- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 71,681
- Reaction score
- 58,062
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What is your definition of the truth?
Factual information.
What is your definition of the truth?
Factual information.
I expected a more detailed definition from you since factual information leaves a lot to be desired due to it being rather loosely defined. I'll ask again, "What is your definition of truth?"
I'll take it that you aren't willing to answer the question honestly and more in depth.
There is no more depth to it, this is what I believe. Facts are things that are immutable and therefore they hold truth as they are reality or at least as close as we can get given the limits of our minds, animal nature, sense organs, and experience.
What are facts in your definition?
Something that exists in reality and is independant of our minds (unless we are talking about something like brain chemistry, then the line gets a little blurry)
For example, this message board. It is fact that it exists. It is fact that it is in an operational state.
As a huge fan of history and being one who referrers to it much more than anyone I know of as a main stay of a great many of my posts, and facts are by far more important in that context.
However if there were a another choice offered, one might learn just a bit more about the mind and nature of man and the effects on past history and possibly future events.
The question is: What has had the most effect on History, Historical facts or Historical Fiction that has been passed off as fact?
The reason I bring this up is is because Propaganda used as Historical Fact has been used through out history by Dictators a and Would be Dictators to change or effect current and future events.
Then once the "propaganda" has had the desired results if the propagandist was successful they write that history as fact, and it then had a further effect on both current, and future events.
It gets to be quite a philosophical discussion with deep meaning if you really look at all sides and include the psychological aspects.
Alright, that's a very vague and all encompassing definition that really doesn't help with your argument. A truth/fact for me is based upon historical documentation in regards to this thread. If an event happens and is documented to have happened by multiple first hand sources then it is a fact/truth.
Omitting important facts is a lie designed to deceive people to believe a falsehood.
The person relaying the information is not being truthful.
The basis of ignorance is not knowing the the truth
and since a lie that is devoid of facts it is ignorance.
All of this is not relevent. Why did you take me on this wild goose chase?
If you are saying that the only reason to omit a fact is a lie designed to deceive people, that is a mighty big claim there. I will ask you to back it up.
This is not correct. One can omit information and still have the information communicated be perfectly true. For example I could say that I am typing on a keyboard right now and this claim will be true. I can also tell you what keys I am hitting in what sequence and with what WPM, the model keyboard I am using, and how it is attached to the computer and also be true. The first statement omits facts that the second statement contains, yet both statements are true.
Correct. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge of whatever subject matter.
Also correct. However while lies cause ignorance, ignorance and lies are not the same thing.
Very relevant since we're deciding on a definition. Declaring it not relevant is a wild goose chase.
I can give you some real examples like the US single handedly won WWI and WWIII. The omission of Lincoln's negative actions during his presidency. Both of those are designed to deceive people.
An omission of fact with intent is a lie which is a deception.
I never stated that ignorance and lies are the same thing. I said 'a lie that is devoid of facts is ignorance.'
I'm the opposite of what you want to do in regards to kids learning about history. I believe that by telling them the whole truth allows them to decide what lessons should be learned from history. It develops critical thinking and gives them the tools to question everything. Your method is currently used, up until the bad stuff, and it's not developing critical thinking and students questioning. A student that questions everything will employ tools to analyze statements made to them and root out what is true and what isn't. A good example would be a student hearing you say that America is a good country where freedom and liberty are treasured and questioning it. What makes America a good country? Does America truly treasure freedom and liberty when there are laws that control behavior and movements of the people? This is all critical thinking and questioning of the status quo. Nowdays students just accept the spoonfed history without question and never critically think about the things they are taught.
That is unless I misunderstood the intent of your reply.