Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahoshua
Some view "truth" as being dependent of ones' point of view. I view truth as incorruptible fact.
A good example would be 2 people arguing over the color of a piece of cloth, but one of them is color-blind.
|
But how do you tell which is colour blind?
Just the one who is in the minority?
Anyway, lets say that:
Person 'A' says he has a blue experience of the cloth.
Person 'B' says he has a red experience of the cloth.
Person 'C' says the cloth is emitting light at 500nm wavelength.
No one has said anything false here and only person 'C' has said something
potentially falsifiable because he is the only one speaking about a external, as
opposed to internal, world.
Persons D and E think that their experiences corrosion directly to an external,
ontological world, they might say:
D: the cloth is blue
E: the cloth is red
D and E's statements are falsifiable, but there is no way to check who is right.
Our senses are the only way to check and they disagree.
Even if 100,000,000 people agreed with person D, we would still not have anyway of
checking that they are all right.
lastly, person D and E are both assuming that qualities like 'blue' and 'red' exist
externally and independently of our selves.
If no one looks at a tree, are it's leaves green?
I am
not saying that truth is dependent on your point of view.
And I am
not saying that truth is not incorruptible fact.
I'm just saying that any ontological truths that are external from us, can never be
verified and never be known, if they exist at all.