Someone actually said to me last night that 'the truth is subjective'.

:wtf:

I was asked to mediate a meeting between two warring factions of a non profit organization because there were all kinds of accusations of 'mental illness' :eyes:

In an attempt to let people air their grievances about corporate governance, et al, someone asked for a Q&A and I attended. Not the way I wanted to spend a simply gorgeous Sunday afternoon, but I digress.

Anyhow, one of the less articulate members actually stated that the 'truth is subjective', in other words what he hears is his truth and what others hear is their truth.

I have to say for one of the very few times in my life, I was completely speechless. I tried to explain to him that someone's perception is not the same as the truth, but got a 'deer in the headlights, Michael Myers, kind of look.

It was pretty interesting. I'm still trying to figure out what he meant. He's not a bad guy at all, so he wasn't trying to be a PITA, and I think he actually believes what he said.

There is an unfortunate sort of absurdity involved in many nonprofits.

I held a training conference call via Web Ex about a month ago for about 40 different clients.

Every.Single.One.Of.Them. got on the phone yelling, (I kid you not) Hello??? Hello????

I felt like I was in a stupid Verizon commercial. It was horrific.

Then halfway through the presentation, I had one ask if I was going to continue to use the same examples all through the presentation.

Well, Yup. I was planning to, because that was the purpose of PREPARING THE PRESENTATION. :banghead:

>I had one ask if I was going to continue to use the same examples all through the presentation.<

"Well, I had other examples, but I'm not giving them. After all, I'm just doing that to piss you off."

:mad:

And word on Mr. "Truth is Subjective". It must be nice to know that one is the Oracle of All Things Truthful. :sarcasm:

Julie

my powerpoints out and had them arranged all over my desk, so I really could change course pretty easily.

Someone, either a Higher power or my mom, must have whispered in my ear that I would need them. :rofl:

:hi:

Check your PM.

I get this more and more. It scares the cream cheese out of me every time I hear it.

My "opinion" may not always be "the Truth," but I'm certainly not delusional enough to insist on the opposite.

'The Truth is subjective'. :wtf: does that even mean?

while the rest of us are just stumbling around in the dark, waiting for his enlightenment.

Maybe he's a narcissist. :woohoo:

Julie

These are the secret art banners and book burners. Any action, any reaction is completely moral and justified to them under their "Truth." They are the guards at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo; they hold the chains of the dogs, the hoods and the electrodes.

Monsters DO exist, and I don't feel at all over the top in describing people like that in this fashion. I deal with them as I must and as long as I must, then I back away slowly.

Rather than those who create their own reality. :eyes:

in most matters than cannot be quantified truth is subjective. truth is also sometimes an interpretation of an event, hence the interpretation is subjective.

for instance: i can said you said blah blah and it was a personal attack on my character, which may well be the truth for me. however you could have meant blah blah in good humor, in which case what i am saying is a falsehood.

but doesn't alter the truth.

And, in this instance, it wasn't stuff that was being spoken about, it was the written by-laws. Pretty hard to say that the truth is subjective when it is written in front of you.

some things are very clearly factual and cannot be subjective. there are plenty of gray areas though.

sometimes it's as easy as using your senses, but having a set "truth" chances dogma and ideological inflexibility. Please don't rudely dismiss this - it's purely within human nature to take a set of evidence and bend it to one's preconceptions of an issue, hence creating a subjective "truth." A very good example of this is perceptions of media bias.

That it was about written by-laws?

And, no, the truth is the truth. Your perception might be different, but the truth is the truth. Bias in any form isn't the truth.

If I said to you "By-law 14.b states that blah, blah, blah" you may choose to interpret that by-law any way you choose, but it doesn't alter the fact that the by-law states a specific thing.

Let's say that twenty trials involve that law somehow. Therefore, twenty judges judge each case separately, yielding twenty different interpretations of that law. Some of these decisions involve looser interpretations of that law, and some involve stricter interpretations. Each of these decisions create what's called "precedence" that will color future judgments concerning that law.

No, no, no. I think it's dangerous, especially, to say that anything involving the law is "set in stone." It opens up the possibility of demagoguery and suddenly the law, and the constitution underpinning it, cease to be a living document.

I said that this individual was arguing essentially the 'existence' of the particular by-law, not its interpretation.

When told that the by-law that was being discussed did in fact exist and that that particular truth couldn't be denied, his response was 'the truth is subjective'.

It wasn't a conversation about interpretation, it was a conversation about the very existence of the by-laws.

I was asked to mediate a meeting between two warring factions of a non profit organization because there were all kinds of accusations of 'mental illness' :eyes:

In an attempt to let people air their grievances about corporate governance, et al, someone asked for a Q&A and I attended. Not the way I wanted to spend a simply gorgeous Sunday afternoon, but I digress.

Anyhow, one of the less articulate members actually stated that the 'truth is subjective', in other words what he hears is his truth and what others hear is their truth.

I have to say for one of the very few times in my life, I was completely speechless. I tried to explain to him that someone's perception is not the same as the truth, but got a 'deer in the headlights, Michael Myers, kind of look.

It was pretty interesting. I'm still trying to figure out what he meant. He's not a bad guy at all, so he wasn't trying to be a PITA, and I think he actually believes what he said.

You set this up as a philosophical argument, not as a pragmatic one, so that's what I had to go on. You are now telling me that this was concerning a debate over whether or not a specific "by-law" existed, which is a bit of a different matter.

I honestly didn't like, however, how quickly you denounced this concept, though. Or at the very least refused to permit it to be framed in a manner by which it can be debated. I think the establishment of "truth" is a very important issue for today's democratic discourse and needs to be fully explored.

Interpretations vary, but not the truth. You can interpret something anyway you choose, that doesn't make it the truth, nor does it make it a lie.

This is a strictly logical paradigm, and cannot be disputed unless you abandon logic.

HOWEVER, philosophically, if you accept this paradigm, and logically it cannot be denied, then the truth becomes unknowable, as absolutes based on anything other than boolean (YES/NO/VERIFIABLE INTERSECTION) choices cannot be objectively observed and interpreted.

Whew.

Also, if you take it literally, only FACTS can be known, and FACTS are by nature TRUTHFUL; therefore once again, you cannot objectively interpret truths/facts, and your interpretation by its very nature is subjective.

Says who? I ask. Who said that what you're stating is pure logic? And who's to say that your logic is more correct than the next person's?

But seriously, I ALMOST agree with you. I say this, not because a person interprets facts (or evidence) differently, but because each person fallaciously claims that his or her own individual interpretations then constitute undeniable TRUTH. If a person's interpretation of the facts is subjective, and that person claims that his or her interpretation constitutes TRUTH, then that TRUTH is then a subjective product.

I think what's missing in this entire debate about logic is the fact that we are emotive creatures who will latch on to comfortable lies if that suits us, then we have the ego/ordasity to claim that what we believe is the undeniable truth.

I don't dispute anything you say. TRUTH is a word of emotion CONNOTING an absolute in fact, while FACTS are by definition not subject to dispute.

I think we always lose when we stray into emotion versus reason, but not too much.

But I have to ask... so virtually all of us who post in this site believe that global warming caused by humans is a fact. In fact, 99% of scientists believe this. However there is that 1% who don't. Wouldn't they then dispute that global warming is a fact?

Sort of like being a flat-earther.

Let's try another example: Life begins at conception. Catholics believe this, as do pro-lifers. They are absolutely convinced that they hold the truth - that abortion kills life. Can you agree that there is a subjective "truth" here that can be refuted?

If you have no fact, it is conjecture at best. What you are talking about is conjecture not truth. Truth cannot be subjective because it relies upon factual certainty for its definition. If subjectivity exists, it may be called many things but truth isn't one of them.

Incidentally, do you know how hard it is to type a post using a WiiMote?

Well, anyway, (clears her throat) the problem is not what truth is based on, but the fact that we claim that truths exist when they are really our perceptions. I think that very, very few actual "truths" exist (the law of gravity?) but the rest is a result of our human failing. Who is truly equipped to discover truth? I think no one is.

PS - I have a wii, too. Maybe I should challenge myself to improve my wii skills. Perhaps I will discover a whole new truth about carpal tunnel syndrome. :P

In the end, one must look at it this way in BOOLEAN logic:

A FACT is a statement that is ALWAYS TRUE.
A BELIEF is a statement that MAY BE TRUE.
A TRUTH is the intersection of BELIEF and FACT, A Statement that is a FACT or a BELIEF but is ALWAYS TRUE.

Whether or not the belief can be validated and then is no longer a BELIEF but is then a FACT is the subject of debate, but a statement of BELIEF that is refuted cannot by definition be called a TRUTH. The starting point is not "Life begins at conception" but "Catholics believe this, as do pro-lifers." The logical equation is reversed; the statement of condition, "belief," precedes the statement of information, "Life begins at conception" in a valid logical transaction.

I know all of this sounds very picky and legalistic: welcome to LOGIC 301.

Boolean logic is much too limited and structured to account for human frailty (it's one of the bases for algebra, for crissake! people don't think that way), but here I'll humor you by playing in that small cage for a moment. Each person assembles his or her own FACTS according to preconceived notions of the problem based on their BELIEFS. From there, a person constructs his or her individual forms of TRUTH based on his or her subjective use of facts. Therefore, each person's TRUTH is VERY subjective. There are very, very few actual TRUTHS out there based on universal agreement... why? Because we all choose the facts that suit our beliefs. That's simply human nature.

And if you want legalistic, picky thinking: this is why ten different court trials concerning the same law yield ten different results... because each trial uses a different set of facts to decide the case AND a different set of people to decide them.

I know all of this sounds much too straight-forward and sensible: welcome to COMMON SENSE 512, THE UPPER-DIVISION COURSE. :P


(Do you really want to keep going back and forth on this? We're not going to convince the other, you know.)

:scared:

The truth would be that someone said X and that it was interpreted in multiple ways. The interpretations are subjective, but are not the truth - at least not the whole truth.

If I said to you "The sky is blue". Your 'interpretation of that could be sky blue, or deep blue, or cerulean, or whatever, but it doesn't alter the fact that I stated "the sky is blue"

This guy was trying to argue that the written by-laws were in fact, not stating the things that they were. It was very odd.

It's perhaps semantics but truth is a concept and as such is interpretive. A fact, on the other hand, is concrete.

this is a fact, the truth is that we use this term affectionately. a lie would be if someone said priyanka is mean to her friends and calls them derogatory names.

In today's world this is evidenced more than ever.

It sure used to be.

For example, I have a job. That is a verifiable fact. I am telling the truth when I say, "I have a job."

I am also telling the truth when I say, "I have stress and anxiety caused by my job." However, even though I am telling the truth when I say this - it is my perception that the statement is true - it is not a verifiable fact. I am being truthful, but it's only my perception that makes it the truth.

My truth is that some people here are asshats. Other people have different opinions. No one of us is right or wrong, particularly. And if somebody tells me there's objective truth to any one religion, say, I might laugh myself sick. The Hindus are no more right (or wrong) than are the Christians than are the Jews.

(is "philosophy of science" an oxymoron?)

I can't do the argument justice because 1) it has been ten years since I've taken a philosophy of science class, 2) I tended to come down on the "positivist" side myself, and 3) the wikipedia article sucks.

BUT, he didn't make this up. He is remembering something he heard but didn't really understand (kinda like me :-)).

Relativism consists of various theories each of which claims that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. For example, some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.

One argument for relativism suggests that our own cognitive bias prevents us from observing something objectively with our own senses, and notational bias will apply to whatever we can allegedly measure without using our senses. In addition, we have a culture bias — shared with other trusted observers — which we cannot eliminate. A counterargument to this states that subjective certainty and concrete objects and causes form part of our everyday life, and that there is no great value in discarding such useful ideas as isomorphism, objectivity and a final truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

I think he might have meant exactly that, just poorly expressed.

What I always say to Freeper-types wanting to deny em my rights.

That each of us only sees a narrow part of the whole truth, so that it can look different to different people. It's still the same truth, though, just as it's all one elephant.

Now 'mental illness' can be subjective. What's perfectly normal for an Inuit may be considered delusional for an Italian. Anyway, I doubt any of us is completely sane all of the time. Some are just more bonkers than others.

:rofl:

So true, so very true.

Facts are never subjective, but which facts apply and how facts are interpreted in any given situation are of course subjective.

Truth is a word with too many different connotations. I heard an Air America host, I think, say almost exactly that, that truth was subjective, not too long ago. It struck me as odd, but he was talking about the different ways to view certain ideologies. A Republican could argue that the media isn't telling the "truth" about Iraq because they aren't talking about whatever progress Republicans think is happening there, while a Democrat would say the media isn't telling the truth because they are not talking about the horrendous death and destruction we are causing. The media would defend itself by saying they are reporting the truth because all of their facts are correct. Those are three different interpretations of the same truth. The truth would be too huge to sum up in a few lines, so each person is talking about their segment of the whole truth, yet using the larger word to give their discussion more impact.

Just skip the whole debate by avoiding the word "truth" and sticking to "facts" and "interpretations of the facts." At least arrive at the same set of facts for both sides, and then work on how they see the facts. The discussion of "Truth" is kind of like when someone says "America isn't a democracy, it's a republic." It's just a semantic stalling tactic from someone who doesn't like the argument and wants to reframe it to their benefit. It might be well-meaning, but it's still counter-productive.

By the way, this is all BS, and there is no truth in it. I just don't want to get back to work! :)

I SOOOOO don't want to get anything done today. I've been on DU almost the entire morning and feeling pretty guilty about getting nothing accomplished.

Oh, look! It's lunch time!

:shrug:

There's no reasoning with people who don't.

I think your response to him was great. I think you understood exactly what he meant, that people have different perceptions. But a fact is a fact.

do a major ass kicking of someone I don't consider a worthy opponent. He's not a bad sort, just a little dumb.

However, I never hesitate to do a verbal ass kicking to a rethug. I consider that sport.

some unassailable information, constructs or precepts.

But it seems as if information is not accepted at "face value" anymore, without nuanced interpretation. And this results in Faux News!


It astonishes me to see how much, and how long, people will debate supposed facts on the internet, for example, and how many (mis)interpretations of those "facts" there will be.

As for the guy you are talking about, he seems to have a perceptual problem! ;)


Also, now you know why I am not a lawyer!

:hi:

You can't argue with someone who isn't on par intellectually. It isn't fair.

And, if you, (and I mean the global you, not you Tigereye) argue with someone who isn't on a level playing field with you, it just embarrasses the person and I think, speaks volumes about you as a person. I've seen a lot of that and I don't get what people get from embarrassing someone simply because they're blessed with greater knowledge or quicker wit.

:hi:

...and it always takes me aback. The usual form it takes in my world is that "you have to respect other peoples' truth even when it conflicts with your own." It's really insidious because it makes you into an instant bad guy for seeking a universal, consensus "truth," or for seeking to reconcile the opposing "truths."

The point you made is spot on-- opinions, perceptions, even closely held convictions are not "truth." When two perceptions conflict, at least one is usually wrong, or the conflicting frames of reference are incompatible, or something similar. The point is that the difference CAN be resolved if the conflicting parties are willing to put their differing perceptions on the table in good faith and actually question their validity.

Therein lies the real difficulty.

I, for one like muffins, and could care less for biscuits...

And that's the truth...

As I see it....

and that truth comes from the gut, and we all have our own guts........

I've said the same thing for years. Facts aren't subjective, but truth is.

The truth for a Muslim is different than the truth for a Christian or Atheist.

The truth for my next door neighbor is much different than for me (WAY different).

The truth for oppressed people is much different than the truth for the oppressors.

If you've ever read How to Win Friends and Influence People you know that everyone carries their own truths. While facts can be measured and quantified, the truth is more fluid.

If it were that simple, we'd all believe the same things.

There is no such thing as truth. Two people sitting in the exact same place, watching the exact same set of events can interpret those events in entirely different ways.

You say this: I tried to explain to him that someone's perception is not the same as the truth, but got a 'deer in the headlights, Michael Myers, kind of look.

So, in response, I ask you this: who's perception defines what truth is? Is it yours? Is it mine? Is there an autonomous body of delegates that makes this interpretation? Is it an omnipotent godlike figure?

In order for there to be truth to exist, someone has to recognize its existence. It's a simple matter, but who decides which perception is the valid one? That's the entire point.

There is no such thing as truth, no matter which way you cut it.

Good post.

It seems to me that "truth" is more closely defined with the word "fact" than with the phrase "interpretation of facts".

that called itself (among the members) "the truth", ie, "is he/she in the truth?" or, "how long have you been in the truth, brother?".

It was brainwashing, especially when fed to you from infancy, and coupled with dangerous doctrine, people do die from it.



I suppose your similar use of the word "truth" is not so dangerous, but to someone like me, it's irritating at best. Words have definitions, and I don't see that there was any extraordinary need to change the definition of "truth" to "each individuals perception of reality" instead of "in agreement with fact or reality".

By your definition of "truth", it is true that GW Bush is a good, honest, dedicated public servant with America's best interest at heart. At least to about 25% of all Americans, that is "their truth".

Per any dictionary I own, anyway.

They tell you the commonly held meaning of a word, but they don't get into the metaphysics behind it.

What is reality but a series of cobbled-together interpretations and perceptions? The only thing that makes reality what it is as we know it is that this series of cobbled-together perceptions are commonly held. That's all that makes a fact a fact - that the vast majority of people agree upon it. But how many "facts" have we come to realize are not facts at all? Like an earth-centered universe? Or a flat world? Those were "facts" once upon a time, only because most people agreed it to be so.

As human understanding evolves, so to does our belief on what reality is. So to does our concept of "truth" and "fact".

you articulate the thoughts on this matter that are swirling around in my brain better than I ever could have. I pretty much agree with what you say here. :thumbsup:

I do not believe there is "objective" truth outside everybody's head.

:thumbsup:

and is now in his 30sor 40s revealed in a conversation with hubby a year or so back that he didn't comprehend the difference between fact and opinion. YIKES! Don't they teach that kind of stuff in grade school?! This IS Oklahoma though, so... :eyes:

Scary that even after so many years of edumacation people can be so fokkin' ignorant.

I have also run into the occasional individuals that claim that "perception is reality" - - without making the all-important distinction between the subjective nature of perception and the objective nature of reality. One of these folks was well-educated enough to have a bachelors' degree that included science coursework!?!

My only solution to the situation was to be very firm about explaining the difference between perception and objective reality.

I think.

Example I use with my kids.

Take a sheet of paper - blank on one side, a scribble on the other. Hold it between the two kids - one sees the blank side, one sees the scribble.

Ask each of them, "What do you see on this piece of paper?"

Of course they have differing answers.

Then turn the paper around and ask again.

They're both right both times. But they never agree with each other on what they see. It all depends on which side of the paper they're seeing, ya know?

If the question is "What do you see on this piece of paper?", what they see is what they should answer, truthfully.

If otoh the question is "What marking is on this piece of paper?" then the "truth" is that the paper is blank on one side and and has a scribble on the other. There are no alternate truths to that.

You seem to be showing kids a lesson in pov and perception.

and the other kid is on the other - then the truths that they see are different.

Get it now?

edit typo.

It's kind of stating the obvious isn't it, what you see is what you see?

Has anyone ever suggested that a definition of "truth" should be "what you see with your eyes"?

It sounds almost as if your saying that if the kid decided that, in his opinion, the piece of paper does not have any marking on it (when in fact it does), everyone should just concede that to him as "his truth" rather than suggesting he inform himself before developing an opinion, and that he should sure as hell inform himself before deciding he knows what the "truth" is.

It's an exercise in getting them to understand that the "truth as they see it" may not be the "truth as the other party sees it"

capice?

It seems an exercise in getting them to believe that "truth" is equivalent to and synonymous with "perception", which is, well, untrue. Simply put, a much better lesson would be that "the truth is not at all dependent upon your individual perception".

I don't go about telling my daughter that there is a "truth, as daddy sees it", and I sure as hell hope she won't develop that attitude about herself.

Where I doing a similar exercise with my daughter, I would explain to her that the lesson to be learned is that others may sincerely believe that they have the "truth" about a matter, when in fact they only have an opinion or conjecture based on their individual pov, so work to get the "truth", but be mindful and respectful of the limitations of yourself and others to do so.

the truth as to "what is on this piece of paper". Neither one has the complete set of facts, they only have half of the information needed to determine the truth, unless you let them fully examine the situation, ie, to see the other side of the paper. Lesson *should* be "don't jump to conclusions - you must make a good effort to gather all the facts".
Your "lesson" only goes to "point of view" or "making false assumptions rather than gathering complete data".

of the exercise.

Showing them that the truth as they see it, isn't necessarily the whole truth.

"the truth as they see it, isn't necessarily the whole truth".


The original poster would probably not have taken issue if the guy had said "much of the time, people don't have all the information needed when they decide to believe something is 'true'".

"Truth" is just not defined by "what I see".

If it was, a man I've read about recently, exonerated by DNA after 20 years, would still be *truly* guilty, because the woman who accused him *truly* thought they saw the man rape her.

Hell, if she believes it's cool to have "her truth" and you to have "your truth", then she probably still believes he's guilty, since that DNA stuff is other people's "truth".

they are kids you know so they needed a concrete example.

My whole point is teaching them to LOOK AT THINGS FROM THE OTHER PERSONS POV. (look not necessarily meaning "see", ya know?) The whole 'walk a mile in their shoes' sort of thing.

I know what I mean, but evidently I'm not getting it across to you guys. Maybe if I had a piece of paper . . . :)

You have chosen to make "truth" something other than what it is traditionally defined as (and in fact almost opposite what it is defined as).

That is, I suppose, your prerogative, and you seem to not be alone in doing this, as many people now speak of "your truth" or "my truth".

I just don't see how that is much different than a cult (such as the one I grew up in, see above) using the word "truth" to mean "our pov is correct, live by it; it's truth".

FWIW, I think this is a fine exercise for children, they should learn to look at things from the other person's pov, walk in their shoes, etc, etc. I really doubt any aspect of this "lesson" has escaped me, or any other sentient adult reading this; it's a fairly simple straight-forward lesson, albeit one that does not involve the definition or meaning of the word "truth".

I posted the definitions of "truth" above; there are several related definitions to work from, so I'm curious why you choose to define it so differently?

Truth is ephemeral. Truth for one person is not necessarily the truth of another person. The truth may shift from one moment to the next.

You may think I'm saying there is no real truth. But I'm not. All I'm suggesting is that NO ONE PERSON has the market cornered on THE TRUTH.

It's fairly obvious you are not understanding me. And less this turn into some sort of flamefest I suggest we just leave it go.

I posted a list of about 10 definitions out of a dictionary.

I'm not the one using my own definitions, you are. "Truth is ephemeral"? That characterizes "truth" almost opposite of the way traditional definitions characterize "truth".

"Truth for one person is not necessarily the truth of another person."?? Again, almost opposite of the concepts expressed by dictionary definitions of "truth".

"The truth may shift from one moment to the next." Well... yeah, the "truth" about anything that changes must of necessity change with that thing. But not simply because *I* believe something new or different.


"All I'm suggesting is that NO ONE PERSON has the market cornered on THE TRUTH." And all I'm saying is that truth is not dependent on ANY ONE PERSON's pov, belief, knowledge, perception, etc. In fact, those are all fine words to use instead of "truth".

At least by dictionary definitions, truth should most certainly not be ephemeral.

I just typed "truth" into a synonym finder, here's what I got:
accuracy, actuality, authenticity, candour, certainty, correctness, exactitude, exactness, fact, fidelity, frankness, genuineness, honesty, integrity, precision, reality, sincerity, truthfulness, uprightness, validity, veracity, verity.

None of these come very close to expressing "a person's individual beliefs or perceptions or pov". I suppose "sincerity" would be the closest.

I'll bow out now, I suspect we both understand exactly what the other is saying.

have anticipation to be a 'good faith arbiter'; how are you able to assign comparative meanings to any given template between "warring factions" thinking in advance that one party must be clearly wrong, and one party must be clearly right...objectively :shrug:

Don't be critical of his truthiness.

A distinction w/o much of a difference, in many ways:

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

Fact:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

I think folks here are confusing their reality or their perception with truth.

For instance:

Chinese truth: white is a color for funerals, symbolizing death, black is not, and red is an appropriate wedding dress color

American/European truth: white is a color for weddings and celebration, black is for death, and a red wedding gown would make people to believe the bride is a whore, or at least ignorantly savage in her tackiness.

Fact: while the above statements are both factual and true, the information in them is not fact - that is, universally, black represents only what a culture decides it represents.

Or another one:

My truth: dogs are to be avoided.

Others' truth: dogs are nice and cuddly.

Fact: neither one. Dogs, as a category, are none of the above. Individual dogs have certain traits.

Or this one:

My truth, and Japanese truth: horses are good food.

American truth: horses are not to be eaten; they are not food.

Fact: only that horses are edible.

For instance:

Fact about Chinese culture: white is a color for funerals, symbolizing death, black is not, and red is an appropriate wedding dress color

American/European culture: white is a color for weddings and celebration, black is for death, and a red wedding gown would make people to believe the bride is a whore, or at least ignorantly savage in her tackiness.

Fact: while the above statements are both factual and true, the information in them is not fact - that is, universally, black represents only what a culture decides it represents.

Or another one:

Your belief about what is best for yourself: dogs are to be avoided.

Others' belief on the same subject: dogs are nice and cuddly.

Fact: neither one. Dogs, as a category, are none of the above. Individual dogs have certain traits.

Or this one:

Your and Japanese' cultural/personal preference: horses are good food.

American's in general cultural/personal preference: horses are not to be eaten; they are not food.

Fact: only that horses are edible.


OTW, what is true about you may not be true about me, but that in no way means that my personal preferences are "truths", just that it is true that I (and every other human) have personal and cultural preferences.

The definition of "truth" is a little simplistic here.

If you mean that truth is the same as belief, then yes, your truth is that horses are yummy.

If the truth is reality-based (as I believe), then the truth is that some people believe horses are food and some don't. That's the truth. The relative tastiness of ponies is an opinion or cultural trait.

While there may be differences in beliefs and multiple valid interpretations, your version of "the truth" ignores a great deal of information.

But there are also cultural and behavioral truths which, while not rooted in fact, are still true - such as not wearing white to a wedding in China. Yes, it's a custom, not a universal fact that white is bad at a wedding, but in China, it IS a truth. People behave in a way that makes it true, at least for that culture.

Or think of it this way - in war, each side has its own truth about why they are in that war, and rarely are those truths the same. Sifting out the facts later is very difficult.

Did the United States enter World War II to defeat the Japanese? To punish the Japanese? To keep America free from Japanese invasion and takeover? Because we were in a low economy and a war was a good way to get back to full employment? Because we saw our opportunity to become a superpower and reshape the world landscape? Because the banks knew it was a money maker? Because the military industrial complex was sure it was a money maker? Because FDR believed that all people should be free of tyrrany?

One can easily make a case for the truth of all of those statements, but one will be hard pressed to find the facts to back any one of them up as 100 percent fact and to say undeniably "this was THE cause" or, since it's most likely a mix of causes, to say "These specific causes are THE real causes". We'll never know.

So we can say truthfully that all of those are reasons we went to war. But we'll never know which one or ones is (are) factually true.

Democrats hold to the truth that abortion should be a woman's right. Republicans hold to the truth that abortion is morally wrong and should be banned. How can anyone say that either side has the factual stance, or that either side is untrue? No one can.

The first books that historians read in graduate methodology is Novick's That Noble Dream: The Objectivity Question.

According to Novick, truth is subjective, even in "hard history." He backs up his thesis with a survey of the past century, demonstrating how social context affects historical perceptions. I found it very convincing. It's not an entertaining read, but it's a valuable one for anyone who has to deal with "truth" as an occupational responsibility.

Truth is NOT subjective. Perception is. AchtungToddler posted the definition of truth a bit upthread.

Perception, reality, what have you, are indeed subjective. Truth is not.

Solipsist: The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

In other words, I am the only thing that exist. The rest of you are here because I created you in my mind.

I hear Shirley McClain is a solipsist.

I think it's a bit nutters myself, but it IS an argument. :P

The one thing I think you are missing here is that you yourself are putting forth a philosophical argument. That being the presence of an objective world outside of yourself and absolute truth. This is arguable. There are entire philosophy courses devoted to this very subject. Is there truth?

Perhaps you could admit that while you are an objectivist, this gentleman is a relativist....and both philosophies have valid arguments to their point of view.

depending on how you look at it.

O8)

...what everyone else says and what I say is the truth!

For some people, it is true that God created the universe, for others it is true that fish tastes like crap. For me, it's true that the actor who plays Sayid is a really good looking guy.

What you and I remember about an event, if we were there at the same event, same time, etc. would still be different.

time tends towards embellishment of memory

even descriptions of some event or condition that can be replicated with ease may find different "truth"

I dunno that I disagree with the premise that truth is subjective.

we all know that people lie, and lies are pretty much agreed upon to be just that, a lie.

but what makes it a lie, vs. a different version of truth? Often it is a small difference indeed

:shrug:

Especially stories that are "true". No one ever tells the whole truth even if they believe what they say is the truth. It may even be that the inclusion of non factual events may actually help portray the truth of a story better than just sticking to the facts. There are actually different versions of the truth.
Perhaps, Truth is a Platonic form and it exists somewhere and is perfect. In this real and unperfect world though, truth is subjective for practical purposes.

or stupidity. Either one applies