'Post-Truth Politics' - Collapse in Information Integrity

[Mossling]

Everyone is a liar - as soon as you communicate a concept as 'the absolute truth' as it appears to you, you have spoken a lie.

But who, except the pope, ever claims to have an absolute truth? Who claimed to have, and who asked for "absolute" in political reportage, or in a campaign speech?

It's not about claims, it's about aspirations - the reason I don't really care about what the Pope thinks is because I've heard he believes that snakes can talk and that Adam made Eve and all that weird stuff that has no apparent root in the observable practical world in which I live.

He deals in strange relative truths - relative to a book full of ghosties and goblins. Similarly, I'm not discussing this topic over on 'psychoticchatforum.com' because I am aware that they also do not aspire towards having their relative truths approximate as best as possible the practical 'absolute' world - the physical truth that governs life and death. So the importance is not to speak absolute truths but to recognise the importance of absolute truths as necessary practical concerns. This is what this forum is all about, is it not? - Attempting to bring our perceptions into harmony with objectivity as best we can.

Now turning that intention towards the people that indulge in the post-truth situation, it could be said that it is naïve to believe that there is no connection between hungry kids and a lying President.

Already the post-truth fallout is appearing; Trump's wall plan has gone, sending Hilary to prison has gone, and next it looks pretty certain that Apple isn't going to bring it's main production factories to America.

As I have been saying, strap yourself in, sit back, and watch the show - the proof; the truth, is in the pudding-eating.

I predict that post-truth politics is going to be a case-study of profound measure in a future history book. That time when a democratic population consciously voted in an unabashed known liar - someone who didn't give a crap about the absolute, objective truth - to the most powerful position in the world.

You seem concerned about hungry kids, but who should care? That's probably just a lie made up to get more free money from us rich people - I don't see any hungry kids around here, do you? - Do you see where post-truth is heading? If it isn't in the rich guy's newspaper then it simply doesn't exist.

With regards to this assertion that highlighting the difference between relative and absolute truth is "subtle", including the aspirations to bring the two into harmony, I say that it is as subtle as presenting hard evidence in a court of law - I.e pretty obvious as to its everyday importance. Obama even published his birth certificate to discredit a relative truth asserted about his nationality.

You say that you are not interested in the sophists, but these guys were the first proper lawyers. That's the truth, so it's up to you to educate yourself, or soon enough you'll find yourself in a real Idiocracy (watch the movie - we're already one step closer...).

[BadgerJelly]

Distractions are distractions. What they are distracting you from is usually just anothet distraction too. The "truth" is after all just a convenient construct of relative use.

[Serpent]

It's not about claims, it's about aspirations

But you said that it was about claims.

Everyone is a liar - as soon as you communicate a concept as 'the absolute truth' as it appears to you, you have spoken a lie.

Or at least, that's how I read that line. My response was that most people who impart information make no such claim. For example geology professors giving a lecture, roofers submitting an estimate and doctors explaining your test results are none of them "communicating a concept of absolute truth"; they are merely telling you the facts they know which relate to the subject at hand. Ie: answering a specific, delimited question: When did those rocks form? How much will the repair cost? What's causing this pain?

So the importance is not to speak absolute truths but to recognise the importance of absolute truths as necessary practical concerns. This is what this forum is all about, is it not? - Attempting to bring our perceptions into harmony with objectivity as best we can.

Okay....

Now turning that intention towards the people that indulge in the post-truth situation, it could be said that it is naïve to believe that there is no connection between hungry kids and a lying President.

That could be said. Anything can be said.
What do you mean by "the people that indulge in the post-truth situation"?
What was the question?

I predict that post-truth politics is going to be a case-study of profound measure in a future history book. That time when a democratic population consciously voted in an unabashed known liar - someone who didn't give a crap about the absolute, objective truth - to the most powerful position in the world.

Well, yeah. But making out that everyone who does believe in an absolute truth is also a liar doesn't clarify either this or any other situation.
The problem as depicted by wiki

is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

in the phrase "Post-truth era" (variously attributed to Steve Tesich, Ralph Keyes, David Roberts and the ubiquitous Stephen Colbert) is far larger than the reign of one president, even if he hopes to found a dynasty. It has been going on longer than the current election cycle and encompassed a far greater scope of human endeavours and international relations of the 21st century than American presidential campaigns.

You say that you are not interested in the sophists, but these guys were the first proper lawyers. That's the truth, so it's up to you to educate yourself, or soon enough you'll find yourself in a real Idiocracy (watch the movie - we're already one step closer...).

Thank you. I'll take that under advisement.

[d30]

Anyone have any ideas on how to rescue truth in a "post-truth" era? For starters, how about:

one or two greatly expanded, amply publicly funded, non-profit (no always truth-corrupting advertising) snopes.com-like sites where claims, statements, especially bullet points like "reducing corporate taxes creates jobs," can be fact checked.

Once recognized by all as reliable sources of truth, impetuous causes like Brexit and demagogues who spew bullet-point falsehoods would be exposed, no longer listened to, and fail, unlike what happened in this year's U.S. election, etc. Such sizable enterprises would create a whole lot of investigative and other research jobs too.

It would certainly be worth the national investment, restoring and maintaining sanity, stability, and all-benefiting progress too because much counter-productive conflict of today, based on opposing beliefs would be eliminated, replaced with greater and greater citizen harmony under the unifying quality of truth (science), clearing the road to accelerating advancement for all, in all ways.

(Having two such sites, independently operated, would guard against corruption of one because the second one would expose something went haywire at the other one. Secondly, the two, if uncorrupted, would verify each other, doubling the credence of them, and confidence in them.)

It sounds great except for the "publicly funded" part. If that means government funded we run the risk that it becomes a government propaganda machine.

Valid question. Proposed answer is that (1) it would be as Universal Single Payer Health Care is proposed to be: FUNDED by the government but not OPERATED by the government, and the government would not be allowed to defund it, and its budget would be indexed to inflation so it never goes broke and continues guarding authenticity;

(2) Have TWO Truth Guardian Institutes with only one of them publicly funded, the other perhaps by a consortium of philanthropic trusts, bound in both the Institute's charter and in their own bequests contracts to never defund the Institute and index funding to inflation so the institute's permanent operation is never at risk. Again, have TWO independent truth institutes. If one went corrupt its slanted truths would be exposed by the other.

This is a lot of investment of money and human work, but what better investment than in truth, given the benefit to all in keeping dishonest manipulators public, private or otherwise in check; examples include: such a Truth Guardian Institute's ability to debunk a George H W. Bush's, and later his son, George W. Bush's claims, preventing the invasions of Iraq, the first creating Al Qaeda and the second ISIS. Many such disasters could be avoided, more than justifying the expense and effort involved in maintaining truth institutes.

[Lomax]

This is a lot of investment of money and human work, but what better investment than in truth, given the benefit to all in keeping dishonest manipulators public, private or otherwise in check; examples include: such a Truth Guardian Institute's ability to debunk a George H W. Bush's, and later his son, George W. Bush's claims, preventing the invasions of Iraq, the first creating Al Qaeda and the second ISIS.

Point of information: al Qaeda formed in August 1989, in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf War (which you and many others wrongly refer to as the first, or former, invasion of Iraq) began in August 1990.

[Mossling]

...most people who impart information make no such claim. For example geology professors giving a lecture, roofers submitting an estimate and doctors explaining your test results are none of them "communicating a concept of absolute truth"; they are merely telling you the facts they know which relate to the subject at hand. Ie: answering a specific, delimited question: When did those rocks form? How much will the repair cost? What's causing this pain?

There is a big difference between geology professors and roofers with regards to their general aspirations - geology professors come from institutions that value objective science, while roofers, although of course needing to provide practical roofing solutions, are capitalist businessmen looking for as grotesque a profit as they can safely get away with. Businesses don't grow through being honest - if you can get away with cheating, then you do. Trump is a good example of that mentality - and look where it has gotten him ;)

Who would you rather trust to protect your interests when going on assumed moral aspirations if all else is equal - a geologist professor or a roofer? - I would go with the professor because of what his aspirations are with regards to the honest truth. Honesty is a virtue under all circumstances.

The geology professor understands that his claims are being taken in the light of his rigorous background in objective science - which has aspirations towards absolute truth, while the roofer's claims are arriving from within an industrial context where 'cowboy builders' are standard. Completely different contexts of aspiration with reagards to the absolute truth.

Newspapers used to aspire towards the same absolute truth as scientists did, but now they don't. So when there is no practical aspiration to approach absolute truth in the media, then we are fully post-truth. Things can revert, however. Forums like this are the last bastions of absolute objectivity. Maybe the new journalists will be scientists frustrated with the status quo?

making out that everyone who does believe in an absolute truth is also a liar doesn't clarify either this or any other situation.

That's not what I said.

[Mossling]

Point of information: al Qaeda formed in August 1989, in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf War (which you and many others wrongly refer to as the first, or former, invasion of Iraq) began in August 1990.

Well, who cares, it's not like facts matter anymore - we are post-truth now.
Trump says: "Wrong"
;P :D

[Mossling]

The pedlars of fake news are corroding democracy
The Guardian, 25 November 2016

Many millions of people saw and believed fake reports that the pope had endorsed Trump; Democrats had paid and bussed anti-Trump protesters; Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation for sexually assaulting a minor. About the only accusation not levelled at Clinton was implication in the murder of JFK, and that was because Trump had already used it against his Republican primary rival Ted Cruz. If democracy is predicated on reliable information, it’s in serious trouble right now.

But who knows, this news could be fake...

[Serpent]

There is a big difference between geology professors and roofers with regards to their general aspirations

But no difference as regards their claims to the absolutness of their concept of truth contained in the information they are imparting in a given situation. Which is what the example was.

- geology professors come from institutions that value objective science, while roofers, although of course needing to provide practical roofing solutions, are capitalist businessmen looking for as grotesque a profit as they can safely get away with.

Or: professors are intellectual spongers off the public purse who produce nothing of practical value, while roofers are good capitalist entrepreneurs making their way by hard work and smart investment.
Or: they can both be decent people earning an honest living with their best abilities.
I find it prudent to judge individuals according to their actions, rather than categories according to a stereotype.

Businesses don't grow through being honest - if you can get away with cheating, then you do.

This is distinctly truthy. What's more, you know better.

Trump is a good example of that mentality - and look where it has gotten him ;)

All Trump did was buy and sell real estate. Never built or repaired anything in his lifer. My roofer has been climbing up there for 50 years, making people dry and comfortable in their homes, providing his customers the best materials and effort at a fair price and his own family with a reasonable life. His son is leading the crew in construction work now, but Ed still does small repairs with a teenaged grandson on weekends. Their business is not likely to grow any bigger - it doesn't need to.
How dare you equate him with that mad charlatan?

Who would you rather trust to protect your interests.

It depends on whether I wanted to identify a rock or stop a leak. I would consult neither regarding my tax return, my choice of footwear or how to get over a bad breakup.

Completely different contexts of aspiration with reagards to the absolute truth.

Exactly the same in that neither aspires to any absolute truth. They're simply answering a question.

You decided to ignore the doctor, I notice. Did she not fit into a neat preconception?

Newspapers used to aspire towards the same absolute truth as scientists did, but now they don't.

Do you have a reference? Which newspapers? When? Have you any basis in observable, verifiable fact for this statement?

So when there is no practical aspiration to approach absolute truth in the media, then we are fully post-truth.

What's this obsession with absolute?

[Paul Anthony]

There is a big difference between geology professors and roofers with regards to their general aspirations - geology professors come from institutions that value objective science, while roofers, although of course needing to provide practical roofing solutions, are capitalist businessmen looking for as grotesque a profit as they can safely get away with. Businesses don't grow through being honest - if you can get away with cheating, then you do. Trump is a good example of that mentality - and look where it has gotten him ;)

Many people have made the false equivalency of corporatism with capitalism, resulting in an unjust judgement of capitalism.

The roofer, if he wishes to stay in business, gives an honest appraisal of the situation and offers a fair price for its repair. Doing so provides him with a fair profit and honest referrals that generate more business. His desire to continue to earn is motivation toward fairness. He is a capitalist, not a corporatist.

The geology professor is motivated by ego more than by financial gain. If he is tenured, he has little concern for future financial reward. He may be right or he may be wrong. Being wrong will endanger his reputation but not his livelihood. I'd be more inclined to trust the roofer.

But I would not rely on blind faith. If I need roofing repair, I would get estimates from more than one roofer. Competition is another feature of capitalism that keeps prices reasonable and vendors honest. I would also check his references before hiring him. Only a fool would take the word of just one contractor. "A fool and his money are soon parted". How many geology professors would you consult before accepting one professor's opinion?

[Serpent]

How many geology professors would you consult before accepting one professor's opinion?

That depends on whether I wanted a name to put on a sample in my kid's rock collection or needed to verify the age of the fossils on which I predicated my career-making research on trilobites.

The truth value of any information depends on the quantity and certainty of facts required to answer the question. Whom you can or should trust depends on the question you ask.

On the whole, I'd rather not attribute motivations to people I don't know well. I could speculate, but making decisions, and choosing associates (or, gods forfend! representatives) based on speculation about broad, ill-defined categories tends to be a bad idea.

[d30]

This is a lot of investment of money and human work, but what better investment than in truth, given the benefit to all in keeping dishonest manipulators public, private or otherwise in check; examples include: such a Truth Guardian Institute's ability to debunk a George H W. Bush's, and later his son, George W. Bush's claims, preventing the invasions of Iraq, the first creating Al Qaeda and the second ISIS.

Point of information: al Qaeda formed in August 1989, in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf War (which you and many others wrongly refer to as the first, or former, invasion of Iraq) began in August 1990.

Thanks. Partly correct. Went to wikipedia URL you gave and saw nothing about Al Qaeda, so looked up Al-Qaeda there at wiki. Says Al-qaeda formed in 1988. Gulf War, U.S. entry, was early 1991, years later, true, but that was what spiked Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden's hostility toward U.S., leading to the 1993 and 2001 New York Trade Center towers incidents, etc.

So, Bush senior's interference in Mid East affairs did factor in substantially (and his military action was seen by many as based on deception). In any case, Bush junior's Iraq invasion was definitely based on false pretenses, and that plus prolonged occupation was surely a big factor in the emergence of ISIS and ISIL.

Had we institutes of truth it's quite possible if not probable that neither Bush could have done these military actions, the twin towers in New York would still stand, and the Mid East would likely have been, and be, significantly more stable, with none of the mass disruption (millions of uprooted refuges, etc.).

[Paul Anthony]

Had we institutes of truth it's quite possible if not probable that neither Bush could have done these military actions, the twin towers in New York would still stand, and the Mid East would likely have been, and be, significantly more stable, with none of the mass disruption (millions of uprooted refuges, etc.).

Unless these "institutes of truth" were they only news sources, we can be certain that other sources would report different versions of the "facts". Do not dismiss the public's willingness to be mislead (with a little help from politicians) for reasons that defy logic. :)

And to ensure that the only sources were those "institutes of truth' would constitute censorship of the highest order. Not only would it be morally questionable, it would also be impossible unless you also shut down all news media including the Internet.

[d30]

[quote="Paul Anthony » November 26th, 2016, 9:40 amMany people have made the false equivalency of corporatism with capitalism, resulting in an unjust judgement of capitalism.[/quote]

But doesn't capitalism inevitably lead to corporatism, just as it has, the latter's existence being real-world-laboratory proof of that? If this conclusion is true, then for capitalism to work you would have to limit the size of businesses to prevent corporatism - oligopoly, inevitable corporate corruption of government, environmental destruction, etc.

[d30]

Had we institutes of truth it's quite possible if not probable that neither Bush could have done these military actions, the twin towers in New York would still stand, and the Mid East would likely have been, and be, significantly more stable, with none of the mass disruption (millions of uprooted refuges, etc.).

Unless these "institutes of truth" were they only news sources, we can be certain that other sources would report different versions of the "facts". Do not dismiss the public's willingness to be mislead (with a little help from politicians) for reasons that defy logic. :)

And to ensure that the only sources were those "institutes of truth' would constitute censorship of the highest order. Not only would it be morally questionable, it would also be impossible unless you also shut down all news media including the Internet.

Late Sen. Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not their own facts." Let other sources issue "different versions of the 'facts'" all they want. The truth institutes would be the safeguard against them at last. Whenever someone read something somewhere, s/he could check it at the truth institutes. That's their purpose - not to be the only sources of information.

[Paul Anthony]

But doesn't capitalism inevitably lead to corporatism, just as it has, the latter's existence being real-world-laboratory proof of that? If this conclusion is true, then for capitalism to work you would have to limit the size of businesses to prevent corporatism - oligopoly, inevitable corporate corruption of government, environmental destruction, etc.

I would not be opposed to some restrictions on the size and scope of corporations. We have (or at least had) anti-trust laws that could help toward that goal. We could use laws limiting lobbyists to reduce the influence corporations have over government.

These views may seem counter to my usual libertarian slant, but if limiting corporations is the best method of limiting government...

[Serpent]

I would not be opposed to some restrictions on the size and scope of corporations. We have (or at least had) anti-trust laws that could help toward that goal. We could use laws limiting lobbyists to reduce the influence corporations have over government.

These views may seem counter to my usual libertarian slant, but if limiting corporations is the best method of limiting government...

I wonder whether the whole corporate megalarchy would have been possible under truly libertarian auspices.
Libertarian principles are relatively easy to grasp - if not to everyone's taste. What's difficult is fitting those ideas with the crony capitalism that's been in force in the American republic since its inception.
The corporate interests whose shills shake their right fist in rage against big government and government interference have their left hand up under government's skirt. (And if you think that's an uncomfortable position to hold for very long, you should try being government.)
It's the same thing with socialism. The principles are simple enough. What's difficult is fitting them with the capitalist system of economics and the patriarchal structure of government.

[Lomax]

This is a lot of investment of money and human work, but what better investment than in truth, given the benefit to all in keeping dishonest manipulators public, private or otherwise in check; examples include: such a Truth Guardian Institute's ability to debunk a George H W. Bush's, and later his son, George W. Bush's claims, preventing the invasions of Iraq, the first creating Al Qaeda and the second ISIS.

Point of information: al Qaeda formed in August 1989, in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf War (which you and many others wrongly refer to as the first, or former, invasion of Iraq) began in August 1990.

Thanks. Partly correct.

Which part do you dispute?

Went to wikipedia URL you gave and saw nothing about Al Qaeda

That's because the link was provided to show that the Gulf War was not the West's first invasion of Iraq. One might even argue it was the latter of two, given that the no-fly zones remained in place from 1991 to 2003, and Ba'athist troops never ceased to fire upon them. There was, in other words, no conclusion of hostilities.

To reiterate a point made by Paul Anthony, which I feel you missed: Suppose I were telling you all this in my capacity as an employee of the Ministry of Truth - sorry, Truth Guardian Institute - what assurance would you have that I were not abusing my power, just as journalists and politicians do?

[Mossling]

Ed still does small repairs with a teenaged grandson on weekends. Their business is not likely to grow any bigger - it doesn't need to.
How dare you...

"teenage" son...

neither aspires to any absolute truth.

［...］

What's this obsession with absolute?

I've done my best.

Good luck with the roofism and have a good day :)

[Paul Anthony]

If absolute truth existed there would only be one religion (or none) and one political party.

[Serpent]

I've done my best.

Yes, I can see that. It seems to me, you've done too much. You're obfuscating something that's not all that complicated - or shouldn't be.
Perhaps it's laudable and desirable - hell, for all I know, it may be a philosophical imperative - to aspire to absolute truth in all communications. But we can't do it, and mostly, we don't want to or need to.

In order to make decisions, we require certain kinds and amounts of information. In order to make decisions that are beneficial to our well-being, we require the information to be as relevant and accurate as possible. We ought to choose the sources of such information according to their credentials, reputation and past performance.

When we make decisions based on irrational and unreliable sources of information, we tend to make decisions that are bad for us.

It's not science; it's not philosophy: it's just practical sense.

[BadgerJelly]

If there is no problem and I create one is it a real problem that I have created or a false one?

Moss -

Absolute truth means abstract truth. So an abstract truth can exist you simply have to bring people into an orbit of understanding of fhe abstract laws you put in place. After that you'll no doubt see true politics in effect as individualsbegin to overextend the absolute abstract truth into positions that are not discernably under the pure laws dictated by the original abstraction.

As an extrxeme example we may sit down and play chess. I simply lean over the board and remove your king, thus winning the game. Here I have done opposite to what is happening above. I have applied reality to game that exists as an abstraction. I have moved reality into the abstract laws and broken them. This may seem like a preposterous example but the reverse happens so often everyday life we hardly notice it happening.

[Mossling]

If there is no problem and I create one is it a real problem that I have created or a false one?

Moss -

Absolute truth means abstract truth. So an abstract truth can exist you simply have to bring people into an orbit of understanding of fhe abstract laws you put in place. After that you'll no doubt see true politics in effect as individualsbegin to overextend the absolute abstract truth into positions that are not discernably under the pure laws dictated by the original abstraction.

As an extrxeme example we may sit down and play chess. I simply lean over the board and remove your king, thus winning the game. Here I have done opposite to what is happening above. I have applied reality to game that exists as an abstraction. I have moved reality into the abstract laws and broken them. This may seem like a preposterous example but the reverse happens so often everyday life we hardly notice it happening.

I'm not so sure about this abstract idea - decomposition of the body is certainly not abstract, but it 'absolutely' irrefutable, is it not?

Maybe we can go with this definition -
Wikipedia: Universality

Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. The relativist conception denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through moral relativism). Mathematics is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are typically considered of universal scope. Though usage of the word truth has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them. This is not to say that universality is limited to mathematics, for there exists a large number of people who apply the standard to philosophy, theology and beyond.

[BadgerJelly]

If you are not certain about the abstract idea yet you are certain what is not anstracted then what does that really mean other than you claim uncertainty in one position and certainty in another in regards to the same term.

Either you are certain of what is abstract or you are not. To be uncertain of one abstraction yet certain that another item is not an abstraction seems.fairly contrary to me.

My point being absolute truths are constructed. All truth is constructed and applied to reality and we judge the truth value of something by applying measure and experience. The universal truth is applicable to time and space possessing meaning in space and time. The universal numners of mathematics are universal because they are changeless. When I say "three" I am talking about a universal "three" not a physical "three". The subtlty of this is overlooked in the everyday world because we frame our world with meaning and understanding through language. To say I hold "three" or "idea" in my hand can be nothing other than metaphorical at best and certainly not "real" othrr than as presentation and framing of said universal in space and time.

So to say "bodies decompose" is true in reference to what is being abstractly represented. A "body changes" therefore if a body changes it is not "universal" only the terms used are abstract and universal not the "physical body" so to speak, being wholly knowable as spacial and temporal.

I am not sayimg the overextention of an "absolute truth" is useless. It is not strictly logical, but rather a force of nature and creates happy and unhapoy accidents, it allows us to come to understand something and understand that we can come to reframe our future understanding too.

The reason we can say with "certainty" that bodies decompose is because this knowledge is part of a grand scheme of abstract truths overextending in numerous directions and stratisfied so intricately and deeply as to give a "reality" from which to ground ourselves and ordinate general understanding. We are left with an infinite trail of bread crumbs leading back into the infinity of or reasoning abilities.

My apologies if this seems trivial, meaningless or absurd to you. I have become somewhat "professional thinker" over the past few years. By which I mean a considerable.portion of my waking life is consumed by these very things. Jist saying this to show th seriousness with which I say what I say even if it lacks intelligence, value or professionalism :)

Or in simplier terms, life is a bag of angry kittens and everytime I look in andntry to communicate with them they tend to shred my face and leave me wary of what I say amd how I say it.

[wolfhnd]

One of the reasons the debate over quantum randomness is important is determinism was the last unassailable absolute truth.

Every thing we know about the world comes to us through our senses with all the imperfections that implies. The certainty of death can be confirmed by our senses it is not abstract but the meaning is abstract. Perhaps more importantly the certainty of death has little application. Without knowing the time, place, and means our knowledge of death is incomplete. The certainty of death could be said to be in the domain of truths that derive their meaning from the abstractions that our necessarily the product of those truths. So while there are non abstract absolute truths we do not have an absolute way of applying them. For other absolute truths such as those that originated as as abstractions such as mathematical truths their utility by design is derived by their absolute but artificial nature.

Empiricism is our reality, complex ideas are built up over time bases on observations that our hidden in our collective memory. Our reality is derived by physical and cultural evolution that is so complex that inventors cannot trace the origins of their inventions. Popular talk of emergence that seek to explain our faculty for invention approaches mysticism. Evolution is proof that complexity arises spontaneously and requires nothing but observable "natural" processes. If we want to understand the meaning of truth we should likewise turn to that which is empirically derived. Truths that have no practical application should be left to the mystics.

Some people will suggest that there are moral truths that are not empirically derived that our absolute. I would suggest that those truths fall under the same category as mathematical truths. Their application depends on a artificial closed system that enforces consistency. In other words they are by their nature simplifications that can only model reality not encompass it. Our moral models and those of physics are approximations of a reality that no one will ever fully understand. Complex chaotic systems will always confound scientists and philosophers alike. The approximations will get better but never be complete. The last hope for an absolute truth that had meaning by being practically applied died when scientists discovered that information likely passes in and out of the universe.

When people talk of the virtue of principle remind them of the virtue of humility. Remind them that their practical truths are approximations. As Dennett points out we do not need quantum randomness to be moral agents our approximate freewill and approximate truths are close enough. The danger of ideologies comes from their absolutism.

[Paul Anthony]

"The danger of ideologies comes from their absolutism".

Ironically, that statement may be absolutely true. :)

[Mossling]

My point being absolute truths are constructed. All truth is constructed and applied to reality and we judge the truth value of something by applying measure and experience. The universal truth is applicable to time and space possessing meaning in space and time.

I think the discussion after this point rests on this idea, and I do not necessarily agree with most of it.

There is no apparent construction involved when, for example, a physical object (such as our body) is moving forwards in a straight line and meets a physical obstacle and is stopped from continuing on its original trajectory.

The obstacle, no matter any meaning or composition constructed in the mind, would still be an obstacle. This obstacle would be an absolute practical truth which is felt beyond concepts. We are not living in The Matrix - it's not all 'mind over matter', otherwise prisons would be useless against certain individuals, for example.

There is a physical universe out there that, no matter how much anyone wishes that they can 'construct whatever truth they like for themselves', there is the basic chemistry and physics of life and death; movement and stopping.

The labels don't matter - I don't think an amoeba cares what one calls things, but it 'identifies' and 'chases' its 'prey' through automatic chemical reactions. No conscious decisions, just chemistry and physics. This could be called 'absolute' - beyond "constructed" relative truths, just the universe moving.

It is only a short skip and a jump from the amoeba to arriving at our human functioning.

There is no complex thinking necessary - as William of Ockham said:
"Plurality is never to be posited without necessity." - Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi [Questions and the decisions of the Sentences of Peter Lombard] (1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K.

Our problem seems to be too much thinking and not enough 'taking part' in the practical truth of existing:

[wolfhnd]

Eat, survive, reproduce and go extinct.

Over the past hundred years social engineering has had too many disastrous unintended consequences to assume that there are any magical ideological solutions to our problems to say socialism is the answer. That doesn't mean we can assume as conservatives do that less is more.

Pragmatic experience results in what my dad called "common sense". Keep in mind that common sense is neither common nor reliable. There is however some wisdom in the keep it simple stupid paradigm introduced by the U.S. Navy in which complex systems can be best managed by simple rules. Brexit and Trump are rejections of decades of social engineering by some of the best minds in the world. The problem is that Western Civilization has almost come to point where reductionist empiricism is no longer sufficient to to deal with the pace of cultural evolution. We need to take more interest in what people like Stephen Wolfram are saying about the limits of our current scientific approach. If we are going to deal with problems like global warming and address them within the other complex chaotic system of culture new analytical tools are required.

The humble thing to do is admit that undirected unintentional natural selection produced systems so complex and marvelous we have only scratched the surface in understanding then. Now that we are on the verge of being able to design our own biology culture shock is unavoidable. Based on the failures of social engineering biological engineering and artificial intelligence should give us pause to examine our intellectual limitations. At the moment we are too stupid for socialism and too dangerous for capitalism. The natural selection of markets is appealing but also the road to extinction if the Darwinian analogy is appropriate. The best road to take is natural selection within a controlled environment. Stop looking for perfect solutions and go with close enough until you stumble over the better solution. The irony is the left has become the reactionary establishment unable to admit it's own mistakes and excesses. We don't have to give in to the conservatives we just need a bit of pious humility. Some of them may actually have something worth hearing to say.

[d30]

d30 had said:

Thanks. Partly correct.

Lomax wrote:

Which part do you dispute?

d30:

Dispute the implication that my chronological error meant the Bush Sr. military action of 1991 did not provoke the 1993 and 2001 "terrorist" attacks on the skyscrapers in NYC. Appreciate you showing that Al Qaeda formed ca. 1988 (meaning the Bush 1991 Gulf War indeed did not cause creation of Al Qaeda). You led to correcting my statement, now putting it accurately, I think: that Bush Sr.'s Gulf War on Iraq, 1991, including installation of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, home of two sacred Muslim sites, greatly intensified bin Laden's, and Al Qaeda's, indignation toward America, without which the two attacks on NYC may not have happened.

Lomax:

To reiterate a point made by Paul Anthony, which I feel you missed: Suppose I were telling you all this in my capacity as an employee of the Ministry of Truth - sorry, Truth Guardian Institute - what assurance would you have that I were not abusing my power, just as journalists and politicians do?

d30:

As stated, twice I think, instances of which it seems you missed, a second Truth Guardian Institute would be required, to be a safeguard against exactly what concerns you - one of the institutes becoming corrupt. As in your quote of me above, a lot of expense but presumably far outweighed by the benefit of truth to all the world and its future.

[Lomax]

Lomax:

To reiterate a point made by Paul Anthony, which I feel you missed: Suppose I were telling you all this in my capacity as an employee of the Ministry of Truth - sorry, Truth Guardian Institute - what assurance would you have that I were not abusing my power, just as journalists and politicians do?

d30:

As stated, twice I think, instances of which it seems you missed, a second Truth Guardian Institute would be required, to be a safeguard against exactly what concerns you - one of the institutes becoming corrupt.

Okay...and who keeps an eye on that one?

What distinguishes these guys from fact-checkers?