What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[LuisDantas]

you are absolutely correct. We should at least strive towards it. And we should other's also strive towards it without dismissing them saying "it doesn't matter".

In practice you will have to manage your time and attention no matter how ardently you may wish otheriwse.

There are situations which make pursuing some form of truth worth the trouble. Many do not.

Knowing which questions are important and which are not is a very valuable skill.

 

[firedragon]

No, I am not understanding what you mean here.

Let's say an accused is presenting evidence. If you dismiss the evidence without listening, and shut him up saying anything like you couldn't gain attention, you didn't establish respect, you are not worthy to listen to, or you don't matter, others matter more than what you say or anything of the sort, it is what ever you can pick from these - Racism, bigotry, cognitive bias.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

In practice you will have to manage your time and attention no matter how ardently you may wish otheriwse.

There are situations which make pursuing some form of truth worth the trouble. Many do not.

Knowing which questions are important and which are not is a very valuable skill.

Then don't engage if you think something is not important to you. Not shut them up by telling them it's not important. Some people engage with religious discussions in a religious forum and tell participants "religious discussions are a waste of time", while being there and actively participating. Happens all the time. As an example.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's say an accused is presenting evidence. If you dismiss the evidence without listening, and shut him up saying anything like you couldn't gain attention, you didn't establish respect, you are not worthy to listen to, or you don't matter, others matter more than what you say or anything of the sort, it is what ever you can pick from these - Racism, bigotry, cognitive bias.

Cheers.

True enough, I suppose. But I feel that there is some implicit context at work here that I am failing to notice.

Perhaps more to the point, pursuit of the truth isn't always worth the trouble. There is a very large, very necessary space for genuine uncertainty. Some truths are indeed unavailable, unimportant or both.

Actually, many are.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps more to the point, pursuit of the truth isn't always worth the trouble. T

That's not relevant.

But thanks nevertheless.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then don't engage if you think something is not important to you. Not shut them up by telling them it's not important.

Why should I refrain from voicing what I consider to be important if the situation calls for it?

Some people engage with religious discussions in a religious forum and tell participants "religious discussions are a waste of time", while being there and actively participating. Happens all the time. As an example.

Indeed, it is an example. It is very necessary to reserve the right to point out perceptions of lack of importance.

Among other reasons, because there may be no other way to detect those perceptions and then decide in turn whether they should be accepted passively; challenged in some way; or treated in some other way.

Going by this example, it may be worth attempting to find out whether there is some mismatch of understandings about what constitutes religious discussion, and how the participation goes on while presumably being at odds with the declared opinion.

My personal experience is that people very often fail to take the proper care to define the concepts being discussed, and end up speaking past each other without always realizing it.

Other people are just confused or even fully uninterested in making any sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not relevant.

But thanks nevertheless.

Way to illustrate my point at the expense of your own post #22 in this thread.

 

[firedragon]

Why should I refrain from voicing what I consider to be important if the situation calls for it?

If its important of course. Go ahead. If its not, don't.

Way to illustrate my point at the expense of your own post #22 in this thread.

Nice.

 

[PureX]

If the truth “includes what we think “is”, is, even when we’re wrong”.
Wouldn’t that suggest no one is ever wrong so long as they think otherwise?

From their perspective, they are not wrong. But their perspective is just one of many.

Your example of the Doppler effect is an excellent example.

It’s a fact that the whistle pitch can and will vary depending on the orientational perspective and motion of the train. But the truth is as you pointed out that the whistle only emits the B sharp which is the true pitch and remains constant.

But the truth is also that the horn emanates a different pitch in front of the moving train than it does on the train, or behind it. My point is that the truth is that all of these perspective experiences are true, even though they are logically incongruous with each other. Because the truth is not logically congruous until it's understood as a whole collection of perspective experiences. Yet we foolish humans keep demanding that it must be. And that's how we keep missing it. And putting an innocent man in jail for decades because we assumed he must be guilty. (Because the truth cannot be incongruous with our very limited "evidence".)

The fact that different people perceive it differently as the train is in motion does not change the truth that it is still a B sharp being emitted from the whistle.

Nor does that change the truth that the pitch being emitted by the horn is different in front of the moving train (the waves being closer together) that on the train, or behind it. It's ALL the truth of the train horn's sound.

Thus Doppler realized it wasn’t true that the whistle was changing pitch as it passed by and sought out the reason why it was perceived as though it did.

The horn doesn't change the pitch it's emitting, but the pitch it's emitting, does change. Because the train is moving.

By not seeking to verify that one’s perspective is in fact true, is precisely why so many often fail to come to understand that their perspective could in fact not be true.

I think it's just the opposite. It's because we think we can "verify" that our perspective is the one "true" perspective that we then assume everyone else's perspective must not be. When in fact they are ALL true, even though they appear quite incongruous. It is that incongruity that should tell us to open up our minds. But it does just the opposite. We cannot accept it, and because we cannot, we keep insisting we are "right" and they are "wrong" even when we aren't.

Which brings us to the OP’s question; whether conforming to popular opinion is more important than truth or vice versa.

I believe it’s a mixed bag, which is to say it depends.[/QUOTE}I agree, it's somewhat of a false dichotomy. Perhaps the better question is which perspective gives the most people the most positive value while dong the least harm? Since none of us ever really knows what the whole truth is.

Humans being a social species have a very strong tendency towards tribalism, and can be easily swayed by popular opinion and peer pressures along with fear of being outcasted from their group.
As result many people easily conform to the perceived popular opinion of their tribe.
It also becomes a part of their identity and serves as a cohesive element to prove loyalty within their tribe.
For these people it is that popular opinion and solidarity with the tribe that becomes the dominant concern. For them conceding that an established view of the tribe even MIGHT be unfounded can be construed as sacrilegious.

For others, the pull of conformity is not as great.
When they are confronted with information that doesn’t appear to jive with the popular or apparent view they are more driven to find out why that discrepancy exists and seek to determine what is actually the case. For these people the underlying truth is the driving concern.
I personally belong yo this second camp.

So, as is most often the case there is not necessarily a “black and white” - “either/or” solution.

The more healthy societies of humans would manifest both rigidity (for resisting the forces of dissolution) and pliability (for adapting to the force of change). And the ideal, I imagine, would be in determining which to embrace in relation to to what, and when.

 

[danieldemol]

if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted.

Nobody that i know of on Religious Forums has forbidden you from expressing what you see as the truth, nor have they muted your speech.

In my opinion.

 

[sun rise]

. (But please do quote the book you speak of if it's a different one, I will try to get it down).

The book I had in mind was "How to Lie With Statistics".

 

[stvdv]

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?
Truth

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

Freedom of Religion, means Freedom to believe the way you want.
Believe is about thoughts and feelings. You need not express in words

What matters the most

Follow my own conscience

 

[Dao Hao Now]

From their perspective, they are not wrong. But their perspective is just one of many.
But the truth is also that the horn emanates a different pitch in front of the moving train than it does on the train, or behind it. My point is that the truth is that all of these perspective experiences are true, even though they are logically incongruous with each other. Because the truth is not logically congruous until it's understood as a whole collection of perspective experiences. Yet we foolish humans keep demanding that it must be. And that's how we keep missing it. And putting an innocent man in jail for decades because we assumed he must be guilty. (Because the truth cannot be incongruous with our very limited "evidence".)
Nor does that change the truth that the pitch being emitted by the horn is different in front of the moving train (the waves being closer together) that on the train, or behind it. It's ALL the truth of the train horn's sound.
The horn doesn't change the pitch it's emitting, but the pitch it's emitting, does change. Because the train is moving.
I think it's just the opposite. It's because we think we can "verify" that our perspective is the one "true" perspective that we then assume everyone else's perspective must not be. When in fact they are ALL true, even though they appear quite incongruous. It is that incongruity that should tell us to open up our minds. But it does just the opposite. We cannot accept it, and because we cannot, we keep insisting we are "right" and they are "wrong" even when we aren't.

Would you then say that everyone has their own “personal truth” and there is not a more “universal truth” and that all are just as valid?

Suppose people had been waiting for the train at the station.
Several folks arrived at the station on a bus at the same time; say noon.
They were all going to be riding the same train that was boarding at 1pm.

Sally was a young woman going to visit her fiancé who had moved to another city 6 months ago, and she had been longing to see him.
She perceived the wait to be forever as she anticipated a warm reunion.

Frank and Sue were high school sweethearts and Sue was leaving town to go to college in the big city. They knew they would probably not see each other again for a very long time and it was breaking there hearts.
They perceived the wait to be far too quick..like the blink of an eye.

Bob was on his way to his job on a swing shift at the factory in the city. This was part of his daily routine. He perceived the wait to be his typical hour to comfortably have a lunch while he waited without having to rush.

Would you say each perceived passage of time:
1. Slowly crawling like molasses in the winter…
2. Speeding by like a bullet, just way too quick …
3. A typical comfortable hour lunch….
4. The demonstrable passage of an hour as
marked by the station clock….
Was equally valid and “true”, and none was more reliable as a “universal truth” regardless of perception?

 

[PureX]

Would you then say that everyone has their own “personal truth” and there is not a more “universal truth” and that all are just as valid?

"Valid" according to what? The truth is "what is". And that includes all our various concepts of it. The problem is that everyone thinks their truth is 'the truth', and that there can only be one truth. But logically, it's all part of the same universal truth (what is). And if we want to try and understand that universal truth, we are going to have to let go of the idea that our truth is the truth, and that there can only be one truth. But few of us are actually willing to do that, in spite of the fact that we nearly all claim to be devotes of and to 'the truth'.

Would you say each perceived passage of time:
1. Slowly crawling like molasses in the winter…
2. Speeding by like a bullet, just way too quick …
3. A typical comfortable hour lunch….
4. The demonstrable passage of an hour as
marked by the station clock….
Was equally valid and “true”, and none was more reliable as a “universal truth” regardless of perception?

Yes, they are all "valid" relative to the context in which they are being assessed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Should human beings not endeavour to understand what the truth could have been? That's the question.

Peace.

Yes, of course human beings should endeavor to understand what is the truth.

There is a difference between what the truth is, and what the truth could have been.

The latter, looks at possibilities, but it already admits, it cannot be known with absolute certainty. This feeling of uncertainty can put a person always in doubt. This is the issue. To search for the truth, but no certainty at the end. It must be a pain, I think. There are things, that simply no historical methods can tell what happend with absolute certainty. Consequently a lot of people go with what they like the event had been. In doing so, they become biased toward evidences that supports their wish, while trying to ignore or disprove evidences that is opposite to what they like. Such is the acts of most people in the world in my view.

 

[Segev Moran]

It seems that what makes us much more advanced, is what actually is over what "we" believe.
What really (should) matter, is the facts. not the opinions.
The more educated a society is, the more it can "fine-tune" itself.
That said, what actually, really matters, is not the truth/belief itself, but rather what we do with it as a person/society/country/specie/company/family... the list goes on and on.

 

[firedragon]

Nobody that i know of on Religious Forums has forbidden you from expressing what you see as the truth, nor have they muted your speech.

In my opinion.

Yeah. Good. Maybe you don't know every post of every single person. And it's not personal. So dont think its about your known people.

 

[firedragon]

The book I had in mind was "How to Lie With Statistics".

Thank you so much.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Under the law of Moses, if a witness lies and a person is put to death because of that, the false scheming witness is also put to death. Deuteronomy 16 explains that. You might want to look at it. “You Must Not Testify Falsely” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)

 

[firedragon]

Yes, of course human beings should endeavor to understand what is the truth.

There is a difference between what the truth is, and what the truth could have been.

The latter, looks at possibilities, but it already admits, it cannot be known with absolute certainty. This feeling of uncertainty can put a person always in doubt. This is the issue. To search for the truth, but no certainty at the end. It must be a pain, I think. There are things, that simply no historical methods can tell what happend with absolute certainty. Consequently a lot of people go with what they like the event had been. In doing so, they become biased toward evidences that supports their wish, while trying to ignore or disprove evidences that is opposite to what they like. Such is the acts of most people in the world in my view.

It's true that history can pose dilemma. And historical truths/historical facts are the weakest type of facts in the whole spectrum of facts. Anyway, I think another post in this thread is more appropriate. This one - #14

By the way, absolute certainty or "Possibilities" is a false dichotomy brother. Historians don't really work on any of these. They work on probabilities. What is more probable? But some tools can be "absolutely certain". For example, if someone does a C14 dating of an artefact, they could absolutely certain of a certain data range. Lets say there is a Bible manuscript dated to the 1st century as an example, and they have other corroborating evidence that an event mentioned in the manuscript took place in the first century, and the character called "Jesus" existed in the first century according to other sources as well, then one could be at least certain that the manuscript is date to 200 years this way or that way. Not the event's, but the dating. I have given a very very wide spectrum of years just to avoid an attack of "what absolutism".

There are some things that someone could be absolutely certain of. You were born. That's an absolute certainty. You had a great, great, great grandfather. That's an absolute certainty.

You cannot generalise everything to everything. Everything cannot be generalised.