Demonstrable Truths (split from 'Ask me questions')

[Jobar]

Here's three very different questions for you.

Would you agree that the only meaningful truths are those which can be demonstrated? Why or why not?

Will you expound on the differences between pantheism and panentheism, as you understand them?

And (perhaps) an easier one, inspired by post 42- why would you say that James Randi still has his million dollars? (See first question.)

[Politesse]

Would you agree that the only meaningful truths are those which can be demonstrated? Why or why not?Well yes, I guess. If they are meaningful to someone, I presume they probably have been demonstrated, at least to the person or community they are meaningful to. How could you create meaning out from something before encountering it? And meaning is a purely subjective affair, it has no existence outside of the individual or collective human mind.

Will you expound on the differences between pantheism and panentheism, as you understand them?I don't think panentheism is well defined, aside from being like pantheism but with some other added feature or possibility. Krause coined the term, didn't he? I do prefer the latter term for myself, when pressed, because it leaves open a door that I'd rather not close prematurely. I can't reasonably comment on what might or might not lie beyond or within or before the observable universe. How could I? Such a thing would be beyond my reach. I am certain that God, if God is to be reasonably called God, must have a part in all things, so I cheerfully accept pantheist as a descriptor. beyond that, though, things grow more ambiguous, and stray into topics on which I am firmly agnostic. I have no idea what God is when she's at home, or "where" that home is. I'm not too concerned with trying to find out.

And (perhaps) an easier one, inspired by post 42- why would you say that James Randi still has his million dollars? (See first question.)If I had a contest over a million of my dollars, and I got to decide who won it, I too would still have my million dollars. ;)

He's also asking people to "prove" aspects of one worldview according to the standards of another, which seems a bit suspect to me, like... well, do people even enter his contest to begin with? I have a hard time seeing who would, unless they were a storefront psychic attempting to drum up business. My Zeo, who reads tarot, would laugh if I suggested trying to "prove" to Randi that her cards were objectively accurate, because she doesn't really care whether they are provable in that way. If they seem to be useful to her clients, than they are performing a worthwhile function. If not, then not, and she doesn't encourage them to follow advice that doesn't sound right. We have done little experiments from time to time, with varying results. But those are for fun, not for an agenda, and she doubts the deck would even consent to be used for personal profit that way. From her perspective, even winning a contest like that honestly would make her no better than the very worst frauds of her craft, by immorally exploiting the medium by which it operates. I'm not saying tarot reading is objectively accurate and just chooses not to be proven, but I am explaining why I think most spiritual practicioners who take themselves seriously would probably rather avoid dog-and-pony shows like that.

[Jobar]

Politesse, you're under the mistaken impression that Randi himself judges trials of his Challenge. See the challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html); Randi himself (or his agents) only sets up the preliminary test, in the presence of media witnesses, to see if the claimed ability or phenomenon qualifies for a formal (and very public) test. If someone could demonstrate their claim, Randi would be subjected to public ridicule (and very likely a lawsuit) if he refused to allow someone with a demonstrable power to take his challenge, and thus win the money.

No one has yet passed the initial test- not to Randi's satisfaction, but most importantly, not to the satisfaction of interested witnesses whose money isn't on the line! Your aspersion on Randi's honesty is not a valid one.

I also have trouble with the second part of your answer- as do the more than a thousand people who have filled out the formal application to take the challenge. Not just because a million dollars is nothing to sneeze at, even today- but because anyone who had access to that sort of power or knowledge could have a vast effect on the world, far beyond any sum of money. It would mean their name would ring down through history! More- I think that anyone who could claim Randi's money would have a positive moral obligation to reveal their power/knowledge, in the interest of the human race.

Do you see how this relates to my first question? Truth which cannot be demonstrated is not truth. The fact that no one has come forward to prove Randi's naturalistic view wrong is very powerful evidence that any 'truth' which is 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' is indemonstrable- and thus, not truth at all!

[Politesse]

I'd be more interested in the opinion of a disinterested witness. The preliminary test is conducted by Randi or another JREF person, not some neutral witness, and that's the test that crazily enough no one has ever passed.

I also have trouble with the second part of your answer- as do the more than a thousand people who have filled out the formal application to take the challenge. Not just because a million dollars is nothing to sneeze at, even today- but because anyone who had access to that sort of power or knowledge could have a vast effect on the world, far beyond any sum of money. It would mean their name would ring down through history! More- I think that anyone who could claim Randi's money would have a positive moral obligation to reveal their power/knowledge, in the interest of the human race. I'm just not sure that's where a lot of people's interests lie. I mean, take our case. Zeo started reading cards because she found them interesting, and kept at it because people told her. We don't make a lot of income off it, and mostly do "business" with friends, who find her counsel helpful. It's a cottage industry. She's not claiming to be able to predict the fates of the nations or who's going to assassinate what president will be assassinated when, and wouldn't be interested in doing so. So inviting a media circus into our living room, well... I can't imagine that a lot of people would, in fact, welcome that kind of a thing into their life and business, unless they're of the profiteering mindset and want the million bucks or whatever. Not that Randi wants that either; it's obvious he's in it for the dog and pony show, since he tries to discourage non-celebrities like us from entering. He calls it "making sure the applicant is serious", but you have to be pretty damn serious to happen to have a published book or signed doctor's note handy. But that's beside the point since she wouldn't want to in the first place, encouraged or not.

You think you're making your point when you mention that a thousand people have answered the challenge in more than 40 years, which suggests to me that you have no idea just how many people engage in some form of supernatural practice. I mean, I assume you realize that there are some six billion religious folk in the world, but even if you narrow it down to people who practice the kind of arcane arts that Mr. Randi is gunning for, a thousand is not, in fact, a big number. And I know that this isn't because the contest is obscure or unheard of; it comes up at least every now and then in metaphysical circles, and he likes to put fliers in supply stores and the like.

Do you see how this relates to my first question? Truth which cannot be demonstrated is not truth.What is truth? If you define truth as "that which can be demonstrated" then I agree that by that definition, that which cannot be demonstrated is not truth.

[Jobar]

What is truth?

So I have you admitting you can't answer my question(s) in less than a handful of posts? Hey, that was too easy. ;) I was asking you, remember!

Let me ask it this way. Of course we can easily imagine a real truth that's known to only one person. BUT- is there any way for a person to satisfy *themselves* that it's a real truth, if there is no way for them to demonstrate it to some other person, at least potentially? Can they ever be sure their truth isn't just madness, hallucination, or simply an error?

Back to Randi- it's obvious to me that you haven't read that link, because they've changed their rules so that it's possible for a potential claimant to avoid taking the preliminary examination. All they need is a news story testifying to their ability- newspaper, TV, or online- and a signed statement from an academic at some recognized institution, stating that the talent in question is real, in their opinion. (Note that Randi may still require a simple demonstration before setting the formal challenge, but the new rules are intended to take Randi or his agents out of the positions of judges as much as possible.)

And still no one has yet gotten to the point of a formal, official attempt to take his million.

I don't want to insult you, or your lady wife- but I'm convinced that, at some level, you are both quite aware that the 'talent' she has for reading cards is not something supernatural or extrasensory, and could never be used to win Randi's million. Certainly if I had a talent or knowledge which might be earthshaking- not to mention profitable!- there's no way I'd be hiding it away, just because I didn't want my privacy invaded!

[Politesse]

I'm not the one claiming to know what truth is and isn't. Why should we care whether it is supernatural or extrasensory or what have you? It works for the purposes we put it to. Among which is not, I'll happily admit, winning stacked contests on the internet. Z wanted to come on and post about this herself, but she's still waiting for an admin to click a button, I assume, as the forum still won't let her post yet.

[Jobar]

Ah, well, you're talking to the right person then! Just a mo'.

[columbus]

Would you agree that the only meaningful truths are those which can be demonstrated? Why or why not?



I would not. Those are the clearest truth, but not the only truths with meaning. The truth is that it was possible for Bronze Agers to send voices and pictures through the air via television, they just didn't know it. That truth was meaningful, despite being undemonstrable.

I think the same is probably true about many abilities we now classify as paranormal or supernatural. We are just coming to realize a lot of previously unimagined things about humans, their brains, and the universe in general. It would surprise me if none of it were true. That doesn't mean that 99% of all such claims aren't currently the result of wishful thinking or scams. But just as you could not explain the internet to even a well educated medieval monk, I'm sure there is more out there that is meaningful truth, but not yet demonstrable than we can imagine.

Tom

[Jobar]

The truth is that it was possible for Bronze Agers to send voices and pictures through the air via television, they just didn't know it.

But until that possibility was demonstrated, no one could name it truth.

I could say it's possible to invent vessels which will allow us to travel from star to star, at speeds much faster than light- but until I can *demonstrate* that, it isn't true. Any statement of the unknown may *prove* (i.e. be demonstrated to be) true, but until it is so proven it can't be called truth.

[columbus]

So, in this context you are equating useful with meaningful?

That doesn't seem right to me.

Especially in this context, where the proof might already be there, but lost in the noise of the rest of it.

Tom

[Jobar]

So, in this context you are equating useful with meaningful?

No, I don't think so.

If truth is to be meaningful, that means we have to be able to both communicate it, and also show it to be true. It's possible to demonstrate lots of mathematical truths that are, as far as anyone knows, completely useless in the material world. But that doesn't make them any less true.

[Jobar]

But what is truth?
Is truth a changing law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
Pilate, from the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar

I think that if 'truth' is to have any real meaning the answer to both parts of Pilate's question must be 'yes'. Truth changes as we humans learn more of it, both as individuals and as a race; it isn't something ultimate or absolute. But if our truths are real, we ought to be able to show them to each other; so my truths are, at least potentially, the same as yours.

added- We can also think of capital-T Truth, which *is* an absolute; an abstract concept, a pattern which all individual, real, concrete truths must fit.

Care to take a stab at defining that abstract- in a way that doesn't require anything to be shown, demonstrated?

[Barefoot Bree]

I always thought that second line was "unchanging law" not "a changing law". Makes more sense - and makes the answer to both questions the same.

What does it say about me that I instantly recognized the song from the first line alone?

[Clivedurdle]

Sometimes I wonder if the real reason I am an atheist was Jesus Christ Superstar, Hair, West Side Story and Godspell.

I wonder if religions would be consigned to a quicker death with more films and musicals.

[Zeo]

I don't want to insult you, or your lady wife- but I'm convinced that, at some level, you are both quite aware that the 'talent' she has for reading cards is not something supernatural or extrasensory, and could never be used to win Randi's million. Certainly if I had a talent or knowledge which might be earthshaking- not to mention profitable!- there's no way I'd be hiding it away, just because I didn't want my privacy invaded!

I just want to clarify what it is I do here. I agree that I don't see what I do as supernatural. What I do is more like counseling, which is entirely subjective. In fact, the reason why I don't apply for Randi's contest is this:

Some claims are, unfortunately, untestable. For example, claiming that you are able to make someone feel happy by talking to them is untestable, because it is impossible to objectively gauge someone’s level of happiness, especially if they have been told that after talking to you they should feel happy.

The work I do is subjective, the cards have intended meanings but those meanings shift depending on the needs of the person interacting with them. I am not a psychic practitioner and don't need to claim to be. That said, I agree that anyone who could demonstrate their powers ought to consider doing so for the benefit of humanity, if for no other reason.


So, in this context you are equating useful with meaningful?

No, I don't think so.

If truth is to be meaningful, that means we have to be able to both communicate it, and also show it to be true. It's possible to demonstrate lots of mathematical truths that are, as far as anyone knows, completely useless in the material world. But that doesn't make them any less true.

I really think the terms are getting confused here.

Meaningful, to me, means that the person who believes the truth finds it to be of value. It does not need to be of value to anyone else, nor does it need to be demonstrable to anyone else. (Clearly the belief has been demonstrated in some capacity to the believer, but that's beside the point.)

Useful, to me, means what we can communicate and show to be true to others outside of ourselves. It's tangible, it can be replicated and depended on to show results to others.

It is meaningful to me to believe in a conscious universe. Is it useful to others whether or not the universe is conscious, or whether that has any effect on us? I don't think it needs to be "useful" to be meaningful. More importantly, the value of this truth to me does not depend on its value to others.

If I understand your original inquiry, are you saying that no truth can be valuable unless it's a capital T truth? (Valuable is a purposefully subjective word, much like "meaningful.")

I do believe in a Truth, but I don't believe I necessarily know what it is. I do believe that things could theoretically be measured against it, to a point. What if the Truth were that reality is truly subjective? When you have a dream, what of that dream can be called Truth? We want to say "none of it, of course!" but what if all reality were a dream? I think at that point we'd become less interested in Ultimate Truth and become more interested in personal truths, or what renders meaning for ourselves and makes sense of our experiences. The more people we share our reality with, the more "real" it becomes.

[munnki]

Meaningful, to me, means that the person who believes the truth finds it to be of value. It does not need to be of value to anyone else, nor does it need to be demonstrable to anyone else. (Clearly the belief has been demonstrated in some capacity to the believer, but that's beside the point.)

I must politely disagree with this... don't you see how this type of thinking could be applied to almost anything and to any end.

The reading of cards is a relatively harmless pursuit I'll admit but what of beliefs and ideologies which are not harmless.

There may be such a thing as a private truth which one holds within oneself and which in no way influences ones behaviour or outlook.... but I think these truths are both unlikely and rare. I think that things which one finds true one instinctively looks to share with others and one only withholds things which will be dissolved or threatened by revelation.

I don't think believe in the supernatural is held in suspension somewhere in a persons consciousness outside of all of their other beliefs. I think this belief informs the total fabric or and construction of the rest of that persons psychology.

You might say... it's just a harmless game but underneath that game is a series of beliefs and ideas which take hold of both the players of that game and the societies in which the game is played.

Words like 'meaning', 'truth', 'purpose' are words pregnant with power and as such we should be careful what we apply them to. The darker history of the human race is a history of mistaken beliefs in things and the consequences of those beliefs....(either religious or ideological)...

If you are saying that you use Tarot cards associatively and in a way which does not make the other believe that something supernatural is happening. Then there is little difference between discussing those cards and discussing a picture book with another person. But, in my experience, most users of those cards place some supernatural belief into either the cards, the person dealing them or both... and that must surely be symptomatic of a certain type of psychology...

[Ozymandias]

Would you agree that the only meaningful truths are those which can be demonstrated? Why or why not?


No. See Gödel's incompleteness theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems).

[Zeo]

Munnki, I won't deny that there have been those who use supernatural claims and even Tarot reading for the purpose of deceiving or hurting others. And I also wouldn't deny that one's meaningful truth or belief shapes their entire outlook, sometimes to the detriment of others.

I'm just not sure how an objective Truth would necessarily fix the issue of people hurting others. If we all had an evenly accessible understanding of Truth, that would theoretically give us a fair playing field with which to interact. Right? Except...what about all the times in history where it was mandatory to believe X claim? You were killed or tortured or ostracized if you did not adhere to it. Nowadays, we know those "truths" are bunk. But, say we were to access Truth. No, really, this time for sure! Would we still have people policing each others' beliefs? "You can't believe Y, because we all know only X is true!"

People are still going to find a way to bully each other over Truth. I just don't see how eradicating one form of potentially harmful thinking such as supernatural, paranormal or religious beliefs will stop people from getting hurt. Beliefs of any sort can be harmful if they are used to take control over others.

[munnki]

It won't... we will continue to make mistakes until something else better than us evolves and we have destroyed each other... but there certainly is nothing to be gained in keeping things we know to be false going because we may believe in other falsehoods in the future.

The elimination of the supernatural, religion and etc... is not a destination... it is a waypoint on the journey to a society based on rationalism and materialism... it is a flag that something has happened... the much more difficult path will be the elimination of ideology... or, at least, the transcendence of it...

[columbus]

But what is truth?
Is truth a changing law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
Pilate, from the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar

I think that if 'truth' is to have any real meaning the answer to both parts of Pilate's question must be 'yes'. Truth changes as we humans learn more of it, both as individuals and as a race; it isn't something ultimate or absolute. But if our truths are real, we ought to be able to show them to each other; so my truths are, at least potentially, the same as yours.

added- We can also think of capital-T Truth, which *is* an absolute; an abstract concept, a pattern which all individual, real, concrete truths must fit.

I think Bree is right.

"Is truth unchanging law?" Puts a whole different spin.

I do not agree that both parts are necessary for truth, or either. Truth remains whether anybody accepts it or not. Like when everbody "knew" that the earth was a flat plain surrounded by water and topped by a blue dome. The truth was that the earth was a ball of molten rock hurtling through empty space. That truth wasn't demonstrable, and it wasn't useful, but it was meaningful.

Similarly, I expect that things that are not currently useful or demonstrable are nevertheless true and meaningful. I don't know what they are.

Suppose that it is possible for some humans, under some circumstances, to access knowledge that they will have in the future. You and I see time as a continuous stream, but maybe it isn't. Maybe some people, under some circumstances can see what will be, the way you and I can see things on the other side of the world. Just as our ability to access a live cam in Hong Kong on our monitor would seem supernatural to a medieval monk. Is your truth the same as his?

tom

[Jobar]

Welcome, Zeo, and my apologies for not responding here; I've been incredibly busy IRL, getting ready for my party next weekend. (See here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=221411&#post221411).) I want to take time to give you a full response- hopefully tomorrow night I won't be too worn out!