Truth and Belief

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Isa,

A lone voice does not make you wrong but perhaps unpopular. In both cases it is a process, the collective you might say assures the notion of truth. Few people would trust their well being to the judgement of the group agreement when their life is on the line. I think truth here might simply be, both on the individal level as well as the group level, a probablity theory or process. The truth you might say is the precieved relation between subject and object tested and subjectively confirmed, group agreement is probably thought to be the outcome of this repeated test thus increasing the probablity of said judgement. It is the judgement of one test in relation to that of many tests to come to the conclusion of truth or falsehood. The judgment of one test is less likely to hold true than the judgement of the many or majority of repeated tests.

In a sense even on an individual level there is subjectively an agreement as to the status of the relation in question, this is the said judgement of truth or falsehood. It is this same process assumed and multiplied in group agreement, so its nature is not really different than the individual example, other than being a compound of the same process---a double checking, with the plurality of a group check. Group agreement is not necassarily truth, the only truth of it is its greater probablity of truth through group thought, the multiplication of the individual process.

Boagie,

I quite agree. From a practical stand point, agreement as to what is the truth is a social imperative. However, my questions were more targeted at trying to more fully understand perplexity’s statement of “truth relies on agreement.”

Perplexity’s view seems to be more of a postmodern view of truth; something like stating that what we call the truth is nothing more than another way of saying that this is what is agreed upon . . . for now.

The way I would see agreement about the truth to go, would be: “we agree with this view because it is the truth.” The way I would see agreement about the truth to go, in a more postmodern view, would be: “it is the truth because we agree on it.”

This postmodern view of the truth is very interesting; and I hope that by “fleshing out” the postmodern view a bit better, I will also be able to better “flesh out” my own views.

[boagie]

Isa,

“truth relies on agreement.” to my way of thinking this can never be more than a probablity, even when probability is 99.9 percent in favour of the premise being the truth, is never a certainty until the subject has tested the given premise. At anyrate, in the event I am missing something in considering a post-modern approach, I am all ears.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Isa,

A lone voice does not make you wrong but perhaps unpopular. In both cases it is a process, the collective you might say assures the notion of truth. Few people would trust their well being to the judgement of the group agreement when their life is on the line. I think truth here might simply be, both on the individal level as well as the group level, a probablity theory or process. The truth you might say is the precieved relation between subject and object tested and subjectively confirmed, group agreement is probably thought to be the outcome of this repeated test thus increasing the probablity of said judgement. It is the judgement of one test in relation to that of many tests to come to the conclusion of truth or falsehood. The judgment of one test is less likely to hold true than the judgement of the many or majority of repeated tests.

In a sense even on an individual level there is subjectively an agreement as to the status of the relation in question, this is the said judgement of truth or falsehood. It is this same process assumed and multiplied in group agreement, so its nature is not really different than the individual example, other than being a compound of the same process---a double checking, with the plurality of a group check. Group agreement is not necassarily truth, the only truth of it is its greater probablity of truth through group thought, the multiplication of the individual process.

Does that mean you don't think that truth is what is agreed on, or that you do think that truth is what is agreed on?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Does that mean you don't think that truth is what is agreed on, or that you do think that truth is what is agreed on?

kennethamy,

The Assumption of truth without the benifit of the actual experience of the relation in question can never be more than a degree of probability, an educated quess you might say. On the individual level, judgement without actual experience of said relation is an abstract process of decerning its probability, group agreement simply compounds this process, neither can arrive at certainty without the actual experience of the said relation. One knows the pot is hot by the touch, the state of the object relative to me its subject, the truth is directly experienced in the present tense, thus it is known to be true. So I guess I would say too, that truth is limited to the experience of the moment.Truth is that which stands the test of experience.

[perplexity]

Experience perceives variation in terms of pattern recognition,

which is thus a group agreement.

---

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Experience perceives variation in terms of pattern recognition,

which is thus a group agreement.

---

How is pattern recognition equated with group agreement? A person stranded by them self on a deserted island can still perceive variations in terms of pattern recognition.

[perplexity]

A pattern is not a pattern except to make a match.

Matches made thereby group.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A pattern is not a pattern except to make a match.

Matches made thereby group.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow this reasoning; could you please delineate it for me?

[perplexity]

A group is a collection or assemblage, verified as such because of some sort of discernible replication, an apparent agreement.

---

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A group is a collection or assemblage, verified as such because of some sort of discernible replication, an apparent agreement.

---

Of course; it seems I was reading a different meaning into "group agreement."