Author
|
Topic: My Methodology For Determining Truth (Read 768 times) |
|
d r i f t
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 15
Reputation: 5.41
Rate d r i f t
|
 |
My Methodology For Determining Truth
« on: 2005-01-25 23:09:25 » |
 |
As I see it, It's at the heart of the question What is truth?. My own work and thoughts more at how to know what is truth. or
My Methodology For Finding Truth
Many can't seem to agree on what is true, politely or otherwise. I think that It's a matter of how the brain works and I'm talking about the mental enviroment. We operate from different point of views because we have made different assumptions about the world, reality, the truth, etcetera.
Assumptions ( axoims ) are those fundamental constructs formed in the mind from our individually accepted beliefs, memories, associations, and how they manage incoming information to our awareness of the external world.
This agrees with Jagella statement about rejecting external information as truth.
Finding Truth
If some truth is available that conflicts with your current assumptions it will be rejected unless you can form an assumption that will allow competing ideas through the axiom shield . I call it this for purpose of argument in the sense that we all have this shield by natural process, as a defense mechanism to changing established beliefs, associations and the way we view our memories. Like a mental shield to deflect competing ideas, thoughts, etcetera.
What makes this difficult in the beginning is reflective in the sense that "what you see is what you get", most don't realize the effect this axiom shield has on keeping your assumptions intact. Better yet, " you are what you eat ". So whatever assumptions you've " eaten " as true you will keep unless keeping bad assumptions comes to a point of 'painful realization' that you are wrong. Keeping a bad assumption can come to a point where it's actually to painful to ignore how wrong it is.
Also keep in mind that this process can be disorienting because it's possible to upset how you've looked at things (memories, associations and beliefs) your entire life. Many run back to the old assumptions because it's too upsetting to admit you were wrong your entire lifetime. It's this fear that keep many from moving past what they've been taught from childhood is the only way of looking at the world. The truth.
The Basics of Finding Truth
My basic assumption which has proven very useful in regards to letting truths in through my axiom shield is an open minded axiom. Followed by another basic assumption.
Open Minded Axiom.
I might be wrong. If I find another assumption that is in conflict with my current world view. I need to allow it to see if its proves more factual or truthful than my current assumptions.
Which Assumption Jibes With Reality
Which view is closer to being the case? Test the assumption (axiom), which requires an ability to suspend my disbelief, question my memories, and associations or simply my judgement as to whether something is true, false, or just plain bullshit, or can I conclude from what my current assumption(s) are, that It's true for a moment and see how it would work out logically or using my current set of skills to determine whether something is the case, IOW does it jibe with reality?.
Problem of Absolutes and Certainty
Absolutely I can't prove anything. Not even a word of what I've said here, but what I can do Is show you how through this post If you so choose. The way to allow competing assumptions through your brick head and mine and anyones who wants a technique or skill to challenge everything you have eaten your entire life. Trusting ones modus in an uncertain world can be too much for many to move beyond the most basic assumptions they've made in life.
Tread Lightly
Fear as I see it is the greatest enemy to the truth. So what If everything I've ever believed is wrong, better than staying wrong. This is why I would also like to help others, before a painful awareness that they are wrong, occurs. Being able to change the way you see the world is very natural if you have grown up some, and learned to question your way of looking at the world. This method is good because it doesn't make you wait for painful forced awarness of being wrong. It allows you to test your assumptions and follow them to their logical conclusions.
Which for this matter all of everything I've written in this post Is of course the product of my assumptions. I have chosen to agree with what is true. I can't really prove anything to someone who is being unreasonable and vice versa.
That's why I like philosophy because as I see it a philosopher by necessity is one who has learned to allow competing ideas, to test them according to his good sense, in a reasonable manner befitting a philosopher. Then possibly to pass this judgement on for the polite questions, comments, or rebuttals of other reasonable men.
- d r i f t
|
χαρακτηρ
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #1 on: 2005-01-26 15:53:11 » |
|
This reminds me of a recurring topic on here, Pancritical Rationalism (PCR). My personal iteration . . . All representations remain in principle subject to rational criticism. Others would call it fundamental fallibalism. In some it raises a tension between intellectual curiosity and a need for certainty. It underlies some of the discussion that led up to the CoV choosing Dogmatism as a sin rather than Faith. I think Dogmatism would reflect that clinging which causes pain, although I think it starts long before this point is reached. I would think a strong appetite for hypocrisy would move such dogmatic behavior into the realm of painful.
Interesting thoughts.
Thanks,
-Jake
Quote from: d r i f t on 2005-01-25 23:09:25
As I see it, It's at the heart of the question What is truth?. My own work and thoughts more at how to know what is truth. or
My Methodology For Finding Truth
Many can't seem to agree on what is true, politely or otherwise. I think that It's a matter of how the brain works and I'm talking about the mental enviroment. We operate from different point of views because we have made different assumptions about the world, reality, the truth, etcetera.
Assumptions ( axoims ) are those fundamental constructs formed in the mind from our individually accepted beliefs, memories, associations, and how they manage incoming information to our awareness of the external world.
This agrees with Jagella statement about rejecting external information as truth.
Finding Truth
If some truth is available that conflicts with your current assumptions it will be rejected unless you can form an assumption that will allow competing ideas through the axiom shield . I call it this for purpose of argument in the sense that we all have this shield by natural process, as a defense mechanism to changing established beliefs, associations and the way we view our memories. Like a mental shield to deflect competing ideas, thoughts, etcetera.
What makes this difficult in the beginning is reflective in the sense that "what you see is what you get", most don't realize the effect this axiom shield has on keeping your assumptions intact. Better yet, " you are what you eat ". So whatever assumptions you've " eaten " as true you will keep unless keeping bad assumptions comes to a point of 'painful realization' that you are wrong. Keeping a bad assumption can come to a point where it's actually to painful to ignore how wrong it is.
Also keep in mind that this process can be disorienting because it's possible to upset how you've looked at things (memories, associations and beliefs) your entire life. Many run back to the old assumptions because it's too upsetting to admit you were wrong your entire lifetime. It's this fear that keep many from moving past what they've been taught from childhood is the only way of looking at the world. The truth.
The Basics of Finding Truth
My basic assumption which has proven very useful in regards to letting truths in through my axiom shield is an open minded axiom. Followed by another basic assumption.
Open Minded Axiom.
I might be wrong. If I find another assumption that is in conflict with my current world view. I need to allow it to see if its proves more factual or truthful than my current assumptions.
Which Assumption Jibes With Reality
Which view is closer to being the case? Test the assumption (axiom), which requires an ability to suspend my disbelief, question my memories, and associations or simply my judgement as to whether something is true, false, or just plain bullshit, or can I conclude from what my current assumption(s) are, that It's true for a moment and see how it would work out logically or using my current set of skills to determine whether something is the case, IOW does it jibe with reality?.
Problem of Absolutes and Certainty
Absolutely I can't prove anything. Not even a word of what I've said here, but what I can do Is show you how through this post If you so choose. The way to allow competing assumptions through your brick head and mine and anyones who wants a technique or skill to challenge everything you have eaten your entire life. Trusting ones modus in an uncertain world can be too much for many to move beyond the most basic assumptions they've made in life.
Tread Lightly
Fear as I see it is the greatest enemy to the truth. So what If everything I've ever believed is wrong, better than staying wrong. This is why I would also like to help others, before a painful awareness that they are wrong, occurs. Being able to change the way you see the world is very natural if you have grown up some, and learned to question your way of looking at the world. This method is good because it doesn't make you wait for painful forced awarness of being wrong. It allows you to test your assumptions and follow them to their logical conclusions.
Which for this matter all of everything I've written in this post Is of course the product of my assumptions. I have chosen to agree with what is true. I can't really prove anything to someone who is being unreasonable and vice versa.
That's why I like philosophy because as I see it a philosopher by necessity is one who has learned to allow competing ideas, to test them according to his good sense, in a reasonable manner befitting a philosopher. Then possibly to pass this judgement on for the polite questions, comments, or rebuttals of other reasonable men.
- d r i f t
|
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
d r i f t
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 15
Reputation: 5.41
Rate d r i f t
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #2 on: 2005-01-27 19:45:54 » |
|
Quote from: Jake Sapiens on 2005-01-26 15:53:11 This reminds me of a recurring topic on here, Pancritical Rationalism (PCR). My personal iteration . . . All representations remain in principle subject to rational criticism. Others would call it fundamental fallibalism. In some it raises a tension between intellectual curiosity and a need for certainty. It underlies some of the discussion that led up to the CoV choosing Dogmatism as a sin rather than Faith. I think Dogmatism would reflect that clinging which causes pain, although I think it starts long before this point is reached. I would think a strong appetite for hypocrisy would move such dogmatic behavior into the realm of painful.
Interesting thoughts.
Thanks,
-Jake
|
Thanks for the feedback I posted this in response to a method for determining truth on another board. It has been a useful method where I've worked to build a more realistic worldview.
I found another post here just a moment ago, The Cowardice of One’s Convictions: Cognitive Dissonance Theory in a Nutshell by LenKen
This goes hand in hand with what I represented as an "axiom shield". I didn't know this is what it's called. But, people do tend to reject conflicting axioms without even realizing it. Maybe it's good to pay attention to what you ignore or avoid, if that is even a way of expressing my meaning here?
Isn't it ironic if I can understand your meaning correctly in your response that people will (cling) continue to fight feverishly to keep assumptions that they have never examined rationally.
Here's a humourous example I just thought up;
It's not much different than a person being told that they can walk on water now because they bought and took a walk on water pill. They buy a large stock of these pills, then go about selling these pills to their friends, neighbors and anyone else that will listen to them. Without going to the pond to test the claim?
Yet, when the friends, neighbors, and all others that tried it out (tested it) can't get the pills to work, this person replies you have to believe and then they work!
What's not humourous is the mental enviroment that allows such nonsense to spread and continue to be sold to whoever is gullible enough to buy it.
This is why I try to test my assumptions best I can so I wind up believing the least amount of nonsense as the truth. IOW Realistic worldview vs. irrational dissonance.
- drift
|
χαρακτηρ
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
  
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #3 on: 2005-02-02 09:55:26 » |
|
Do you think that the axiom shield can be broken?, For example, a tragic incident. I would seem pesimistic because of what I have experienced through arguments with many believers, it would seem rather hopeless when it gets to a certain age. I believe that through your childhood and teenage years your brain is gathering information, you can break that axiom shield here, because it is not yet truly formed, an apply the exact method which you proposed which I totally agree with. But once you grow, your mind stands and conforms with the information gathered, and decides to stop gathering and put the information into practice, the axiom shield strenghtens to a point comparable to mythril. In that stage, only something tragic in the broader sense of the word can tear the axiom shield, otherwise I find it very, very rare for a person to change their point of views, as ridiculous an unfounded as they can be. I am still having trouble convincing an idiot, in every sense of the word, who is 23 years of age that Jesus Christ did not write the bible (she claims that he wrote the old testament as well). No historical fact, no scientific or logical study can convince her otherwise.
But if the world would raise their children to understand truth in the way proposed in the latter, many things would be different for the best. I am lucky to, even though raised as a catholic, they always allowed my mind to sherish, thus I, curious, gathering knowledge about how true was that a god created me, came to the opinion that...it was all probably bullshit!
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
d r i f t
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 15
Reputation: 5.41
Rate d r i f t
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #4 on: 2005-02-02 22:21:32 » |
|
Quote from: knives on 2005-02-02 09:55:26
Do you think that the axiom shield can be broken?
|
I would also like to know the answer to this question myself. I'm working on something now that maybe has some potential but I haven't really tested it and am still gathering information on it.
Thanks for replying because this got me to thinking about how I came up with the term "axiom shield" so I looked it up on google and found that I may be the only one to use it? As far as that which gets googled.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22axiom+shield%22
Because it refers me right back to my post on this site?
That's cool I don't think I've ever coined a term before. Maybe a good meme since it makes cognitive dissonance more visceral as a protection against contradictory beliefs.
From what I'm gathering there is more to cognitive dissonance than just blocking what contradicts accepted axioms, but this is more at what I'm trying to get at.
To get others to let their shield down enough to see whats right in front of them. Something to at least examine to see if it's better than what they are clinging to.
Anyways it would be great to be able to have a reasonable argument that didn't fall on deaf ears. I think those shields have the power to mix up words and scramble information into unintelligible jibberish that must be blocked with the greatest strength one can muster.
Not that I'm one to talk I have my pet notions that I hold onto in the face of overwhelming evidence myself. But If nothing else I can honestly say that sometimes I really try to see the truth regarding many things, and when I don't I try to at least admit I'm wrong.
Thanks again knives, go for it with trying to reason with your "idiot friend" and try not to get discouraged maybe look at it from the perspective more at what your trying to learn by working with her and not as much against her. In other words you have something to learn too, how to break down her axiom shield to at least look at your point of view.
In your case, if I can advise you any that is? Best I've found is to acknowledge her view, even though it may seem ridiculous to you. Since if you agree to hear her out, and think over what she says; then when she has made her case. Once you've heard what she has to say, then maybe she will kindly listen to you case.
Maybe it will work I've had some success in the past this way by not being so quick to object. When I have instead just ranted "bullshit" to someone else's argument it never really seemed to get very far. Maybe trying to understand where these notions come from, the other person may instinctively feels some obligation to actually try and listen to your point of view, and at least consider it.
There may be some good strategies right here on the site, but I've somehow blocked them or just not got around to them yet? But if I find a good way to have "the opposition" and I mean that "lightly" to hear me out. Then that's certainly a good start I would think. Tough to avoid that utism.
 - d r i f t
|
χαρακτηρ
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #5 on: 2005-02-13 00:46:50 » |
|
Thanks for your support man, and indeed I think you just quoted something new. The reason why I can relate to your proposition is because I was once a catholic, and I manage to brake that "axiom shield" and see the world for what it really is or can be. In future writings I want to use that term, but don't worry, I will make sure I'll credit the rightful owner of it.
At first I to, have some trouble handling diferent ideas than those I use to yield but it's always the matter of acquiring all the information I can about the subject in order to make my own conclusion.
As for my "idiot friend", she's a very cute girl, I never mind using correct terms to describe people, but is really not her fault. In this case I have to think like the classic greeks, "sophrosyne", I mean, even if they say such stupid affirmations I should control my emotions and try to allow and not make her understand. I am still looking for a way but in her case I still feel it is to late, something more than tragic would have to happen to, let's say her lose her faith and even then, I wouldn't consider her an atheist, they don't follow his rules anymore because they hate him because of being the cause of that tragic incident. Unless I can topple myself with a way, which that "way" depends on the person and the attitude he was taught to take on that kind of situation, I think, my intelectual friend, the future lies only in our and their children, best of luck to our descendants, we'll do the best we can.
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #6 on: 2005-03-07 15:36:28 » |
|
I discussed this topic with a friend of mine and he brought up a good point we musn't overlook. My pesimism does not come from the fact that the axiom shield can not be broken after a certain age, at least not esentially, but in todays society we might speak with reason to someone blinded, but afterwards, the get literally bombarded with every form of comunication defending and undoing everything we as one just acomplished.
For example, I might talk to my friend wisely about god's existence, the need to believe in god through mankind's history etc. but right after the conversation is over, she was left speechless by my coments, she turns on the tv and their is a person thanking the almighty for his grace, then she goes to the radio, a magazine, even the politicians, all the same. That is why it becomes practically imposible for me to open her mind when it keeps being shut right after I'm done talking to her.
Unfortunately, we have to change the whole system, infect it from within we can say. Bombard them with reason the same way they are currently bombarded with one-sided truths.
On a separate note, the other day I was watching a remake of a movie called Spartacus, in the special features their was an option called MPAA responds. It was actually a copy of a letter sent to the studio that produced the movie back in the 60's. MPAA banned the ending because it showed "graphic" images of spartacus crucifed. They also complained of a way that a hanging dead slave was portrayed in a specific scene in which he was put there to repress any insurrection like his from the other slaves. The use of the word damned, and god dam was strongly prohibited, but the one that kept being repeated was that certain scenes depicted an "assumption" like they called it to the Roman consul Cassius being bisexual. They even banned a scene in which Cassius returned a touch from the slave he was having the "bisexual" innuendos. I mean, this goes to show you that what we believe in has to be thoroughly checked before categorizing anything as truth, for truth can easily be manipulated in huge quantities.
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
d r i f t
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 15
Reputation: 5.41
Rate d r i f t
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #7 on: 2005-03-20 01:23:34 » |
|
Well, I'm not sure on the convincing part. But, if you take it slow and keeping your conversations reasonable the seeds of reason might be sown.
It's a helluva ways from being a believer in such to not so. I'm thinking now towards not even debating religion or such for a while now.
Instead focusing more on how to know, instead of what to know. This has lead me towards critical thinking.
I've always enjoyed researching ideas and such on the web and now it's helping me get the 411 on critical thinking and epistemology.
For some reason I've hit the wall on beliefs and am just poking holes in my own theories about them. So a break from it maybe necessary, seems sort of lazy on my part to ask others to explain it simply, when fact is, if all of this was simple I'd be done with understanding it all years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking into critical thinking now. Lucifer mentioned to me earlier about a method for critical thinking.
I've become somewhat of a fan of the skepdic.com site with the work of robert carroll and am looking into the introductory text at this time for critical thinking.
It's unusal that it admits upfront and in a convincing way that critical thinking and arguments which conform to using a critical method are not all that persuasive.
Politicians, advertisers, and the likes will not and probably will never succeed by using critical reasoning. But, it does seem to offer many advantages in the way of producing good reasoning for maintaining assumptions and conclusions that have the weight of a system with a rational approach.
My methodology is unpolished and in some ways probably irrational enough to be more convincing than an well thought out mode of thinking.
Yet, the advantages of being able to think critically seem likely to separate you or me and anyone else who'll do the work involved, from the herd, the pack of unthinking sheep. To use some analogies in favor of such.
The malfits it seems is that it can be borish and seem dry to those who don't want the edge it might be able to give a person for the work involved.
But bar none this one idea has got me hooked i would suppose, in something mentioned in this text and I tend to agree with it.
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/haskins.pdf
excerpt from page 1
" Just because you are intelligent or have great knowledge does not mean you can think critically. A profound genius may have the most irrational of beliefs or the most unreasonable of opinions. Critical thinking is about how we use our intelligence and knowledge to reach objective and rationale viewpoints."
and it goes on from there. Just an introduction and short and possibly useful text made available for free on the net.
Interestingly enough it seems that my random method I worked up runs in concert with the most basic ideas of testing assumptions and being open-minded. But it goes much further in addressing the hinderences of being rational, most given us due to our own natural proclivities; it also explains that a balance has to strike between being skeptical and open-minded, or one is sure to be caught in a pitfall of reasoning hell.- heh My own words.
I also like how it addressed in this work, that being critical doesn't take away your individuality, you don't become a robot spitting out your computational wizardry. Your still the all encompassing you that you'll always be, just with a new edge. I like it!
Interesting, but possibly a lot of work to develop the skills necessary to integrate this advantage into the hum drum of everyday life, and to encourage others to adopt the skills necessary to do the same.
in reason - d r i f t
|
χαρακτηρ
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
|
|
Re:My Methodology For Determining Truth
« Reply #8 on: 2005-04-04 11:10:24 » |
|
I just wrote an essay regarding that purpose. It is not to convince (I correct myself) but show them how to truly know something. I posted the essay on a separate topic but it was written in spanish so you have to wait for the translation. Yet it basically corresponds to the differences in considering something real, and truth. What is the difference between them and the importance of them both.
I have matured enough into understanding that, in this type of conversation, where I am argumenting with a believer, I shouldn't even talk about religion. Now, I even talk like I am a believer. There are so many contradictions in their faith and that is where I attack sort to speak.
I also agree, a believer can have a sense of reason and analisis higher than an atheist. It is not the belief, it is not the ideal, is your conviction towards it, who has the more elaborated and resourceful axiom shield. Yet, when you drag the chain of faith with you, you can only get so far, you can not cross some boundaries non believers can. So with a believer you can only do so much, and this is determined by their convictions towards that belief, the extent of their faith.
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
|
Logged
