NO. No one on Earth can claim to "own the truth" -- not even the natural sciences. And mathematics has no anchor on Nature.
With physics, the elusive truth becomes the object itself, which physics trusts using the scientific method, as fairly as humanly possible and as objectively (friend and foe) as possible.
With mathematics, on the other hand, one must trust using only logic, and the most amazing thing has been how much the Nature as seen by physics (the Wirklichkeit) follows the logic as seen by mathematics (without necessarily using Wirklichkeit) -- and vice-versa. This implies that something is true in Wirklichkeit iff (if and only if) it is logical.
Also, any true rebuffing of a "fake controversy" (i.e., fake because it was created by the reader willingly or not, and not in the data itself) risks coming across as sharply negative. Thus, rebuffing of truth-deniers leads to ...affirming truth-deniers. The semantic principle is: before facing the night, one should not counter the darkness but create light. When faced with a "stone thrown by an enemy" one should see it as a construction stone offered by a colleague.
But everyone helps. The noise defines the signal. The signal is what the noise is not. To further put the question in perspective, in terms of fault-tolerant design and CS, consensus (aka,"Byzantine agreement") is a design protocol to bring processors to agreement on a bit despite a fraction of bad processors behaving to disrupt the outcome. The disruption is modeled as noise and can come from any source --- attackers or faults, even hardware faults.
Arguing, in turn, would risk creating a fat target for bad-faith or for just misleading references, exaggerations, and pseudo-works. As we see rampant on RG, even on porous publications cited as if they were valid.
Finally, arguing may bring in the ego, which is not rational and may tend to strengthen the position of a truth-denier. Following Pascal, people tend to be convinced better by their own-found arguments, from the angle that they see (and there are many angles to every question). Pascal thought that the best way to defeat the erroneous views of others was not by facing it but by slipping in through the backdoor of their beliefs. And trust is higher as self-trust -- everyone tends to trust themselves better and faster, than to trust someone else.
What is your qualified opinion? This question considered various options and offers a NO as the best answer. Here, to be clear, "truth-denial" is to be understood as one's own "truth" -- which can be another's "falsity", or not. An impasse is created, how to best solve it?
"Only dead fish swim with the current implies that those who swim against the current are those who wish to invoke change; who want to control, manipulate, and improve their environment. People who swim upstream make things happen. They are the movers and shakers; the innovators and inventors; the disruptors of the world. There is nothing new downstream; only that which is old and boring, ancient history, the past, the been there and done that... the tried and true. One must swim upstream to find and explore new territory; learn new stuff, have new experiences. To create; fly; soar."
We read this in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201705/upstream-vs-downstream
But those who try, find it hard to not "go with the flow." The solution maybe to swim like a salmon, making the least waves. With the same principle, it works on a swimming pool, trying to improve personal "best times" -- and tells one why a deeper pool is faster.
Hi Ed,
a priori, and following Pascal (could you please give the exact source of his statement?), if we do not simply ignore the "truth-deniers" it seems to be best to develop the consequences of their point of view, in polite communication with them. I guess that in most cases, one cannot build a consistent theory from a wrong starting point, so sooner or later one would run into paradoxes, and the truth-deniers would recognize for themselves that something must be wrong.
However in reality, I never witnessed such a course becoming successful. I feel the basis for being a truth-denier is in most cases connected with self esteem:
a) I don't understand a theory, so it must be wrong, and I create one of my own.
b) I have an idea which obviously will revolutionize physics; this lifts me to the level of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein, and later on I cannot do without this great feeling.
c) I believe that my faith forbids me to accept certain scientific assumptions; doing so would be a sin separating me from God and my community.
In all these cases, at least the unconscious part of the truth-denier knows what is at stake personally. Therefore, in fact he/she is not seeking the truth but is defending his/her self esteem, and will not follow the path we planned for our polite communication.
(This polite communication with the goal that the other should find the truth in his/her own way reminds me of psychotherapy which seems to be successful, sometimes. But there is a difference: The patient starts therapy because he suffers; the truth-denier does not suffer at all.)
This is a bit pessimistic; perhaps others have succeeded in a similar course?
JF and all: Thank you. In Pensees, Pascal writes:
When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.
Now, studies show (U. Stanford) that people prefer to be "right" than to be "on the right". So, Pascal says that a direct strategy may not correct with advantage, that is why I think he recommended admitting first that the "adversary" was heard and was understood (as a "first truth"), then slipping in through the backdoor of their beliefs, looking for a different angle that is not so "guarded" and not so "knee-jerk" reactionary -- revealing to him, thus, a side on which that "first truth" is false.
So, Pascal adds (as I used above):
People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.
"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it. "
(Max Planck)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
Regards,
Joachim
As you have rightly observed, the truth is relative not absolute. Using Popper's falsifiability principle can be a reliable measure for testing the inherent truth of all scientific predictions. In point of fact, intersubjective testability of theoretical claims made about various realities of life can be a logical way of proving their credibility.
RB and all: Truth is not relative, and that is not what I am saying (more on that, see an answer to a PM, below).
Popper's falsifiability principle is incorrect, although, and not a litmus test of reality. Special relativity is not falsifiable any more, gravity never was, as well as stars and comets, and that the electric and the magnetic fields are not independent in EM. Popper's "falsifiability principle" is actually anti-science, by pretending that science doubts what it knows already.
Many counter-examples to Popper's pretended "falsifiability principle" exist, and that is here understandable, as well as Immanuel Velikovsky's incorrect idea of worlds in collision.
On the other hand, the intersubjective testability of theoretical claims needs to observed in math, and that was Voevosky's goal, through algorithms.
If mathematical objects are to be your own mental construction, then the only way of proving to others (subjective --> intersubjective) that a particular mathematical object exists is to give a recipe, that anyone can follow, for mentally constructing it, which cannot be infinite, but can be irrational, even be unbounded.
Following Descartes (cogito, ergo sum) and later, cf. Brouwer, if one cannot thus achieve provable intersubjectivity, i.e. construct an object in one’s mind for others to test, then it lacks reality to others. It is just a psychosis, a break with objective reality.
Thus, an effective proof of the existence of an object must embody an algorithm for the construction/computation of the desired object. That anyone can test: the constructive proof, cf. Brouwer.
Totally agree with you Ed,
We all have a confirmation bias and we believe that our ideas are correct, that is why the scientific method is so important.
Unfortunately, nowadays nobody follows him, researchers publishing trash month after month to get to the best places, publications not validated by anyone and published based on endogamic criteria lead to nobody deviating from the criteria set by the journal. Science shines by its absence
In the end a lot of noise that prevents seeing really valid and innovative research
Here in RG there are many "prophets" just words. Not backed by absolutely nothing or by such minimal tests that it makes me laugh, if an article has more text than equations don't read more, it's trash
JP and all: Max Plank's quip is well-known, but not effective against truth -deniers multiplied by online access.
There's no way the fact-checkers, for example, can keep up with today's stream of misinformation (e.g., see Facebook), so even if the warnings or even death of the proponent (e.g., "Mad Mike Hughes" and his flat-earth ideas), do really reduce belief in a story, one still has a problem, because of the implied truth effect on what has not been tagged, or the proponent being alive.
So, rather than wait for a truth-denier to die, or be tagged, which actions may even reinforce the notoriety (e.g., Heaviside), the act of "not dyeing" or "not tagged" may create an implied truth effect.
This means that the impasse continues.
PS: Wikipedia cannot be cited because it may change between reads, catastrophically and in a cabal that can control what the others read.
SGC and all: Yes, as you said, "We all have a confirmation bias and we believe that our ideas are correct, that is why the scientific method is so important."
But the scientific method can be used to "prove" a subjective view, such that the COVID-19 can infect more than once, which is not possible unless it substantially mutates -- which has not occurred yet. Thus, COVID-19 should end with the northern flu season, soon, and not infect South America nor Africa significantly.
Why is the subjective view "proven" in this case? A fault of the scientific method? No. Because the difference between detection and diagnosis was ignored, for example.
(The diagnosis of COVID-19 is usually confirmed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or gene sequencing for respiratory or blood specimens, as the key indicator for diagnosis. However, with limitations of sample collection and transportation, as well as kit performance, the total positive rate of RT-PCR for throat swab samples has been reported to be about 30% to 60% at initial presentation. Compared to RT-PCR, chest CT imaging should be a more reliable, practical and rapid method to diagnose and assess COVID-19. This would be a more objective test.)
According to an appendix of Matter and Mind of the late Mario Bunge, there are two kinds of truth: Formal truths of logic and mathematics and Factual truths of ordinary knowledge science and technology. Confusion between the two kinds of truth is a source of more confusion if possible. While the first kind of truth is easy to assess, even if some theoretical facts are undecidable the second lacks a well-structured formalism. Possibly you are taking of the second class of truths, so this might be associated to a perhaps neverending debate...
RCD: Thank you. As one can read in the discussion head, we are talking (according to your classification) about both kinds of truth: factual truths and formal truths. We are also talking about other kinds of truth, that go to an unbounded number of types. For example, fictional truths and ego truths. The latter kind is usually harder to treat.
That is why this is not a never-ending debate, because we can prioritize. As best said in Hindi: banatee, banatee, banjai.
Of course, the truth may be also a language problem, like Heidegger or Wittgenstein would like to say. In this sense, fictional or ego truths might have a large load of falsehood. In fact, you perhaps are trying to deal with a fuzzy scenario involving several degrees, a blend, of truthness and falsehood, perhaps dressed with the scent of undecidability...
RCD and all: Undecidability is expected to be in the eyes of the beholder (subjective), not something intrinsic to the situation. To further put the question in perspective, in terms of fault-tolerant design and CS, consensus (aka,"Byzantine agreement") is a design protocol to bring processors to agreement on a bit despite a fraction of bad processors behaving to disrupt the outcome. The disruption is modeled as noise and can come from any source --- attackers or faults, even hardware faults.
All: To answer a PM, I am not saying that "truth is relative" -- although I say in the question head that, "truth-denial" is to be understood as one's own "truth" -- which can be another's "falsity", or not.
I am saying that whatever one considers as being the "truth", how can one best promote it?
This considers that "truth" is actually an approximation becoming true, where all hypotheses are ultimately valid experiments. It may start as a falsity, because being true is the result of a process. Even if people are killed in the process, like in a war, which hopefully this discussion avoids.
This means that if something is to be true, then it is not to be evaluated by how it started (even if it was a falsity), but by how it ends (the end of that process). That is why it is said that "A tree is known by its fruits".
Whereas that "truth" is ultimately proven abstractly (i.e., without friend or foe intervention, without any agent of humans) to be true is considered here as an ideal approximation that we humans can entertain.
More than objective (which classification would still be ultimately judged by a human, directly or through an agent), we want to take any vestige of a human or agent out of the picture -- so, only abstract truth can fit the specifications for any human or agent (e.g., robot, artificial intelligence).
This has been done before. For example, when the author defined "trust", or Shannon defined "information". Loosely speaking, information is "what one does not know" and trust is "what one knows, knows how to recall, and knows how to use". For example, the concept of "trust" in a communication system must have nothing to do with friendship, acquaintances, employee-employer relationships, loyalty, betrayal and other overly-variable concepts. Here, "trust" is not to be taken in the purely subjective sense either, nor as a feeling or something purely personal or psychological -- trust is to be understood as something potentially communicable. Further, if trust must bridge different instances and observers, otherwise communication would be isolated in domains, then all different subjective and intersubjective realizations of trust must depend on some common, basic and abstract idea -- an archetype in some terminologies [1].
According to P. Cheeseman, in "Finding the Most Probable Model, "If the world were really random, chemistry, cooking, and credit would not be possible, so our models cannot be figments of our imagination."
For that, an example may clarify. Suppose one considers as "truth" that 'The proof of extraterrestrial intelligence does NOT require the presence of a human -- robots made by humans can do it. There is no need to send humans to Mars, for that objective.'
Other people, such as Dr. Dirk Schulze-Malkuch, astrobiologist at Washington State University, may disagree. How to specifically convince Schulze-Malkuch NOT to publicly (at least, to CNN) defend sending a human out there, who "...looks through a microscope and sees a moving microbe"? As NOT being a truth-denier, a "truth" that one promotes?
In an age where even cars can self-drive, people are bred to lie (e.g., in a public channel say A, whereas in a private channel say B), and such robot-driven cars are called to make moral judgments at every crossing, the use of robots seems easy to justify. Are there other sides? How to nudge Schulze-Malkuch to listen?
[1] E. Gerck, Toward Real-World Models of Trust: Reliance on Received Information. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286459693_Toward_Real-World_Models_of_Trust_Reliance_on_Received_Information
No when you argue you become as stupid as they are. Give them time instead they will come around after learning the truth
Joan Nyika,
This way of thinking would support dictators and totalitarianism. It is rationalization to do nothing about it. But if one is aware then one is responsible. The legal theory is called, "participatory negligence." One can be guilty of a crime one does not commit. Hannah Arendt was instrumental in showing this, and it happened in a killing in New York. The attacker interrupted, after around 80 people shouted that they would call the police. But the attacker resumed, when no police help came, and finally killed the victim. All those 80 people were charged with the crime of negligence.
It's time to try to think deeper, now that COVID has been, theoretically at least, conquered. There is a German quote that in English, says: "only dead fish swim with the stream" and maybe epitomizes the contrarian-by-default behavior we see so often. People don't want to look "dead" -- so, say one is against it! We see a lot of this behavior in RG. How to change it faster?
Looking for a solution to this, on how to convince people faster, there seems to be a lot of value in seeking common points first, and then even lead to a faster change. Current Japanese diplomacy (the art to deal with enemies!) techniques include seeking common points first. Pascal recommended it, to look non-threatening in order to achieve faster change... don't ruffle feathers!
An aggressive behavior may seem better, but change (as log term behavior) is harder to come by, while dominance (as sort term behavior) is the only result that may happen.
Dominance, however, is very work-intensive, like balancing on a bycicle. It will, eventually, fail. In physics, many people try to achieve dominance, and suppress dialog. We see that in mathematics too, with "infinitesimals", mythical elements that were never created, cannot be created, and do not exist. Yet, it is still at the basis of Calculus, and is "justified" -- even though not one example can be shown. "Infinitesimals" do not exist in constructive mathematics. And, they are, of course, not needed, but once were called "ghosts of quantities departed". Math needs an overhaul. This will improve physics.
We need to achieve change faster. Let's agree first, seems to hold a key.
"Only dead fish swim with the current implies that those who swim against the current are those who wish to invoke change; who want to control, manipulate, and improve their environment. People who swim upstream make things happen. They are the movers and shakers; the innovators and inventors; the disruptors of the world. There is nothing new downstream; only that which is old and boring, ancient history, the past, the been there and done that... the tried and true. One must swim upstream to find and explore new territory; learn new stuff, have new experiences. To create; fly; soar."
We read this in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201705/upstream-vs-downstream
But those who try, find it hard to not "go with the flow." The solution maybe to swim like a salmon, making the least waves. With the same principle, it works on a swimming pool, trying to improve personal "best times" -- and tells one why a deeper pool is faster.
As Poncisus Pilate to Jesus, What is truth?
There is both Analytic and Synthetic truth. What Ramon is saying.
Not very many kinds satisfy dissidents.
JW: Poncius Pilates wife was the real reason for his curiosity on Jesus, as Poncius Pilate was familiar in denying truth to slaves. Jesus was a Jew, a slave in his eyes. He just did not want to "go with flow" -- to have Jesus killed, as the Jews and their rabbis wanted. Remember, in the Hannukah, the first Jew killed was killed by another Jew. Religious hatred was common among Jews, not among Romans.
Many think that there is only one truth, and Jesus could reach parts of it. That truth is God. What one sees as fragmented, maybe just one's own vision of it, not the thing itself. To convince people faster, Pascal recommends, go through the 'back door". The unexpected.
It is the same idea behind universality, in physics. The observables (continuity, momentum, energy, decision by Poncius Pilate, etc.) are defined by the set of non-observables (quantum, string theory, prejudice, threats, gender, religion, politics, etc.). So, we can talk about the possible non-observables, in physics. Albeit physics only concerns itself with observables.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics