Sunday, February 7, 2010

Evidence and False Truth?

If you have evidence and that evidence is based on false technique, bad judgment, and the majority decides it is right: how does one know if it is true evidence?Evidence and False Truth?
';Truth'; is something that, ultimately, we must all define and seek for ourselves and in our own way. There is no Universal Standard, and thus is there is no single answer to your question. If we accept Plato's principle that the only actually ';Know'; what we can prove and that all else we merely ';Believe';, and if you don't wish to accept the available evidence because you don't trust how it was obtained, then you can't ';know'; if it's true or not unless you can construct that you are willing to accept as convincing to you personally. Of course that could still be argued to be simple belief because someone else might not be willing to accept your evidence either and could then claim your proof was no more valid than the one you rejected. Personally I think that's why a Roman Governor in Judea once raised the question of what ';Truth'; actually was, and then washed his hands.Evidence and False Truth?
It simply is unknown if things are true. So your idea may be true, but unknown, thus held in faith (perhaps this is what you meant).

Report Abuse



A few hundred years ago, the majority of people on this planet thought the earth was flat. Their evidence was that, if you looked away off into the distance, then you couldn't help but see that the earth was flat. Then a man of vision (or better vision) noticed that when ships sailed into the sunset, they would start to sink into the ocean (at a great distance away). A person of knowledge should not take things at face value, but question everything. Science does not accept one experiment as fact. It requires repeated experiences with the same outcome before it is accepted as fact..
Truth is a subjective and also objective entity. What is true for one may not be true for another. Take the arraignment of Jesus before the Roman Governor Pontis Pilate. Both had their ';truths';, Jesus = I am here as a representative from the house of David, Chosen by GOD to be King of the Jews. Pilate = I am a representative of Rome who are the rulers of Palestine, and by default of the Jews. Both spoke the truth but from varied subjective platforms, Jesus's was, historical, spiritual and objective truth, Pilate was a contemporary and legalistic, subjective truth. Both had their truths but the evidence was used solely in a legalistic form, to appease the larger public opinion, (majority decision). Pilate accepted some of Jesus's truths and tried to dissuade any blame by ';washing his hands'; symbolical acknowledging the Majority truth. Jesus accepted some of Pilate's truths, and responded to the legal charges by stating ';that's what you say I am';, again symbolically acknowledging the majority truth.


A more contemporary example is the issue of crime and punishment. An eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. Some argue the truth is, if you commit a crime you forfeit your eye, or tooth, basically you pay the ultimate and most severe of punishments, an objective truth. Others state the truth as no more than an eye or no more than a tooth, believing the intent is to limit the punishment to a just retribution, a subjective truth.


Having sat in many a courtroom, I found that you need to separate the entities; Truth, Evidence and Justice. All three are separate in meaning and scope, and likewise all three are subjective in application. Science, Philosophy, and Theology, have tried for centuries to combine and define all three but the best we have managed so far is to complement one or two but never all three.


Benjamin Franklin wrote in Federalist Papers that '; As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other';.


The short answer is the same as it ever was: Evidence presented, is not truth, just truth in fact, subject to, perception, opinion and observation, ( an incomplete and subjective resolution). While we can fight against the Mob, inevitably the Mob will rule for itself. Often on the merest appearance of objective ';TRUTHS'; ( an equally incomplete and objective truth).

No comments:

Post a Comment