What is Truth?

What is truth?  Reflection for my own self clarification...

The question arises form how do we tell if something is true. Religions, all of them claim to be true, yet there is much that is mutually exclusive. We therefore need to separate being true from the claim. An objective test for truth would be ideal, but that is not likely; science is as close as it comes, the evidence said so, or it must be that way for x to happen, unless you have a better explanation for all the data. One negative negates. It takes many positives to confirm, until a better concept comes along. We ratchet toward facts and truth, in a similar way as we ratchet toward better designs.

It is the criteria that we judge a design by that we test against. But with designs, the criteria changes. Truth should be long lasting. We can make a Chretien type proof, if it is true it is because we have proof that it is true, then it is true because we have proof. Not helpful. It is all about criteria. 

When we here a statement perhaps it should be placed into abayence first, and then tested. Is it important? If yes, consider it more, if no, than ignore it or keep it in abayence. It does not matter. Back to important; does it conflict with present beliefs? That is the big sticker, for if it comes down to conflict/mutual exclusion/cognitive dissonance situation, most of the time the individual will stick with what they know, even if it is wrong. It is their loss.

If we start with the basic principal of equality, even the wrong have the right to believe wrong shit, even when it is damaging to themselves. Do they have the right to spread their misconceptions to others? In our current environment, yes. Philosophically, they should not have such a right. That is almost obvious. It is obvious that false information should not be spread to future generations. That is one reason why it is important to come to know the truth. The big issue is how do we test for truth?

Traditionally, we have accepted historical/cultural norms, but when these norms become mutually exclusive, one or both is just wrong. We are left with levering off some principal, or random generation/test for best against some criteria, or we can take a new look at the evidence.

When we place this argument in front of the religious, they usually walk off in a huff. Oh well. Shunning has long been a religious practice, mainly to protect the group. There was no concern for the out of group people. No understanding, no compassion, no contact. But government cannot do that, for the disenfranchised and never were franchised still live here, and must be cared fore, else they band together and rise up and smite a might blow on the government. Sorry, but you get the drift. We, the shunned, also have voice. If those about us do not change, we can move on to a new group... well until we run out of people.

Philosophy does not provide answers but it frequently changes the questions, or moves the discussion along. We should not teach the young wrong stuff, so we must examine what we teach, and teach the questions along with the possible choices. Teachers do not like those who question too much, so philosophy is not taught in schools. It should be taught in high school; logic in 10, ethics in 11, epistemology in 12. But life goes on. It is done. Hail all.