Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Fun. It's Geometry, That's Why. { ; ^ > )

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Whittier on December 2, 2003 19:16:55 UTC

Hi Paul,
I should have winked when I said that because I don't expect we will ever know the truth. But I'm curious. If we did some day know the truth, why would diverse opinions be essential?"

I suspect you know the answer to this already. However, "thanks for the straight line," (as we in the droll comedy biz said when we thought nobody was listening).

"The truth" is a concept which needs elaboration.
One aspect is that accuracy on a small point is
only "truth" if its invocation is not distorted by association with misrepresented context or other false facts.
In any larger truth, the presence of multiple points of view is necessary to acknowledge.
"That depends on whose ox is gored" was one way
to say this in olden times. The experience of a rainbow is another example. Where you see it depends on where you are. Its actual location is not the same for everyone. Nor is the meaning of Rush Limbaugh's advocacy. While he helps the fortunes of some, he harms the fortunes of others.
This is perhaps a difficult example since the parallel issue arises of whether he himself is telling the truth. But let us assume either he lies all the time or tells the truth all the time
as he perceives it.
There is still the issue of whether, not having worked with his hands at a construction trade or a repetitive manufacturing job, he can truly understand why laid off workers don't instantly become high rolling entrepeneurs or make their living as he does -- as an extremely highly-paid b.s. artist.
He probably has less insight into this than someone who worked on an assembly line or a building, yet he has part of the insight. We would almost have to admit that truth requires assembly every day with the fresh information, and that we normally do a very, very, very, very, very, very very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very partial job of assembling truth before declaring it.
Summary: The truth of a small matter is more likely to stay stable than the truth of a complex, dynamic matter. Multiple points of view which are held by metabolizing, individual life units, are one reason truth requires continual reassembly. Even in a colony organism such as a sea anenome, the individual units of a "group awareness matrix" experience separate times of death and a different sensation of the group's life experience than do other members of the group.
Am we getting through on this?

Warm regards,

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins