Truth without interpretation.

My question for you is why ask for criticism of the premises of your book here after, rather than before, publishing it.

If you are trying to affirm, in so disregarding our thoughts in the formulation of your book, that our opinions are irrelevant to the truth and no better than your own, why ask us? If you are unsure, why publish the book?

It seems you are questioning the reliability of using 'testimony' or 'observation' as an evidence for an argument/event. I I will use my own 'observation' to offer a possible solution to this question.

According to my experience, there are situations where you could only know the full truth, if you at least believed/assumed the partial truth. For example, in a mathematical inequality equation, you would substitute a number and assume it to be true; and if x is true, then x must be true for all situations (that satisfy the conditions) else x is false.

Now I'm going to answer, using deductive reasoning derived from sensory observation of partial/uncertain truths:

Empirical data based from observation is reliable and strong evidence.
There is limited things/events which a person can observe within his field of sensory-experience.
A person can't observe everything, sometimes he must rely on others observation to get information.
This is secondary information, which 'truth' can get stained by other person's personal interpretation.
Assume: We need all information we can get for humanity to progress and for civilization to evolve.

Conclusion: We need to trust other person's observation, test its truthfulness, build new ideas around it. Even if it means accepting 'truth' that is uncertain, even if 'truth' is primitive or imperfect, even if it means getting the 'truth' contaminated by bias and subjective interpretation. As long as this 'truth' can be useful, we can rely on other person's 'truth' and learn new things.

@Baden Is this Spam?

Quoting True Point

Progressive reality is what all aspects of nature presents to us.

No idea why you're calling that "progressive," but okay.

Quoting True Point

Observational reality is what an individual presents to us, which is subject to personal interpretation.

Basically you're describing hearsay there, right?

Quoting True Point

The question is; if truth is a native of our ideology and not an accurate representation of REALITY, why do we rely on people for the truth, when their truth is based on observation?

A lot of things about this question seem confused to me.

First, I don't know what "a native of our ideology" is supposed to amount to.

Second, why wouldn't "progressive reality," if that's a type of truth, be accurate? (Granted, I don't know why you'd be saying it's a representation of reality. Wouldn't what nature presents to us, a la "progressive reality," be reality and not a representation of it? Unless you're assuming representationalism with respect to philosophy of perception, but you're not making that explicit.)

Then you asked why we rely on people for the truth. Where is that conclusion coming from? You're saying that we only rely on hearsay for truth?

Next, if "observational reality" is the name of "what an individual presents to us," it seems odd to say that what an individual presents to us is based on observation. Observation is what it is, not what it's based on.

Reply to True Point
Reality wouldn’t need a qualification, would it? It is simply what is, what exists out there independent of any human mind. Of course, the moment we try to know it, we attempt to get it into our mind and then it’s not independent anymore. In other words, we don’t know if it is the truth, or we don’t know if we know what we think we know.

I don’t see how the two kinds of reality that you suggest can be THE reality. They are rather interpretations of reality that may or may not correspond to the “real” reality.

What you call “progressive reality” sounds like – the interpretation of reality that we get through direct observation of nature, and “observational reality” sounds like – the interpretation of reality that we get through more or less reliable information from other people.

Quoting True Point

if truth is a native of our ideology

Is it? Do you put truth inside our ideology as in inside our mindset? Nothing is the truth just because it’s in our mind, is it?

But let’s suppose it is. Are you asking why we rely on second hand information when other people’s “truths” are just interpretations whereas our own truths are the real thing since they are actually in our mind?

Truth leads to degrees of knowledge, not the other way round.

Truth means things like consistency and non-contradiction, both internal and external.

Anchored Train in particular is onto something. Empathy gives us opportunity for intersubjectivity and to weigh up testimony.

Etymologically "truth" is related to "tree" i.e a straight beam or plank from a trunk, used to show how "true" another line was.

Quoting Terrapin Station

Progressive reality is what all aspects of nature presents to us.
— True Point

No idea why you're calling that "progressive," but okay.

Perhaps because it's not tainted by backward religious digma? I don't know.

Quoting True Point

The question is; if truth is a native of our ideology and not an accurate representation of REALITY, why do we rely on people for the truth, when their truth is based on observation?

1. To not duplicate work.
2. Save time and expenses.
3. To disseminate knowledge to large, and I mean huge, amounts of people cheaply, quickly, and efficiently.

I beg to differ on your stance on reality not being represented accurately.

This we don't know for sure. Reality could be presented as it is, or wrongly. However, we are not the judges to decide which way. In other words, from our point of view, we are unable to decide or determine with any degree of accuracy that what we see and sense and understand is reality. 1. It could be, or else 2. it is only our perception which is distorted, or else 3. our perception has nothing to do with reality. We have no clue which of the three is true.

Truth about what?

Reply to god must be atheist But we'd still have culture and all our embodied filters and more affecting what we think nature presents to us. Religion is just one of the many filters one can have on nature.

Reply to Coben You're right about that. I just can't think of any other filter that has so much more effect in distorting the observation of nature as religions. In my estimate, it is at least ten, maybe hundred times more potent a filter than the next closest one.

The next closest effective filter is natural ignorance, I would guess, with a hard-to-decide tie with low intelligence. But religion makes really, but really intelligent people misread the clues nature presents. I have only seen politicians do "adjust the facts when they speak against theory" and of course fraudulent scientists; but both are motivated by money, whereas when a religious person "alters the facts to justify theory", then he does it from the heart, with his entire conviction thrown behind it, and he will defend his stance tooth-and-nail. If you show a scientist how he is fraudulent, he will eventually break down, and admit to it. A religious person would never sacrifice any of the tenets and dogmas of his faith in a similar manner when presented by irrefutable facts. Or if not irrefutable, then more than reasonable facts.

Quoting True Point

The question is; if truth is a native of our ideology and not an accurate representation of REALITY, why do we rely on people for the truth, when their truth is based on observation?

In truth a primary aim is to achieve objectivity - to see something for what it really is. The most "obvious" way to get to the truth is through personal observation and that's where the difficulty lies. Our observations are invariably colored by our cognitive biases which either lead us away from or distort the truth. In such cases we seek corroboration and the principle at work seems to be that one person, especially you, can be deceived but not everyone.

In very simple terms observations need verification by other people. In fact your post is an instance of this essential truth confirmation process.

Quoting god must be atheist

You're right about that. I just can't think of any other filter that has so much more effect in distorting the observation of nature as religions. In my estimate, it is at least ten, maybe hundred times more potent a filter than the next closest one.

Many of the naturalists were really quite religious. I mean, the Abrahamic religions, to a great degree, don't consider nature important. It's not like they have theories about how water gets to the leaves in trees or the mating habits of mongooses. There are some things in the Bible that created tensions with astronomy and evolutionary theory. But most of nature is not described, so no contradictions exist. At least not for most modern people. Me, I'm a panpychist, so I think current science has filters, but that's another story. I'm old enough to remember the huge resistance the scientific community had to animals having consciousness, intentions, etc. Talk about filters. You could destroy your career believing in that in professional contexts. Right now plants are on the cusp. I think the most damaging filter is reductionism. Now no one goes around saying they are a reductionist. So, it's a pattern - that is also extremely useful - that inhabits a number of belief systems. Now science, of course, in general has been fixing the imbalance with reductionism and holism in recent decades, but it is still there, especially when we look at application - anything from psychopharmacology to genetic modification as examples in the life sciences being applied. The we look at emotional pain, through the filters of psychiatric distribution of psychotropics and via the pathologization of individual emotional suffering is a huge and extremely damaging filter. And gm is playing fast and loose with all of us, since, amongst other things, those companies control their own goverment oversight and can create research results per order. Apart from their incredible lobbying and campaign finance powers, and then also connections to other powerful industries. The viewing of all life as modular individuals with replaceable parts and as chemicl machines we should tweak and are capale of tweaking without catostrophic risk is a filter that worries me much more than the Abrahamic filters.

Here’s an interesting idea from Asian studies: one of the qualities of a Buddhist sage is called ‘yath?bh?ta?’ which can be translated to mean ‘to see things as they truly are’.

There is nowadays a tendency to believe that science might discern this, but in Buddhism (and other Indic religions) yath?bh?ta? has an existential or ethical dimension, in that what prevents us seeing things ‘as they truly are’ is a kind of profound cognitive deficiency, called Avidy?.

The literal meaning of that is ignorance, misconceptions, misunderstandings, incorrect knowledge; it is the negation of Vidya, ‘true knowledge’. It occurs extensively in Hindu texts, including the Upanishads, and in other Indian religions such as Buddhism and Jainism, particularly in the context of metaphysical reality. In all Dharmic systems, it represents fundamental ignorance and misperception of the phenomenal world.’ (Wikipedia)

Now, another interesting fact: an author by the name of Peter Harrison argues in his book The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science that early modern science was intended, in large part, to remedy the deficiencies which had occurred as a consequence of ‘the fall’ (as the title suggests.)

I think there’s a convergence here.