on the wall of my study: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong."

That said, I think that most of the time we can proceed as-if some matter were settled until Nature, which always has the last word, says otherwise. Now, there are some areas that I'm pretty close to certain. The atomic model, the quantum mechanical model, the Einstein model of gravity and space-time and, on this planet, evolution are all .8 or .9 certainties for me. If any of those are wrong then not only are their respective domains irreparably broken but we, all 6 billion of us, are living in a very elaborate collective hallucination. What I mean by this is that, for instance, if the atomic and quantum mechanical models are wrong then you aren't reading this and I'm not typing this because computers don't work. If evolution is wrong then Nature has a lot to answer for because there's all kinds of genetic evidence that makes no sense except in the light of evolution. If thermodynamics is wrong then, again, Nature needs to explain why the flat tire I had on my bike a couple of weeks ago will never spontaneously inflate itself and why the coffee cup one of my cats broke will never spontaneously reform itself. (I would put the 2nd law in the .01 certainty range because of the kinds of examples above.)

There are no areas of science that I think are settled in that there's no more work to be done in them. If you think that's what I'm saying then that's entirely not what I’m saying. However, I AM saying that, barring contradicting evidence, I can proceed in my field of bioinformatics *as if* the chemistry underlying biology was a, more or less, settled matter at least in the broad outline and that the physics underlying the chemistry is also a settled matter, again at least in the broad outline.

I'm curious about something. How do you deal with past false truths? The reason I'm asking is because the examples I use to play with these ideas in my head all, generally, orbit around either the physical sciences or questions related to things that people believed in the past. For example, what kind of truth value would you give to the 19th century belief that I, as a black woman, was not quite really human. Was it true then but not true now? Was it false then and false now? The reason I ask is NOT--and I want to make this clear--because I think your'e racist but because it's a tough question. If we want to grant 19th century people that their worldview was consistent, valid and *true* and we are going to grant their beliefs the dignity of saying "well, it was true then" it begs the question of when racial bigotry became an injustice.

For example, no one ever complains that it is unjust that 18 months old infants aren't allowed to drive cars or fly jumbo jets. Everyone recognizes that 18 month olds lack the physical or mental abilities to do so and so, forbidding them from those activities isn't an injustice. Even if there were some extraordinarily precocious 18 month old who could it still wouldn't be an injustice since the *average* behavior of children of that age completely justified society forbidding kids from doing those things. So quite a bit turns on how we treat false beliefs from the past. If we grant those beliefs that were based in bigotry the dignity of calling them truths--even if we do not believe them ourselves--then what grounds do we have to claim that an injustice was being perpetrated? If blacks really WERE not-quite-human in the 19th century then on what grounds can we say that slavery was actually an evil? Is it an evil to keep a pet dog? Is it an evil to keep a cow? Slavery is an evil because it is wrong to use or treat humans as mere instruments but we draw a line between humans and other, less neurologically gifted, animals.

Do you see what I'm driving at?