What is "Truth"?

Yes the 100% truth now is a complete falsehood.Why because we found other truth that make this one irrelevant and untrue

Astronomers estimate that there are at least 70,000 icy objects, with the same composition as Pluto, that measure 100 km across or more in the Kuiper Belt. And according to the new rules, Pluto is not a planet. It’s just another Kuiper Belt object.

This is a fine example on how truth is nothing but a product of fact

And fact is based on our perception of things. perception is reality; and our perception changes with newly aquired knowledge

There are more thing that we don't know than we know.

So it's possible our current "truth" is sadly mistaken

 

nope. you are confused. It is 100% true that pluto was a planet (according to the old definition of a planet). It's also 100% true that pluto is not a planet (according to the new definition of a planet). It all depends on your definition of planet.

truth and fact are the same thing. A fact is simply something that is true.

It is both true and a fact that pluto is a planet according to the old definition. It is also both true and a fact that pluto is a planet according to the new definition.

 

Is pluto a planet? Yes or no?

No? I thought so

Was it a planet at one point? Yes?

Right now pluto being a planet is untrue. And what it was before is completely irrelevant.

Things change with time.

I can name many things that was once one thing and became the other over the course of time.

Here a truth that existed in various places throughout the world.

Eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth.

If someone kills your family, then you will kill their whole family.

This was the law if the ancient world.And if you don't exact revenge you will be a coward.

This was considered the right thing to do

Now that the laws change do we say that killing someone's family because they killed yours in both right and wrong simply because it was right at one point in time?

Have fun arguing that in court

Pluto being a planet was at one time right. Now it's wrong.

scientist did further study and based on the results realised the all along they have been wrong

Never would people call pluto a proper planet.

It's like thinking the world is flat

According to your logic the world is both flat and round.

Just because pluto being a planet is based on wrong assumptions doesnt mean that once those wrong assumptions are corrected based on proper study does it still can be considered something it's not

Pluto was never a planet. It was just wrongly lebeled

The current explanation of a planet is all that matters. Previous explanations are irrelevant.

According to the explanation we hove now; pluto doesn't fit the criteria of a planet. Nor had it ever fit this criteria in the past


New scientific fact override old ones.

And fact just like truth could be wrong


It's you who is confused. You misinterpreted truth to be fact

 

Stole this
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth


A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are. Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts.

 

Except for one factor that is not included in your presentation. Belief.

If one does not believe something to be either a fact or a truth, then to that person, neither the 'fact' nor the 'truth' exists within the subject under consideration.

 

Yep, that is true. And if one who thinks like that becomes a danger to themselves or others. They get put away.

 

And if one thinks like that and does not become a danger to him or her self or others, then what?

 

dairyair: I am still waiting to see your resonse.

 

you're not making sense. You're assuming that the definition of a "planet" is some objective truth, when in reality, there's nothing objective about the definition of a planet. A planet can be defined as whatever we want it to be defined. Tomorrow, someone could easily change the definition of a planet, and boom -pluto would be a planet again.Back then, a planet had one definition, and so pluto was a planet. That's a true statement. And it's a fact. Today, the definition of a planet has changed. And so pluto is not a planet according to the new definition, but is a planet according to the old definition. Just depends on which definition you want for the term "planet" and that's largely subjective. These are all facts/truths.

 

that makes no sense. There is no logical difference between "fire is hot" and "god exists". Both are statements about the world, and both are either correct or incorrect. Fire is either hot or it is cold. God either exists or god does not exist. There is nothing "fluid" about either statement. There may be uncertainty about whether god exists or not. But at one point, there was also uncertainty about whether fire was hot or not (imagine when mankind encountered fire for the first time, and didn't know whether it was hot or cold).

A fact and a truth are the same thing. They are synonyms.

 

that's wrong. Belief has nothing to do with whether something is a fact or true. Just because a certain person believes something to be true, does not make it true. If that person believes something is true, then that person may think that his belief is a fact. But if that belief isn't really true, then the belief isn't really a fact (because truth and fact are the same thing). Instead, it would be a falsehood that was masquerading as fact (within that person's mind).

 

Then who gives a rats patooty. Let them live their life of grandeur.

 

Well, just perhaps them living their life of grandeur might have some negative effect on others. Don't you honestly care about those who are not living a life of grandeur?

 

Humans only perceive reality through 5 senses made up of nerve cells and neural networks. So for us, 'reality' is perception. 'Truth' is really agreements among human beings about those perceptions along with 'hard wired' truths within genetic codes.

 

What are "hard wired truths"? Can you hire an electrician to alter that wiring? Can you show PROOF that this alleged 'hard wired' thingy is real? Another sense that you seem to have overlooked is the 'intuition'. Even Einstein favored the use of that sense.

 

I was talking about the BASIC senses. The ones we are hard wired to receive and analyze.

 

Then you do not dispute the existence of 'intuition' nor that the intuition is something that is naturally occurring within a man/woman/child? It being a natural occurring event in man why do you not incorporate it in that list of senses?

 

I dont understand anything of what you mean..

Truth to me is that there was no such thing as the son of god and there was no God

 

What? Are you bored or just confused. Or just your usual trolling due to boredom.
Pick a point and stick with it. Is the person harmful to themselves or another or not? If not, the let them live in their fantasy world.

 

My interest is always spurred to new heights when dealing with you dairyair. Boredom has no place therein. Neither does confusion. You previously stated a concern for a group of people based on the actions or beliefs of another group. Your conclusion was that as long as no harm was done then the suspect group could live in a life of grandeur. I then questioned you what if that life of grandeur had a negative impact on the other group, and now you are wanting to suggest that I am confused. You did not even address the question in your above response. Please give it a try.

 

Trolling. Got it. I stated what should happen if harm comes to them or someone else.

 

But yours was under a different set of conditions,,, that is why I made the second inquiry depicting another scenario. Now when I ask you about your suggested solution "let them live in" their grandeur potentially creating a problem for the others, you want to accuse me of trolling? Your suggestion does not provide an absolute remedy to the problem.

 

Yes. Because I stated what should happen if they are a harm to others. So you're still trolling.
Where are my conditions different?

 

When I asked you about them having such beliefs and not causing any harm, you said that they could live in their grandeur life style (or words to that effect).. Then I challenged you by saying what if that grandeur life style should create a harm for those not living in that grandeur life style. In other words you gave the believer group permission to live in a grandeur lifestyle without creating any parameters governing that grandeur lifestyle. Wouldn't the 'grandeur lifestyle' be creating a class distinction which through history of man has been shown to create clashes and wars?

 

Intuition is a perception just like reality.