RE: Truth at all costs (was RE: virus: from the Skeptic's newsletter...)

Deron Stewart (deron@direct.ca)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:02:30 -0800

When I started the "Truth at all costs" thread, I inadvertently had "Truth" capitalized (because it was the first word...) but really I meant individual "truths" in individual circumstances, not universal and eternal Truth.

And not really in the first person -- after all, by definition, everything each of us believes, we believe to be true. It's no wonder we never get anywhere talking about this subject...

I was thinking more of "third person truth" for lack of a better word -- we can all perceive when someone else appears to believe something that isn't true!

Here's a commonplace example that I would bet most of us on this list have experienced:

You're at a party and a group of new acquaintances are sitting around having some beers or whatever and someone brings up the Poltergeist that is haunting their friend's house (or crop circles, or the uncanny horoscope reading they just got, or whatever).

What ensues is usually a lively conversation full of laughs and anecdotes as everyone shares their similar story. Everyone that is except The Skeptic, who sits stony faced and attempts to explain that it is all bunk and/or has a rational explanation. This appears to have little effect on the group other than confirm their conviction that The Skeptic is a bore.

So, in this small example...here's my question...what obligation do you have toward the "truth" in this situation? There would appear to be a stiff cost associated with the "truth" in this situation, assuming that there is a social benefit to be had...

Deron

-----Original Message----- 

From:	sodom [SMTP:sodom@ma.ultranet.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 09, 1999 11:52 AM
To:	'virus@lucifer.com'
Subject:	RE: Truth at all costs (was RE: virus: from the Skeptic's
newsletter...)

Truth is reality - To say I am searching for truth is putting the cart ahead of the mule as any truth I look for has me incorporated into it. I don't search for truth - I look at the evidence and choose based upon the odds. When the odds are extreme I accept this information as "truth" until there is evidence to the contrary. I am not disappointed when I am wrong - being wrong is an excellent opportunity to improve. I am happy to be right, if right was earned from my labors. If I am right by guessing or default - I am usually upset - this drives my ego to understand WHY I was right.

I suppose from my perspective - there is a cost associated with not looking for "truth" - finding truth is just a matter of decision.

Bill Roh

-----Original Message----- 

From:	Eric Boyd [SMTP:6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 09, 1999 1:14 PM
To:	virus@lucifer.com
Subject:	Re: Truth at all costs (was RE: virus: from the Skeptic's
newsletter...)

Hi,

From: sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>:
>Truth has no cost

Truth has no cost? Could you elaborate? I've always thought that truth had a pretty big cost (e.g. the purpose of a proof is to *compel* belief; the capital t Truth *forces* the issue)

ERiC