The Philosophy Thread

[Heartlet Happer]

How much evidence is needed before we can say that something is truth?

For hard science they required 5 sigma.

What degree of uncertainty doesn't shake the foundation of a truth?

The p-value of around 0.0000005 or less for null hypothesis will not shake the foundation of truth.

Its example numbers from Higgs boson discovery story.
Let me edit it later, after I figure the definition of null hypothesis thing. Then I will give an example, easy for me to understand.

 

[Riddley Walker]

That's interesting. But what if there is overwhelming evidence for something I know? How much evidence is needed before we can say that something is truth? What degree of uncertainty doesn't shake the foundation of a truth?

I get it, but that's why we talk about probabilities instead of hard truths. You can have a thousand pieces of evidence that support a certain conclusion but it only takes one piece of evidence to shatter that conclusion.

The other thing is --- what is the quality of the evidence? Anecdotes are not evidence, neither is hearsay. But human nature treats anecdotes and hearsay as a kind of proof. Anecdotal evidence is a kind of fallacy argument. It says "I know a guy who kissed his own ass so that means anybody can kiss their own ass. This is a case of self delusion and it is a limiting factor on subjective truth.

Not everyone's subjective truth carries the same integrity so we can't say that it's a universal guide to truth. It's only as good as the individual's ability to interperate their sensations accurately or without bias.

 

[GrahamLewis]

. But what if there is overwhelming evidence for something I know?

Who gets to decide that evidence is "overwhelming" in support of anything?

 

[Louanne Learning]

why we talk about probabilities instead of hard truths

I'm not shy about using the word "truth." Some people may prefer the word "conviction" or "belief" but I go all in.

Subjective truth is some aspect or representation of reality that we create in our minds and wholly accept.

Here are some of my subjective truths -

My mother loves me. My sisters will never abandon me. Being caregiver to my disabled husband was the most important thing I ever did. Everyone is doing the very best they can. Honesty produces better outcomes than falsehood. Givers are happier than takers. The worst loss one can suffer is the loss of identity. Human connection is the primary motivator of behavior. Newborn infants are perfect.

Anecdotes are not evidence

This is an interesting statement. Makes me wonder whether our wholes lives are not a series of anecdotes.

This is a case of self delusion and it is a limiting factor on subjective truth.

Yes, for sure, subjective truth may be wrong! But that doesn't make it any less true to the subject.

A person suffering from psychosis may be detached from reality, and believe the most outlandish things, but those things are true to them.

Not everyone's subjective truth carries the same integrity so we can't say that it's a universal guide to truth. It's only as good as the individual's ability to interperate their sensations accurately or without bias.

I agree with this. Well said. For example, racists are convinced of their superiority, that's their subjective truth, but I would say that is false.

I don't mean to ascribe inherent value or rightness to subjective truth - only that subjective truth exists.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Who gets to decide that evidence is "overwhelming" in support of anything?

Well, there is overwhelming evidence that my mother loves me!

But I see what you're getting at here. How do false beliefs become one person's subjective truth?

 

[GrahamLewis]

"The external world of physics has . . . become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions." Sir Arthur Eddington

 

[GrahamLewis]

How do false beliefs become one person's subjective truth?

Simple. Because that person believes them.

 

[Riddley Walker]

We can separate empirical evidence from ideology. Empirical evidence we take as true because 99% of experts in the field agree on the verity of the evidence. While it's true that past scientific errors also were verified by 99% of experts (the world is flat), but today we have the scientific method that, despite it's flaws, gives us certain guidelines on how to go about determining facts. Peer review is a big part of the process. This is also an ideology that says "I believe in empirical evidence." There is another ideology that says empirical evidence is worthless because I don't trust the experts. We can't equate these two ideologies as both carrying the same claims on truth. While we might aknowledge that some ideologies that reject empirical evidence nevertheless carry important cultural values such as strength in community and a recognition of the value of ritual and shared values, this is a very different kind of truth from empiricism, yet one does not rule the other out. There is room for both.

The problem comes when one side or the other insists on absolute adherence to its own ideology. It then rejects any and all value in other ideologies. It's important that we recognize that any world view is an ideology. Everybody has one, and we can't all live together in this world if we insist that only one ideology is real.

 

[GrahamLewis]

It's important that we recognize that any world view is an ideology. Everybody has one, and we can't all live together in this world if we insist that only one ideology is real.

That, of course, is also an ideology that you are insisting upon. There are also ideologies that claim to in fact be right, because of divine messaging or revelation or such, and each of those could, by definition, insist that their respective view is the only "right" one and demand that other ideologies, including an ideology of acceptance of other views, be dismissed for being "wrong" or "suppressed" for being heretical.

 

[Stuart Dren]

I don't mean to ascribe inherent value or rightness to subjective truth - only that subjective truth exists.

Then it's just a belief, isn't it? I don't know if many people are claiming that it doesn't exist.

Spots of contention are generally about the "value or rightness" of others' subjective truth e.g. moral relativism vs absolutism. It gets more contentious the higher the stakes get. If the Mars Men believe that blue is an unlucky colour, you do you. But moral relativism is tested when you find out they believe every mistake should mean losing a finger, even for their children who clearly had no opportunity to consent to this lifestyle. Is it correct to impose your morals and values onto them and their culture, or should you follow the Prime Directive?

That, of course, is also an ideology that you are insisting upon. There are also ideologies that claim to in fact be right, because of divine messaging or revelation or such, and each of those could, by definition, insist that their respective view is the only "right" one and demand that other ideologies, including an ideology of acceptance of other views, be dismissed for being "wrong" or "suppressed" for being heretical.

Tolerance of intolerance. Yes, yet another realistic test of moral relativism—and it's not in the concept's favour.

 

[Riddley Walker]

That, of course, is also an ideology that you are insisting upon. There are also ideologies that claim to in fact be right, because of divine messaging or revelation or such, and each of those could, by definition, insist that their respective view is the only "right" one and demand that other ideologies, including an ideology of acceptance of other views, be dismissed for being "wrong" or "suppressed" for being heretical.

Obviously.

 

[JLT]

So even if you want to say that truth is arrived at subjectively there has to be an acknowledgement that any kind of knowledge is a belief, not a certainty. There is an element of faith in everything we claim to know.

Vine Deloria, the native American activist, used to say that an indigenous person's creation myth is as valid is the accepted "theory of evolution" (that is, the theory of natural selection), which he feels is just another creation myth to him. The difference, to me, is that our theory of evolution is in a constant state of revision as new material arises to prove or disprove a particular point. Our faith is in the process, not the result of the process. And, yes, the process fails once in a while, as people use it as a guide for moral reform or legislation (eugenics comes to mind, but I'm sure I can come up with others). But if people continue to trust the process, the flaws will become apparent and will be rectified. The result won't be gospel, but something that will do until more data can be found.

I get it, but that's why we talk about probabilities instead of hard truths. You can have a thousand pieces of evidence that support a certain conclusion but it only takes one piece of evidence to shatter that conclusion.

The other thing is --- what is the quality of the evidence? Anecdotes are not evidence, neither is hearsay. But human nature treats anecdotes and hearsay as a kind of proof. Anecdotal evidence is a kind of fallacy argument. It says "I know a guy who kissed his own ass so that means anybody can kiss their own ass. This is a case of self delusion and it is a limiting factor on subjective truth.

I'd like to meet that guy.

I'd agree that our beliefs generally come from areas that are not scientifically validated. If I leave something in the pan too long, it will be overcooked. I don't need to run a scientific analysis with thousands of test cases and double-blinds and such to know that. And if I meet six assholes in a row, I can conclude that it's probably me who's the asshole on that particular day. Experience has taught me that, but not in a scientifically rigorous way. Most people live their whole lives building their world-view around the things they personally experience.

And hearsay can be pernicious. Studies have shown that the more people see of violent crime on TV, whether it's news or cop shows, the more they perceive that violent crime is on the rise. And when political leaders feed that misperception and use it as justification for stricter laws or more police protection, society is generally harmed in the form of higher taxes or persecution.

So analyses of real crime rates should be compared with what people feel about crime. And accusations of a higher crime rate with, say, undocumented immigrants should be countered with actual analyses of what this segment of the population actually is influencing the crime rate.

The trick is persuading people that their view of the world is wrong, and getting them to trust the statistics rather than their own experience. It's something that, like other logical arguments, should be taught in schools, from the sixth grade on.

 

[DLC]

that's quite the word salad

 

[Louanne Learning]

Empirical evidence we take as true

"I believe in empirical evidence."

Just want to note here that scientists, when talking about scientific knowledge, do not use the words "true" or "believe" -

They would say a conclusion is supported or unsupported, and they would say they accept or reject the evidence

The problem comes when one side or the other insists on absolute adherence to its own ideology

yes, I agree, this has caused a lot of problems in the past, but I don't think I would refer to scientific knowledge as ideology

It's important that we recognize that any world view is an ideology.

Everybody has one, and we can't all live together in this world if we insist that only one ideology is real.

But there does need to be some critical thinking about it? For example, does the ideology respect or violate human rights?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Then it's just a belief, isn't it? I don't know if many people are claiming that it doesn't exist.

That beliefs exist? Yes, they surely do. But, to me, a belief is not the same thing as a subjective truth. A belief may be held in the absence of evidence. You can even run into things like blind faith. But a truth is more securely held. I've got 60+ years of observation, evidence and analysis leading me to the subjective truths I now hold. I know not all agree with me, but it works for me.

Spots of contention are generally about the "value or rightness" of others' subjective truth e.g. moral relativism vs absolutism. It gets more contentious the higher the stakes get. If the Mars Men believe that blue is an unlucky colour, you do you. But moral relativism is tested when you find out they believe every mistake should mean losing a finger, even for their children who clearly had no opportunity to consent to this lifestyle. Is it correct to impose your morals and values onto them and their culture, or should you follow the Prime Directive?

Excellent question. Now we are entering the realm of cultural "truths" - which is a whole other category of what I had in mind.

I hesitate to make some blanket statement about morals, because as you pointed out, they can vary in significance.

Our modern societies are so pluralistic - especially in the Americas, the lands of immigrants. I think the only way we can get along is if we do respect the cultures/religions of others - but there still needs to be universal laws - like those that protect human rights.

But let's see what we can unpack about moral relativism vs absolutism - I guess first I'll say that I do not believe in some divine authority governing us all. I believe that if there are any moral imperatives that we find across all cultures, like the Golden Rule, it is because we have a shared evolutionary history, of a social animal - we learned to live with the group, or be cast out. The instinct of "belonging to the group" can be traced back millions of years, and continues to drive a lot of our behaviors.

But I am still thinking ... if there are any absolute moral rules, I would say it's because we all evolved them.

 

[Riddley Walker]

Just want to note here that scientists, when talking about scientific knowledge, do not use the words "true" or "believe" -

They would say a conclusion is supported or unsupported, and they would say they accept or reject the evidence


***

That's a better way to talk about it. But we are not all scientists, and for the rest of us, we also need a way to talk about issues without being experts in the field

***


yes, I agree, this has caused a lot of problems in the past, but I don't think I would refer to scientific knowledge as ideology

***

I Agree. Scientific knowledge is not an ideology. But trust or distrust in scientific knowledge IS an ideology.

***


But there does need to be some critical thinking about it? For example, does the ideology respect or violate human rights?

***

Yes. All ideologies should be critically examined. Even our own. It keeps us honest.

***

 

[Riddley Walker]

to me, a belief is not the same thing as a subjective truth. A belief may be held in the absence of evidence. You can even run into things like blind faith. But a truth is more securely held. I've got 60+ years of observation, evidence and analysis leading me to the subjective truths I know hold.

Excellent point.

 

[Schism]

I came aross this quote a few days ago.

"What you resist, persists" Carl Jung

 

[Louanne Learning]

"What you resist, persists" Carl Jung

that reminds me of a few things I read, too. The idea that if you resist your uncomfortable feelings, like suppress them, they won't get resolved.

"You have to probe the wound, in order to get to its root."

 

[Louanne Learning]

"What you resist, persists" Carl Jung

I came across this page out of An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days - and I think it has something to do with resistence