From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Fri May 15 1998 - 22:17:04 MDT
At 02:42 PM 5/15/98 CST, The SHO master c.c." wrote:
>If people had an open mind they could see that "truth is in the eye of
>the beholder".--this has always, will always, and should always be
>true (in my eyes).
IAN: I think that that gets to the heart of
the matter pertaining to why truth is seen
as an unreliable standard... my truth, their
truth, this truth, that truth. The same sub-
jective morass applies to utility, their
utility, my utility, this, that...
But this picture paints a false "same as"
relation between utility and truth. While
utility can always be defined as subjec-
tive (even a useful thing like a spoon
is not useful if you prefer to eat with
your hands), but truth is no so subjec-
tive. If all can see that it's raining
outside, but one guy says it's a sunny
and dry day, we may say, "Well that's
the truth for him," but I'm comfortable
is saying that it is not THE truth, and
thus I feel we can say truth is objective.
I believe that we can have a scientific
definition of truth (a one-one or maybe
onto function, or both) that eliminates
in one fell swoop this morass of subjec-
tive truth, which I think is a direct
threat to science and ethical standards
as this leads to a "utility first" frame-
work that leads to "anything goes."
********************************************************
Visit Ian W Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
a -A defines A
A: x is A b A -A
l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
? ? A & -A contain each other.
--------------------------------------------------------
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:05 MST