Philosophy Now Forum

duszek wrote:

ken wrote:That what is true is truth.
We all could only agree on that what is true.
That what we all agree on is truth.

Before Copernicus everybody agreed on the earth being flat and the center of the universe and the sun going around it.

But it was not true.

We all = we all including all the future generations of humans ?

You always need to be careful NOT to fall into the trap of argumentum populum.

Even if the populum is/are the scientific community.

Their cumulative opinion is still a fallacy.

duszeck wrote:... Before Copernicus everybody agreed on the earth being flat and the center of the universe and the sun going around it.
...

No they didn't. This is a Christian/Western myth.

duszek wrote:

ken wrote:That what is true is truth.
We all could only agree on that what is true.
That what we all agree on is truth.

Before Copernicus everybody agreed on the earth being flat and the center of the universe and the sun going around it.

But it was not true.

Are you absolutely sure that everybody agreed?
If so, how are you sure of this "fact", were you one of those bodies around at that time?
I would think some people had no idea and some others had never thought about either. Before copernicus is after all a fairly long time period.

duszek wrote:We all = we all including all the future generations of humans ?

We, of today, do not know what future generations of humans are going to agree upon. So 'we all' = all people at any particular point in time.

I had pointed out previously, obviously all people could agree on something that is not truth BUT if all people are agreeing, then there is no person disagreeing, so then there is no one to dispute its truth. That is why there is the proviso added: as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change. Therefore even if everyone is agreeing, at any given point in time, the best thing to do is still remain open. As most of us already know, truths have been known to change.

Also, if and when 'we all', human beings agreed on anything, then this will not give us universal truths. Humans can only give what are truths to humans. Human truths can easily be distorted from universal truths. In order to gain universal truths we need agreement from ALL things. ALL = everything. Agreement from everything can only be gained from everything's perspective. Be able to look and see from everything's perspective is needed to understand this universal truth.

yiostheoy wrote:

duszek wrote:

ken wrote:That what is true is truth.
We all could only agree on that what is true.
That what we all agree on is truth.

Before Copernicus everybody agreed on the earth being flat and the center of the universe and the sun going around it.

But it was not true.

We all = we all including all the future generations of humans ?

You always need to be careful NOT to fall into the trap of argumentum populum.

Even if the populum is/are the scientific community.

Their cumulative opinion is still a fallacy.

I would never fall into that trap, and that is why I wrote it the way I did. I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Arising_uk wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:... Before Copernicus everybody agreed on the earth being flat and the center of the universe and the sun going around it.
...

No they didn't. This is a Christian/Western myth.

Are you absolutely sure that not everybody agreed?
If so, how are you sure of this "fact", were you one of those bodies around at that time?
Although I would not disagree with you at all I do not have the first hand knowledge to be so adamant that not everybody agreed. I only say this to point out that you and yiostheoy are only repeating what you have heard or read without actual first hand experience to verify its truth.

ken wrote:Are you absolutely sure that not everybody agreed?
If so, how are you sure of this "fact", were you one of those bodies around at that time?
Although I would not disagree with you at all I do not have the first hand knowledge to be so adamant that not everybody agreed. I only say this to point out that you and yiostheoy are only repeating what you have heard or read without actual first hand experience to verify its truth.

Fair point ken and thank you for pointing it out as I noticed that I misattributed the quote, it was Duszeck who said it. My take is simple, if the claim is true how do they explain Aristotle?

ken wrote:... In order to gain universal truths we need agreement from ALL things. ALL = everything. Agreement from everything can only be gained from everything's perspective. Be able to look and see from everything's perspective is needed to understand this universal truth.

Or we could use Logic?

ken wrote:... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

yiostheoy wrote:

ken wrote:... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

Yes, I see it that way too.

We don´t know even what we can know for sure.
Truth is an ideal that is very difficult if not even impossible to achieve.

Can truth change ?
The distance between our understanding and the absolute truth can become shorter (but it could also be an illusion).

Shall we introduce the concept of a preliminary truth, temporary truth and imperfect truth ?

Only truth can know the truth.

T-rex's sister...

-Imp

Pardon ?

Truth is Tyranosaurus-Rex´s sister ?

Because the biggest bully with the biggest stick says what truth should be ?

There might be some truth in it, yes.

duszek wrote:

yiostheoy wrote: Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

Yes, I see it that way too.

We don´t know even what we can know for sure.
Truth is an ideal that is very difficult if not even impossible to achieve.

Can truth change ?
The distance between our understanding and the absolute truth can become shorter (but it could also be an illusion).

Shall we introduce the concept of a preliminary truth, temporary truth and imperfect truth ?

Like I have said, a conclusion or an utterance is either true, partly true, or false.

I make allowances for the prelim and temp "truths" with my "partly" category.

Determining truth is a trial and error process whether by Philosophy or by Empirical Science.

It is never easy.

"Changing truth" is what I consider "historical truth". Something can be true at one point in time but no longer true.

For example, the light from the Andromeda Galaxy takes 2.537 million years to reach the Earth.

Does Andromeda therefore still exist? We have no way of knowing unfortunately.

We can be sure it existed once at least 2.537 years ago. But we really have no idea what is out there right now.

duszek wrote:Pardon ?

Truth is Tyranosaurus-Rex´s sister ?

Because the biggest bully with the biggest stick says what truth should be ?

There might be some truth in it, yes.

That would be politically correct truth.

Or Royal Society truth.

Whatever the body politic decides by argumentum populum it wants truth to be.

Just ask Galileo.

duszek wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:

ken wrote:... I think it would be near impossible for everyone to agree on something that were not true, let alone if it was only most or many. I, for one, would not agree on nor believe in something that were not true.

Whether people agree on something or not has nothing to do with it being true or false.

This is the essence of the rule of argumentum populum.

Truth has nothing to do with what people think or believe.

Yes, I see it that way too.

We don´t know even what we can know for sure.
Truth is an ideal that is very difficult if not even impossible to achieve.

Can truth change ?
The distance between our understanding and the absolute truth can become shorter (but it could also be an illusion).

Shall we introduce the concept of a preliminary truth, temporary truth and imperfect truth ?

Empiricism started by the British Empiricists takes the existence of the Universe as a given whereas the extreme Skeptics deny we can know anything at all.

A little bit of skepticism is always a good thing, but an overdose is just like any other overdose which according to Hesiod in the 8th Century BCE is never a good thing. Hesiod said "moderation in all things -- never anything in excess." He was probably referring specifically to Greek wine. But it is a valid concept and applies to everything.