How do you decide what you call "True"?

[ygolo]

I haven't really thought about the exceptions yet to how I view things. For the example of information learned from people, I tend to view things like science data, dates, addresses, etc. as trustable.

I used to do this also, but I have found that some people are actually prone to making things up for no reason at all, and almost everyone will make-up )or "vaguely remember") stuff to back up their other viewponts.

Political information, or information that has direct benifits that might encourage people to fudge it, I tend to take with a partial grain of salt, unless I hear it from a number of different sources, where I take it with less of a grain of salt. Information that I have no need to act on, or is outside any way to directly test, I tend to not view as true or untrue, I simply build up information and have an opinion ot fall back on if I need to decide what I think about the information.

Sometimes I think, that the multiple sources that I get things from are all parroting the same fabricated or planted story. This is particularily true if the words chosen are the same in many sources.

Consider the Christian Trilemma

 

[Zergling]

Sometimes I think, that the multiple sources that I get things from are all parroting the same fabricated or planted story. This is particularily true if the words chosen are the same in many sources.

This is why it has to be a bunch of different kinds of sources that agree in something to reduce the doubts. The different kinds could be different political views, people with different interests, etc.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I look for ideas that I can form as some sort of assumption or axiom. I tend to assume that all of these are true even if some are contradictory. Then I study, observe, etc... and assign weights and/or probabilities to these fundamental ideas. So I might tell someone that I think A is true, but I really might think that A has a 90% chance of being true and the opposite of A has a 10% chance of being true.

Then I try to see how the assumptions fit together and what kinds of conclusions that I can draw from logically combining the various axioms that I hold. So sometimes I might even develop logical frameworks for two contradictory concepts and compare the frameworks to see where the logical conclusion of each leads. All the while I am constantly looking for more refined axioms and questioning my own thinking on things to revise and strengthen my viewpoints on various things.

 

[Athenian200]

I am asking from a day-to-day, minute-to-minute decision making, how do you decide what you consider "true" (in practical, theoretical, or sptitual matters)?

Usually, cross-referencing different books and websites on the same issue to verify what is conventional. Also, occasionally I develop these small axioms by which I decide things outside of convention. I try to limit these, of course.

How do time constraints on those decisions effect your desicions in this matter?

I would probably just go with my first instinct, then, and make assumptions about what was potentially true based on what was false, and what was impossible, and then choose the most likely of the remaining possibilities.

How would you like to improve your day-to-day desicion making process about what is true?

Not sure. Perhaps I'd like it to be faster, more accurate, more efficient?

 

[Sahara]

I am curious what set answers we will get from this question.

Note, I am nat asking the the more static "What is truth?" question.

I am asking from a day-to-day, minute-to-minute decision making, how do you decide what you consider "true" (in practical, theoretical, or sptitual matters)?

How do time constraints on those decisions effect your desicions in this matter?

How would you like to improve your day-to-day desicion making process about what is true?

My feelings influence what I believe is true the most, no matter how much logic, facts, or opinions I get, they are all fed through my feelings to decide what's true or not. (terrible but hey, that's me)

I prefer being under pressure when making a decision, the longer you give me to make a decision, the longer it will be mixed up with my feelings and the less likely I am to decide one way or another.

 

[Geoff]

My feelings influence what I believe is true the most, no matter how much logic, facts, or opinions I get, they are all fed through my feelings to decide what's true or not. (terrible but hey, that's me)

I prefer being under pressure when making a decision, the longer you give me to make a decision, the longer it will be mixed up with my feelings and the less likely I am to decide one way or another.

Yeah I am midway between this and using logic. It's a combination of gut feeling, instinct, intuition type stuff, with emotional processing, and an overlay of detachment. No wonder I don't like "closing" on a decision.

Pressure helps, yes.

-Geoff

 

[ygolo]

Yeah I am midway between this and using logic. It's a combination of gut feeling, instinct, intuition type stuff, with emotional processing, and an overlay of detachment. No wonder I don't like "closing" on a decision.

Pressure helps, yes.

-Geoff

I think cosidering feelings (others as well as your own) are an important part of decision making.

A little excursion into "what is truth?"...

I think it is useful to think of three categories.

1. Subjective:Experiences/perceptions specific only to particular subjects with respect to an event.
2. Subject-Independent-Object-Specific:Characteristics of phenemenon experieced by all subjects that experienced the event (which I will call the "object").
3. Subject-independent-Object-Non-Specific:Repeatable pheneomenon that can be experienced independent of subject and on multiple objects.

These are fuzzy categories.

Anyway....

I think there are certain people who are keenly aware of 1). to the point that they can even accurately speculate what others are experiencing (I am not one of them).

This allows to undertand aspects of what is "true" that can be very useful spiritually, practically, and even theoretically.

I think most of these people would be some sort of F in MBTI, because ultimately, it is what is "felt" that defines this aspect of reality.

 

[reason]

The most important question of philosophy: when is a theory problematic?

(note: I use the word 'theory' to mean any belief, position, hypothesis, theory, proposition, axiom, presupposition, assumption, idea, notion, concept, etc.)

 

[ygolo]

The most important question of philosophy: when is a theory problematic?

(note: I use the word 'theory' to mean any belief, position, hypothesis, theory, proposition, axiom, presupposition, assumption, idea, notion, concept, etc.)

As concisely as posible, what is(are) philosophy's current best answer(s) to this question?

 

[reason]

As concisely as posible, what is(are) philosophy's current best answer(s) to this question?

I am interested in your answer, and anyone else who would like to respond.

 

[ygolo]

I am interested in your answer, and anyone else who would like to respond.

When it doesn't "work".

I'm guessing you won't let me get away with that sleight of hand.

But what "works" is very situation specific. If a theory yeilds enough information to solve the problems I am interested in, then it is good enough.

In fact, my training guides me to pick the "simplest" models that could possibly work, and if I they yeild invalid results, then I go back and revise.

I am also now saying that theories should be "Design-Oriented", in that they should be constructed to help make decsions.

I just recently got some CDs from ardem associates to help me with my work as a circuit designer, and I have to say it is money well spent.

I will vote for R.D. Middlebrook for the best Electrical Engineering Theorist of all time. He is the Don Knuth of E.E.s.