I think I agree with you here
If you had asked anyone back in 1995 “Is it true that Pluto is a planet?” they would have said “Yes”. It was a truth.
I wouldn’t phrase it necessarily as “scientific truth” though, since that’s not really a thing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Truth is not same for everyone.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
I think I agree with you here
If you had asked anyone back in 1995 “Is it true that Pluto is a planet?” they would have said “Yes”. It was a truth.
I wouldn’t phrase it necessarily as “scientific truth” though, since that’s not really a thing.
And they would have been correct. But the definition of 'planet' has changed.
If you had asked someone who was happy in the 1940's if they were 'gay', they would have (truthfully) said yes, even if they were heterosexual.
Your example doesn’t exactly work because “gay” is a word with multiple meanings. Gay still means happy, it’s just not very common. The truth of the answer would depend upon which sense of the word “gay” you were asking about.
I get your point though: the planet definition changed.
But I think that means the “truth” can change.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
It was scientifically provable at the time, so I would say it was a scientific truth. Wouldn't you?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Truth
No. 7 and No. 4 is the one everybody dismisses, or sees no need for. Truth is in accordance with honesty, and virtue. That is the spiritual practice of truth. It gets at the heart of one's intentions rather than their pursuit of facts.
No. 7 and No. 4 is the one everybody dismisses, or sees no need for. Truth is in accordance with honesty, and virtue. That is the spiritual practice of truth. It gets at the heart of one's intentions rather than their pursuit of facts.
Yes. And with the definition of the time, it still would be.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
But by that standard the earth would still be flat. Truth is subjective to information.
if we use the definition of 'planet' that was used in 1970, then Pluto would be a planet. The language has changed, not the truth.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Oops! Pluto is no longer considered a planet, just another body in space. So , again, the truth changed with new information. This is not rocket science (I'm sorry, I just had to say it).
Not really. The definitions changed. Pluto would still be a planet if we still used the old definitions. It would have not been a planet if we had used the current definitions. The truth didn't change, only our description of it.
I just think that muddies the waters more than necessary. “Scientific truth” isn’t a scientific term; in fact, “science” would likely reject such a term.
A laymen could use it, I suppose, but it’s not even a term that is used in normal conversation. It’s kinda just made up to distinguish general truth from truths derived from science for the purposes of this thread. Since it’s causing people to focus on it rather than your points, I don’t think it’s useful.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
That the truth doesn't change, merely our description of it?
What are you considering the truth here about Pluto?
I’m not sure how you can divorce truth from the supposed truth’s description.
People in 1995 believed that the *description* of Pluto as a planet was true. If the description is no longer true then truth changed (or the people in 1995 didn’t know the truth— they were wrong).
That it is a rocky spheroid in orbit around the sun and of a certain size.
By realizing language is simply a symbolic representation. The truth is not dependent on language.
No. The *truth* stayed the same: Pluto is still a rocky spheroid in orbit around the sun. But our *classification* of such spheroids changed. Now, to be a planet requires the spheroid to clear its orbit of other spheroids. Before, the classification did not. The *truth* remained the same. Our description merely changed.
Language isn’t just a “symbolic representation”. It’s the thing that expresses truth. A rocky sphere in orbit doesn’t possess truth. Truth isn’t a characteristic of objects; it doesn’t exist “out there”. It’s a value we impart, via language, to express the idea that “this represents reality”.
When someone in 1995 said “It is true that Pluto is a planet”, they didn’t merely mean “It is true that Pluto is a rocky spheroid in orbit around the sun.” They meant that it met the description of a planet.
If the classification of planets change, then so does the truth value of the statement “Pluto is a planet”.
Personally, I think it’s easiest to just say that the truth changed because the definition changed.
And at that time, the word 'planet' meant something different than what it means now. The word changed, not the truth.
And yet, nothing changed about Pluto.
I am not claiming that anything changed about Pluto.
I am saying the truth value of the statement “Pluto is a planet” changed. Before it was true. Now it is false.
OK, to me, that is beside the question because 'the truth' is a question about Pluto, not just how we use language. Since nothing changed *about Pluto*, the truth stayed the same.