Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

[Firemorphic]

When there is "evidence" for a "thing" what does it mean for the status of that "thing"?



(note my use of quotation marks)

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

When there is "evidence" for a "thing" what does it mean for the status of that "thing"?

Depending on the quality of the evidence, it means that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads is, at the very least, likely to be partially correct. The greater the quality and quantity of evidence, the more likely that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads reflects and can be observed in reality; and the more clear the model becomes.

Sutori

 

[Firemorphic]

Depending on the quality of the evidence, it means that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads is, at the very least, likely to be partially correct. The greater the quality and quantity of evidence, the more likely that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads reflects and can be observed in reality; and the more clear the model becomes.

Sutori

Ok let me rephrase my question, since you didn't get it.

For a thing to have "evidence" then what does that mean for it's state of said things existence?

Similarly, for a thing to be a "thing" (or "a thing"), what does this mean for it's state of existence?


These are deceptively simple questions that mean a lot more than you probably realize.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You'll have to connect the dots for me.

 

[PureX]

Depending on the quality of the evidence, it means that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads is, at the very least, likely to be partially correct. The greater the quality and quantity of evidence, the more likely that the model of the thing we have formed in our heads reflects and can be observed in reality; and the more clear the model becomes.

But our model is based entirely on our functional experience; more specifically, on how well it 'fits into', our already preconceived idea of what is real according to what works within our limited perspective. And so, then, is our presumption of 'the truth'. But our perspective could easily be SO limited as to deny us any sort of accurate perception of 'the truth'. And it may be so limited that it actually gives us a distinctly false perception of what is true and what is not.

The point being that you are assuming that more evidence (more relative factoids) = more clarity regarding the truth of 'what is'. When, in fact, this is not a logical presumption. It s not logically possible to assess relative truthfulness (one factoid being true relative to another or other factoids) in relation to the whole truth, because we don't know how much is missing (we don't know the extent of the unknown because it is unknown), or how significantly the unknown would change what we think is true, now, if we could know it.

Sorry, but this axiom of pursuing truth through the accumulation of evidence is delusional. All we can pursue and gain in that manner is an assessment of relative functionality. And in fact, that's all we ever get from it. Relative functionality is fine, and is certainly helpful to us, but we are fools if we think it equates to 'the truth' of what is. And a LOT of us, these days, are thinking and believing exactly that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But our model is based entirely on our functional experience; more specifically, on how well it 'fits into', our already preconceived idea of what is real according to what works within our limited perspective.

I disagree.

I go back to my favorite references: Aether and Infinite Universe. These fit well within our preconceived notions of what "was" and based on our limited perspective (i.e. evidence). Further evidence, however, shattered these preconceived notions.

Further this with the evolution of our model of that atom; how it changed over time.

Now, if you are speaking about people who use selection bias (ie this evidence fits what I want it to fit, so this is the evidence I accept and reject that which does not), then you have a point. But that is a logical fallacy.

And so, then, is our presumption of 'the truth'.

I shy away from the words "the truth" as I sense it has philosophical connotations in the current discussion, so I would need your definition of "truth" as you are currently using it to respond.

And it may be so limited that it actually gives us a distinctly false perception of what is true and what is not.

Of course. This is called "bias". But bias can be undermined through several methods.

The point being that you are assuming that more evidence (more relative factoids) = more clarity regarding the truth of 'what is'. When, in fact, this is not a logical presumption.

It is not a logical assumption when logical fallacies are used in evaluating the evidence. When logical fallacies (such as bias) are minimized, then the presumption is logical because the process is logical.

It s not logically possible to assess relative truthfulness (one factoid being true relative to another or other factoids) in relation to the whole truth, because we don't know how much is missing (we don't know the extent of the unknown because it is unknown), or how significantly the unknown would change what we think is true, now, if we could know it.

See, here is where we come to the word above: "Truth". I agree that there are factoids missing, etc. But as we progress, the missing factoids diminish and our understanding (model) becomes more clear.

T-Rex was covered in feathers, regardless of earlier depictions! How cool is that!?

All we can pursue and gain in that manner is an assessment of relative functionality. And in fact, that's all we ever get from it.

See above.

Relative functionality is fine, and is certainly helpful to us, but we are fools if we think it equates to 'the truth' of what is.

I shy away from the words "the truth" as I sense it has philosophical connotations in the current discussion, so I would need your definition of "truth" as you are currently using it to respond.

 

[PureX]

I disagree.

I go back to my favorite references: Aether and Infinite Universe. These fit well within our preconceived notions of what "was" and based on our limited perspective (i.e. evidence). Further evidence, however, shattered these preconceived notions.

For it to have been considered evidence, it had to fit into our criteria for what constitutes evidence. I'm not saying we can't learn new things. I'm saying that what we can learn has to jive with what we think we already know. And that is a big bias/limitation.

I shy away from the words "the truth" as I sense it has philosophical connotations in the current discussion, so I would need your definition of "truth" as you are currently using it to respond.

The truth is 'what is'. But we can't know that truth. It exceeds our grasp. So the truth, to us, is what we think it is. And what we think it is, is limited and relative ... relative to our unique human experience and unique human ability to understand those experiences. Thus, it is and always will be a subjective truth.

Of course. This is called "bias". But bias can be undermined through several methods.

As every scientist knows, it is ever-present. Which is why they work only within the context of theories, and not within the context of any presumed truths. It's why scientists are not philosophers.

It is not a logical assumption when logical fallacies are used in evaluating the evidence. When logical fallacies (such as bias) are minimized, then the presumption is logical because the process is logical.

No, it's not. Because the criteria being used is still limited, relative, and subjective. We cannot escape ourselves. We can expand the range of what we think we know. And we can test what we think we know for it's relative functionality, but that's pretty much it. And that isn't enough to logically proclaim to know the truth.

See, here is where we come to the word above: "Truth". I agree that there are factoids missing, etc. But as we progress, the missing factoids diminish and our understanding (model) becomes more clear.

How many factoids are missing relative to the sum total of factoids required to know the truth?

We don't know. And we cannot know. So we cannot logically know to what degree any additional factoid increases our knowledge of the truth. And in fact, it's very possible that an additional factoid would lead us to presume an untruth as true. It happens all the time, because relative truthfulness does not equate to the truth.

I shy away from the words "the truth" as I sense it has philosophical connotations in the current discussion ...

This is a philosophical discussion.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The truth is 'what is'.

Simple, straightforward definition that I like in the context of this discussion, so we can go with it and I can agree and capitulate to this definition for the purposes of this discussion.

I sense an issue here in your posts; the presumption that we can't know the truth and we can't know the truth "all at once". so because we possibly can't know all the truth, and because we certainly can't know the truth "all at once". And if we can't know all the truth immediately, then everything we know, or think we know, is BS.

Maybe we can't know "all the truth". Time will reveal the answer to that question, though the answer to that question will, almost certainly, never be revealed in our lifetimes.

I agree that we can't know the truth all at once. I don't have a problem with that.

I certainly can NOT capitulate that if we can't know the truth all at once, then everything we know or think we know is BS.

For it to have been considered evidence, it had to fit into our criteria for what constitutes evidence.

For good reason. The criteria for reproduceability, predictability and empiricism have worked well for us. It has uncovered the secrets of the earth, our past as a planet and species, it has wiped fatal diseases from the face of the earth, brought the world together through travel and communication ... Wherein is the problem?

I'm not saying we can't learn new things. I'm saying that what we can learn has to jive with what we think we already know. And that is a big bias/limitation.

As stated above: I don't have a problem with that.

So if evidence is absent for Loch Ness, then I see no problem with the conclusion that Loch Ness does not exist ... even if that conclusion is wrong! Because even if that conclusion is wrong, we are at least wrong for good reason. If new evidence presents itself suggesting the existence of Loch Ness, then we revise the conclusion.

The problem is that some people equate "conclusion" with "truth". The conclusion may not be the truth; but I don't see that as a good reason to throw out all conclusions, shrug our shoulders and complain about the impossibility of attaining truth through the process of formulating and revising conclusions.

Neli DeGrasse Tyson explains it quite well when he said "Science is wrong all the time! But we are less wrong then we were before!"

But we can't know that truth. It exceeds our grasp.

This may or may not be true. We may never know this to be true in our lifetime. A tantalizing question: What was before the Big Bang? We may never know; it may exceed our grasp. How did biological evolution take certain species from reproduction via cellular division/replication to reproduction via gender copulation? We may never know. It may exceed our grasp.

But it may not. We learn and discover in steps.

So I don't think its a good approach to throw our hands up, shrug it all off, and say, "Well, since we can't know the whole truth, or the whole truth all at once, why bother? I give up!"

So the truth, to us, is what we think it is.

No. The truth remains what it is, regardless of what conclusions we draw. But drawing conclusions and refining those conclusions with new evidence as we proceed is a model that works well; provided we don't conflate "conclusion" with "truth".

No, it's not. Because the criteria being used is still limited, relative, and subjective.

Of course it is logical! Completely logical! But I sense you are conflating "logical" with "truth", as you seem to be conflating "conclusion" with "truth".

And we can test what we think we know for it's relative functionality, but that's pretty much it.

Testing things for relative functionality has a lot more power to discover truth than what I sense you are giving it credit for.

How many factoids are missing relative to the sum total of factoids required to know the truth?

Quite a lot. Its a process. Its a difficult, strenuous process.

So we come back to the OP. Factoids are missing. These factoids we have suggest absence of evidence. Does that mean evidence of absence?

 

[PureX]

Simple, straightforward definition that I like in the context of this discussion, so we can go with it and I can agree and capitulate to this definition for the purposes of this discussion.

I sense an issue here in your posts; the presumption that we can't know the truth and we can't know the truth "all at once". so because we possibly can't know all the truth, and because we certainly can't know the truth "all at once". And if we can't know all the truth immediately, then everything we know, or think we know, is BS.

Maybe we can't know "all the truth". Time will reveal the answer to that question, though the answer to that question will, almost certainly, never be revealed in our lifetimes.

I agree that we can't know the truth all at once. I don't have a problem with that.

I certainly can NOT capitulate that if we can't know the truth all at once, then everything we know or think we know is BS.

Obviously, I never stated that. What I would state, however, is that what we call knowledge is basically our opinion of the truth, as opposed to being the truth. And that remains the case whether our opinions correspond with 'what is', or not. It also remains the case whether we arrive at our opinions via the scientific method or personal whim. For example; "Bob" believes that the truth is that God created everything that exists and has a purpose for it all, while "Bill" believes that no one created anything for any purpose because existence is perpetual. The truth of what is could align with either one of them, but because they have no way of knowing this, they are both positing an opinion of the truth, rather than the truth, and an opinion is all it will ever or could ever be.

For good reason. The criteria for reproduceability, predictability and empiricism have worked well for us. It has uncovered the secrets of the earth, our past as a planet and species, it has wiped fatal diseases from the face of the earth, brought the world together through travel and communication ... Wherein is the problem?

It has uncovered nothing but some functional relationships affecting what we experience and call "the Earth". And the opinions we've formed about the 'truth of Earth' could still be wildly misguided.

So if evidence is absent for Loch Ness, then I see no problem with the conclusion that Loch Ness does not exist ... even if that conclusion is wrong! Because even if that conclusion is wrong, we are at least wrong for good reason. If new evidence presents itself suggesting the existence of Loch Ness, then we revise the conclusion.

The problems is that we are ignoring a huge bias when we allow ourselves to presume that our opinion of truth, is the truth. Because we are using it to define what new information we will accept as 'reasonable evidence'. And even reasonable evidence to the contrary of our preconceived opinion of 'what is'.

The problem is that some people equate "conclusion" with "truth". The conclusion may not be the truth; but I don't see that as a good reason to throw out all conclusions, shrug our shoulders and complain about the impossibility of attaining truth through the process of formulating and revising conclusions.

Neli DeGrasse Tyson explains it quite well when he said "Science is wrong all the time! But we are less wrong then we were before!"

The thing is, Neil doesn't actually know this to be so. All he knows is that the factoids that he accepts as new information function as such within his limited, relative, and subjectively biased understanding of 'what is'. He only thinks he knows a little more than he did because he was able to add them to his preconceived bias as part of that preconceived bias. He can't really know that he knows more.

This may or may not be true. We may never know this to be true in our lifetime. A tantalizing question: What was before the Big Bang? We may never know; it may exceed our grasp. How did biological evolution take certain species from reproduction via cellular division/replication to reproduction via gender copulation? We may never know. It may exceed our grasp.

But it may not. We learn and discover in steps.

How isn't really the question that we're all asking, though. It's why: to what end?

So I don't think its a good approach to throw our hands up, shrug it all off, and say, "Well, since we can't know the whole truth, or the whole truth all at once, why bother? I give up!"

That's not the only alternative to presuming that our opinion of truth is 'the truth'. There is the alternative of faith: choosing to act on faith in the face of our profound unknowing.

 

[Jollybear]

In the part of apparitions, there is validity to that statement. However, we have the story of Exodus with no evidence to substantiate it. We have the story of the flood, with no evidence to substantiate it. We have sites and places named but can't seem to be located. We have claims of miraculous healings, to this very day, but they can't be validated and are most often found to be fraudulent. We have the Creation myth, which is refuted by almost every scientific discipline.

With things such as apparitions and the like, we then consider the source, and we find the source to be uncredible (see above); so rightfully question the source. If practically every claim made by the source which we can investigate is found to be false, why should we believe the claims that can't be investigated?



No.

The rational answer to the question is, "I don't know why".

I need a new car. I write a letter to Santa Clause and tell him I need a new car. Dad gives me a new car for Christmas. To say, "I don't know why my dad gave me a new car for Christmas, so Santa Clause must have told him!"; we would find that ridiculous. This is not a reasonable conclusion, no matter how likely it is that it is based on a positive result.



Again, no.
We need to seek a criteria that is supported by evidence.
Not pull one out of our hindside.
If I prayed to Zeus for the new car and won the raffle, would that be evidence for Zeus?



Science can definitely determine cause in many aspects. "Purpose" is a weak word in this discussion, as it can suggest teleological thinking, so without clarification, I will skip this claim. It can definitely determine that some events are not natural, and thus frame for us what "is" natural.



This is why peer review, repeat-ability in experiments, etc. are so important in science; to rule out as much of that subjectivity as possible. These steps are not present in religion.



Here we have the word "truth" which can be a tricky word, implying philosophical connotations. Nothing is science is presumed to be always or absolutely true, as all conclusions of science stand to be criticized and refined (if not completely thrown out) in light of new evidence.



Oh? Please, present it, if you like?

Sure.....NDEs, ESPs, apparitions, healings, intelligent design.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Obviously, I never stated that. What I would state, however, is that what we call knowledge is basically our opinion of the truth, as opposed to being the truth. And that remains the case whether our opinions correspond with 'what is', or not. It also remains the case whether we arrive at our opinions via the scientific method or personal whim.

You are doing a lot of mind reading. You are telling me what my position is and in so doing, you are demonstrating to me that you do not understand my position. Please tell me or show me where I stated that I was seeking "truth"?

As far as "knowledge", you are also putting in a lot of personal bias about what "knowledge" is then projecting that onto me. "Knowledge" is what we can demonstrate to be true. In other words, if I tell you that I "know" that correctly designed airplanes can fly, that mass attracts mass, that the earth is a sphere, or that I have $100 in my wallet, I can demonstrate that to be true. My "opinion" as to whether or not correctly designed airplanes can fly, or mass attracts mass, or that the earth is a sphere is totally and completely irrelevant. It is what I can demonstrate to be true.

ON the other side of the coin, even as a hard atheist who believes there is no God, this is not something I can demonstrate to be true; so therefore, I make no claim that it is or is not true. I accept this as a belief based position. My belief is substantiated with inductive and deductive reasoning and some valid points we can debate or discuss someday; but regardless of what I believe to be true, I never state that I know it to be true.

Therefore, what I call "knowledge" has nothing at all to do with my "opinion" of what I believe to be true, because what I call "knowledge" is only that which I can demonstrate to be true.

A given "truth" (as we have defined it ... truth is what is) is either true or false, regardless of our opinion. So please stop conflating Truth, Opinion and Belief.

It has uncovered nothing but some functional relationships affecting what we experience and call "the Earth".

As you do not value empiricism or what science has brought this world, then there is nothing I can tell you about empiricism or science that you will value.

And the opinions we've formed about the 'truth of Earth' could still be wildly misguided.

So what? That's why we keep exploring. Certain conclusions may be wrong; ie digital recreations of the theories regarding how our earth formed have failed; but what we can demonstrate to be true, remains true, regardless of "opinions". And the great thing about empiricism is that we can safely say that what we believe to be true about our "earth" is likely true, or mostly true, because it is based on empiricism, reproducability and has passed the test of prediction. Thus, an honest textbook or scientist will tell you, "We'don't know how planets are formed, but the leading hypothesis is thus".

The problems is that we are ignoring a huge bias when we allow ourselves to presume that our opinion of truth, is the truth. Because we are using it to define what new information we will accept as 'reasonable evidence'. And even reasonable evidence to the contrary of our preconceived opinion of 'what is'.

You're repeating yourself and we have already crossed this bridge. Empiricism has worked well for mankind, and the only "reasonable evidence" is empirical evidence, for this same reason. Empiricism has little to do do with preconceived opinions of "what is".

The honest scientist, the honest skeptic, will say, "I don't see evidence to support the claim that NewGuy has $100 in his wallet, and until further evidence is proposed, my answer is, 'I don't know'". (Here we're getting into a more gray area of inductive and deductive reasoning, considering the source, probabilities, etc. But empirically speaking, it is fair to withhold belief that I have $100 in my back pocket until I provide the evidence that I do).

If something is true that we believe to be untrue, especially in relation to the natural world, empiricism will eventually demonstrate to us the error of our belief, and it will be revised accordingly.

The thing is, Neil doesn't actually know this to be so. All he knows is that the factoids that he accepts as new information function as such within his limited, relative, and subjectively biased understanding of 'what is'. He only thinks he knows a little more than he did because he was able to add them to his preconceived bias as part of that preconceived bias. He can't really know that he knows more.

See the first part of this rebuttal where I defined knowledge as something one can "demonstrate to be true". So he "can" know that he "knows a little more than he did" because he can demonstrate something else to be true that previously, he could not.

How isn't really the question that we're all asking, though. It's why: to what end?

Again, you assume too much. In asking "why are we here", "why does the universe exist", etc. is Teleological thinking -- the thinking that things exist or were created, destroyed, etc. for some reason or purpose. I reject telological thinking, as do many others; so no, it is not a question that all of us are asking. And there are many, many of us who are, indeed, asking "how" instead of "why".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Sure.....NDEs, ESPs, apparitions, healings, intelligent design.

Except that each and every one of these have failed clinical trials or crumbled under investigation; or at the very, very least shown up to be "inconclusive". As a result, they can't be considered evidence for anything.

Suggesting that these are evidence for something is the same thing as you being tried in court for murder. The forensic pathologist testifies that the

Personally, I entertain the idea of "ESP" as a possible real phenomenon.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Sure.....NDEs, ESPs, apparitions, healings, intelligent design.

Fingerslip. Starting over.

Except that each and every one of these have failed clinical trials or crumbled under investigation; or at the very, very least shown up to be "inconclusive". Of course, this falls under the umbrella of "empiricism". As a result, as they can't be demonstrated to be empirically true, they can't be considered evidence for anything.

Suggesting that these are evidence for something is the same thing as you being tried in court for murder. The forensic pathologist testifies that the blood sample was far too contaminated to obtain a clear DNA sample; but hey, he's sure it was your DNA on that weapon anyway. The only thing the blood on the weapon is evidence for, is that someone bled on the weapon.

Moreover, (we again walk down this path with believers that we have patiently walked down many times before), even if these things could be shown to be true, it is not necessarily evdience for a deity.

Miraculous healing? Perhaps submicroscopic nanites injected into you by aliens. NDEs? Perhaps an hallucination. Apparitions? Perhaps an extra-dimensional being. Intelligent design? A lab experiment in a classroom in another universe; or a computer program we're trapped in and can't detect.

Personally, I entertain the idea of "ESP" as a possible real phenomenon. I have had experiences in life that I can not scientifically explain. So let's say that I believe in ESP; because, in a sense, I do. However, that is proof for god or anything else. It is my hypothesis that we human beings possess sensory perceptions that defy scientific understanding. It defies scientific understanding because it can not be empirically defined or demonstrated, mostly because the exact conditions required for such a phenomenon are too rare and too elusive to name, thus recreate. In other words, I suggest that it is real; but has naturalistic explanations. And because we can not test or define it, it can not be used as evidence for either your hypothesis (it's god) or my hypothesis (its nature).

However, to further illustrate to @PureEx my position, I do not "know" this to be true. It is an opinion and an hypothesis; and because I can not demonstrate it to be true, I do not assert it as neither truth nor knowledge.

I don't know why many (including myself) have experienced phenomenon we label ESP. While I believe many or some of these accounts to be true, I can not assert this as either knowledge or truth because I can't show them to be true.

 

[PureX]

You are doing a lot of mind reading. You are telling me what my position is and in so doing, you are demonstrating to me that you do not understand my position. Please tell me or show me where I stated that I was seeking "truth"?

How do you get that, from this: "Obviously, I never stated that. What I would state, however, is that what we call knowledge is basically our opinion of the truth, as opposed to being the truth. And that remains the case whether our opinions correspond with 'what is', or not. It also remains the case whether we arrive at our opinions via the scientific method or personal whim."

As far as "knowledge", you are also putting in a lot of personal bias about what "knowledge" is then projecting that onto me. "Knowledge" is what we can demonstrate to be true.

"Demonstrate" according to what/who's criteria? See what I mean about inescapable bias/limitation?

In other words, if I tell you that I "know" that correctly designed airplanes can fly, that mass attracts mass, that the earth is a sphere, or that I have $100 in my wallet, I can demonstrate that to be true. My "opinion" as to whether or not correctly designed airplanes can fly, or mass attracts mass, or that the earth is a sphere is totally and completely irrelevant. It is what I can demonstrate to be true.

These are factoids relative to functionality. They constitute knowledge, and they are true, but only relative to other chosen functionality factoids. They are not the truth. They are relative opinions of the truth. All you've proved is that they are true relative to a very limited human criteria.

As you do not value empiricism or what science has brought this world, then there is nothing I can tell you about empiricism or science that you will value.

I've said nothing about value. To understand relative functionality well enough to manipulate it to our own advantage is obviously of value to us. It's just not the truth of 'what is'.

So what? That's why we keep exploring. Certain conclusions may be wrong; ie digital recreations of the theories regarding how our earth formed have failed; but what we can demonstrate to be true, remains true, regardless of "opinions". And the great thing about empiricism is that we can safely say that what we believe to be true about our "earth" is likely true, or mostly true, because it is based on empiricism, reproducability and has passed the test of prediction. Thus, an honest textbook or scientist will tell you, "We don't know how planets are formed, but the leading hypothesis is thus".

Confirming our limited and biased perception of existence is not discovering the truth of anything.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Confirming our limited and biased perception of existence is not discovering the truth of anything.

I'm not here to play "word games". We have clearly defined "truth" as "what is". Therefore, that airplanes fly, etc.is a part of the "truth".

I have defined "knowledge" as that which can be demonstrated. You then decry, "According to whos bias?" If an airplane flies,it flies, and can be demonstrated to fly, regardless of bias. If I have $100 in my back pocket, I have $100 in my back pocket, and I can whip it out and show it is present to any witness, regardless of bias. If the test results show the earth is older than 6000 years old, it is older than 6000 years old, and this test can be explained and repeated, regardless of bias. As each of these statements can be called "true", then they are "true", and thus are pieces of the puzzle to the larger "truth".

You want to throw in bias where there is none, and you want to throw in ambiguity where there is none, and you want to throw out empiricism when it should be present when we are discussing "truth" according to the agreed upon definition.

If an airplane flies, then that is what is. If I have $100 in my wallet, then it is what is. If the earth is older than 6000 years, then it is what is.

 

[Desert Snake]

The answer is so obviously 'no' to the premise.

How that relates to religious or theistic beliefs, is another matter.

 

[PureX]

I'm not here to play "word games". We have clearly defined "truth" as "what is". Therefore, that airplanes fly, etc.is a part of the "truth".

But a partial truism (a relative factoid based on functionality) is not the equivalent of truth. And in many instances can mislead us from the truth. You keep ignoring this.

I have defined "knowledge" as that which can be demonstrated. You then decry, "According to whos bias?" If an airplane flies,it flies, and can be demonstrated to fly, regardless of bias.

Yes, it FUNCTIONS. And according to the bias we have that equates functionality with truth, we assume that the "truth is that airplanes can fly". But that airplanes can fly is only a factoid based on relative functionality. It is not the truth revealed.

How some aspects of material existence functions is not the truth of what is. It tells us nothing about the origin, sustenance or purpose of what it.

If I have $100 in my back pocket, I have $100 in my back pocket, and I can whip it out and show it is present to any witness, regardless of bias. If the test results show the earth is older than 6000 years old, it is older than 6000 years old, and this test can be explained and repeated, regardless of bias. As each of these statements can be called "true", then they are "true", and thus are pieces of the puzzle to the larger "truth".

There is no "larger and smaller" truth. The truth is what is. It is the whole of itself. It cannot be grasped from or contained within relative factoids. So when we acquire knowledge of a relative factoid, we are not acquiring knowledge of truth. We are only acquiring knowledge of relative functionality within the truth. And this is not knowledge of the whole. In fact, it very often obscures and misleads us, especially when we assume we have acquired knowledge of the whole.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But a partial truism (a relative factoid based on functionality) is not the equivalent of truth. And in many instances can mislead us from the truth. You keep ignoring this.

Wait. The definition of "truth" we agreed upon (and these were your words) the truth is "what is". So if I can show you that airplanes fly or that there is $100 in my pocket, then we have learned a part of this "truth" because it is what is.

It is not the truth revealed.

"Revealed" truth suggests something else entirely. I don't believe in "revealed" truth. Truth ... Knowledge ... is acquired through lots of heard work. That which has been declared as "revealed truth" usually falls flat.

How some aspects of material existence functions is not the truth of what is. It tells us nothing about the origin, sustenance or purpose of what it.

Actually, you're wrong about it not telling us anything about "origin". It often can. Background radiation in the universe certainly told us quite a bit about the origin of our universe.

As far a sustenance", I don't know (and don't care) what you mean by that. But it certainly can tell us many characteristics of the phenomenon in question; which could be argued as being a part of its "sustenance".

Lastly, you name "purpose". To assert or assume that things happen or exist for a "purpose" is teleological thinking. I wholly and entirely reject teleological thinking. It is a deeply flawed construct with more problems than solutions. So on this point, we are at a complete impasse and can not continue.

So when we acquire knowledge of a relative factoid, we are not acquiring knowledge of truth. We are only acquiring knowledge of relative functionality within the truth. And this is not knowledge of the whole. In fact, it very often obscures and misleads us, especially when we assume we have acquired knowledge of the whole.

So how would you suggest mankind discover "truth"? What's your plan?

 

[PureX]

Wait. The definition of "truth" we agreed upon (and these were your words) the truth is "what is". So if I can show you that airplanes fly or that there is $100 in my pocket, then we have learned a part of this "truth" because it is what is.

'What is' is a singular whole. It is not contained within or defined by the "parts" that we can perceive and presume to understand. The "parts" only exist in our perception, because of the way our minds function. An airplane is a designated set of conceptual experiences, delineated by us, according to a functionality bias. That it "flies" is a limited, relative, and subjectively presumed "truth".

All matter "flies". Even when it appears to us to be held fast by the force of gravity. The airplane is just a designated collection of matter configured by us to perform a specific function. It's not truth. It's just a limited, relative, subjective (functional), perception of truth. And as such it can be quite misleading.

Actually, you're wrong about it not telling us anything about "origin". It often can. Background radiation in the universe certainly told us quite a bit about the origin of our universe.

It has revealed nothing about origin. It has only implied some theories about it's existential progress. Again, this is how relative factoids tend to mislead us from truth, as opposed to providing it. Because we humans survive and thrive by our functional knowledge and the manipulation of our environment that it enables, we very much want to believe that we can gain knowledge of everything (of the whole of what is: the truth). So we conflate our knowledge of functionality with the truth of what is, and we don't want to give that false equation up. We fight to hold onto it, as you are.

As far a sustenance", I don't know (and don't care) what you mean by that. But it certainly can tell us many characteristics of the phenomenon in question; which could be argued as being a part of its "sustenance".

Existence requires effort (think energy) to fuel it, and order (organization) to drive it's continued expression. This is what I was referring to as "sustenance".

Lastly, you name "purpose". To assert or assume that things happen or exist for a "purpose" is teleological thinking. I wholly and entirely reject teleological thinking. It is a deeply flawed construct with more problems than solutions. So on this point, we are at a complete impasse and can not continue.

That existence requires effort and organization to continue existing, it implies, logically, that it would have some goal or purpose.

So how would you suggest mankind discover "truth"? What's your plan?

I don't believe we can, because it would require omniscience. What I would suggest is that we stop fooling ourselves into pretending that we can and that we are engaged in that pursuit. When in reality we cannot, and we are not engaged in that pursuit, hardly ever. What we can do, and are doing nearly all the time, is furthering our understanding of relative functionality within the big mystery of 'what is'. The mystery is going to remain. But we do get a little better at understanding how to manipulate it's inner-workings to our own advantage.

The problem we are having with our success at functional manipulation is that we act without any ultimate positive goal, because we remain clueless about the truth of existence (our own, included). So we chase after silly and often self-defeating whims that end up doing humanity and the world that sustains us more harm than good. And I believe that the confusion that fuels all this selfish abuse could be ameliorated by an honest assessment and understanding of our profound limitations in relation to the truth, and thereby taking more responsibility what what we are really after; which is increased functionality.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If the truth can not be known, how can you assert to know it?