Truth Decay

[edmskeptic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjEC1vOIuxY

just because the cbc today is in credible doesn't mean that it was always that way.

1972 seemed to be a good year

[Lady tehMa]

The last place I would look for truth is the CBC.

It doesn't fit your narrative, but CBC news is centrist and fact based.

"In general, CBC’s straight news reporting is consistently low biased, factual and covers both sides of issues. Editorially, the opinion pages tend to be balanced with some stories slightly leaning left"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-news ... adcasting/

You have GOT to be kidding

You can't get much more biased than CBC . . .

[Staredintoabyss]

The last place I would look for truth is the CBC.

It doesn't fit your narrative, but CBC news is centrist and fact based.

"In general, CBC’s straight news reporting is consistently low biased, factual and covers both sides of issues. Editorially, the opinion pages tend to be balanced with some stories slightly leaning left"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-news ... adcasting/

If you think CBC is centrist you don't know where the center is, you need to re-calibrate your compass.

[rustled]

Truth is subjective. I prefer to rely on fact.

This is why scientists will never tell you "the truth". They will tell you the theory, and the facts which support it.

Typically it is those with an agenda seeking to influence minds IE biased news sources, religious indoctrinators, conspiracy pushers etc who will claim to have (or to be) "The Truth".

Never take anything anyone says to be "the truth" at face value. Always find the facts, and the credibility of those facts.

This post took me down quite a rabbit hole.

To me, "the truth" IS the FULL truth - any "truth" that could be considered subjective is not THE truth, but a half truth. I wondered if the word had evolved, or if it has always had multiple definitions.
Here's "Definitions from Oxford Languages":

noun

the quality or state of being true.

• that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

For me, only the first definition is "the truth" - the second is an accepted explanation of the truth.

It seems to me some of us will only ever accept as THE truth that which meets the first definition, while others are genuinely comfortable with the relative inaccuracy of the second. (We acknowledge how the truth of how gravity affects objects is NOT the same as the explanation - a scientific theory that has yet to be disproved. Disproving Einstein's theory of relativity would NOT cause an anvil, a feather or a helium balloon to behave differently when released from a height of three feet, as per Newton's law of gravity.)

Since the dawn of time, the "belief accepted as true" definition of "truth" has been used to manipulate people with too little understanding into agreeing with statements supported by the "everyone knows" argument. It is an incredibly powerful argument, used over time for great good - but also used to compel human sacrifice, witch burning, ethnic cleansings and more. And despite the many examples of danger, people still allow themselves to be manipulated - worse, still use the same "everyone knows" arguments about "accepted truths" in their attempts to silence others into going along with cruel agendas, downplaying the consequences with the same excuse of "for the greater good of all".

By agreeing that "truth is subjective", by accepting that second "everyone knows" definition, we have collectively given journalists tacit permission to be as biased as they wish: "Everyone knows the media cannot be expected to control their own biases, so it's up to us to accept their biases." This is utter poppycock. We most certainly CAN - and MUST - expect our journalists AND OUR SCIENTISTS to recognize that the truth is NOT subjective - that the truth is NOT what "everyone knows", that the truth is NOT popular consensus.

To me, anything less shows our willing abdication of critical thought, and our acceptance of the manipulation of the masses.
In my own quest for truth and understanding of human nature, I'm increasingly drawn to Stoicism:

The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. The Stoics believed that progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent.

https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

[the truth]

i am the truth ...........

[Staredintoabyss]

i am the truth ...........

I feel that is somehow wrong, but also somehow correct.

[the truth]

i am the truth ...........

I feel that is somehow wrong, but also somehow correct.

just poking fun at myself, at my expense , too many people stressing out on here lately

[Staredintoabyss]

On that I would say you speak the truth

[ferri]

[alanjh595]

[icon_lol2.gif]

AND THAT is the truth.

[the truth]

[icon_lol2.gif]

AND THAT is the truth.

what took you so long.

[Omnitheo]

Truth is subjective. I prefer to rely on fact.

This is why scientists will never tell you "the truth". They will tell you the theory, and the facts which support it.

Typically it is those with an agenda seeking to influence minds IE biased news sources, religious indoctrinators, conspiracy pushers etc who will claim to have (or to be) "The Truth".

Never take anything anyone says to be "the truth" at face value. Always find the facts, and the credibility of those facts.

This post took me down quite a rabbit hole.

To me, "the truth" IS the FULL truth - any "truth" that could be considered subjective is not THE truth, but a half truth. I wondered if the word had evolved, or if it has always had multiple definitions.
Here's "Definitions from Oxford Languages":

noun

the quality or state of being true.

• that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

For me, only the first definition is "the truth" - the second is an accepted explanation of the truth.

It seems to me some of us will only ever accept as THE truth that which meets the first definition, while others are genuinely comfortable with the relative inaccuracy of the second. (We acknowledge how the truth of how gravity affects objects is NOT the same as the explanation - a scientific theory that has yet to be disproved. Disproving Einstein's theory of relativity would NOT cause an anvil, a feather or a helium balloon to behave differently when released from a height of three feet, as per Newton's law of gravity.)

Since the dawn of time, the "belief accepted as true" definition of "truth" has been used to manipulate people with too little understanding into agreeing with statements supported by the "everyone knows" argument. It is an incredibly powerful argument, used over time for great good - but also used to compel human sacrifice, witch burning, ethnic cleansings and more. And despite the many examples of danger, people still allow themselves to be manipulated - worse, still use the same "everyone knows" arguments about "accepted truths" in their attempts to silence others into going along with cruel agendas, downplaying the consequences with the same excuse of "for the greater good of all".

By agreeing that "truth is subjective", by accepting that second "everyone knows" definition, we have collectively given journalists tacit permission to be as biased as they wish: "Everyone knows the media cannot be expected to control their own biases, so it's up to us to accept their biases." This is utter poppycock. We most certainly CAN - and MUST - expect our journalists AND OUR SCIENTISTS to recognize that the truth is NOT subjective - that the truth is NOT what "everyone knows", that the truth is NOT popular consensus.

To me, anything less shows our willing abdication of critical thought, and our acceptance of the manipulation of the masses.
In my own quest for truth and understanding of human nature, I'm increasingly drawn to Stoicism:

The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. The Stoics believed that progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent.

https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

Your example of gravity is exactly why scientists do not deal with "Truth" but rather theory supported by fact. Our understanding of gravity has changed several times, from Newton, to Einstein to modern science and quantum physics. Acting like something is "True" leaves no room for new information. It proposes that something is finite, and that there can be no better understanding. Science always leaves room for improvement, for refinement, for new information which can better explain the phenomenon.

When religous leaders claim something based on second hand retellings hundreds of years after the source material and then translated multiple times over the centuries to be "True" then what happens when something contradicts? IE like a discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls? How can both things be "True".

People believe things to be true. I'm not interested in beliefs, because people and the beliefs they hold are fallible, susceptible to biases and fallacies. Objective fact however remains fact. And the more facts you have, the better the theory which can be built.

[rustled]

To me, "the truth" IS the FULL truth - any "truth" that could be considered subjective is not THE truth, but a half truth. I wondered if the word had evolved, or if it has always had multiple definitions.
Here's "Definitions from Oxford Languages":
noun

the quality or state of being true.

• that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

For me, only the first definition is "the truth" - the second is an accepted explanation of the truth.

It seems to me some of us will only ever accept as THE truth that which meets the first definition, while others are genuinely comfortable with the relative inaccuracy of the second. (We acknowledge how the truth of how gravity affects objects is NOT the same as the explanation - a scientific theory that has yet to be disproved. Disproving Einstein's theory of relativity would NOT cause an anvil, a feather or a helium balloon to behave differently when released from a height of three feet, as per Newton's law of gravity.)

Since the dawn of time, the "belief accepted as true" definition of "truth" has been used to manipulate people with too little understanding into agreeing with statements supported by the "everyone knows" argument. It is an incredibly powerful argument, used over time for great good - but also used to compel human sacrifice, witch burning, ethnic cleansings and more. And despite the many examples of danger, people still allow themselves to be manipulated - worse, still use the same "everyone knows" arguments about "accepted truths" in their attempts to silence others into going along with cruel agendas, downplaying the consequences with the same excuse of "for the greater good of all".

By agreeing that "truth is subjective", by accepting that second "everyone knows" definition, we have collectively given journalists tacit permission to be as biased as they wish: "Everyone knows the media cannot be expected to control their own biases, so it's up to us to accept their biases." This is utter poppycock. We most certainly CAN - and MUST - expect our journalists AND OUR SCIENTISTS to recognize that the truth is NOT subjective - that the truth is NOT what "everyone knows", that the truth is NOT popular consensus.

To me, anything less shows our willing abdication of critical thought, and our acceptance of the manipulation of the masses.
In my own quest for truth and understanding of human nature, I'm increasingly drawn to Stoicism:

The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. The Stoics believed that progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent. https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

Your example of gravity is exactly why scientists do not deal with "Truth" but rather theory supported by fact.

When one defines truth as fact - fact IS truth. Therefore, scientists DO deal with truth, as defined "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".

Our understanding of gravity has changed several times, from Newton, to Einstein to modern science and quantum physics. Acting like something is "True" leaves no room for new information. It proposes that something is finite, and that there can be no better understanding. Science always leaves room for improvement, for refinement, for new information which can better explain the phenomenon.

It does not seem to me to be accurate to suggest a scientist who accepts a law of science as "true" MUST therefore "act like something is true". Also, in physics, there is a difference between a law of science and a scientific theory:

In physics a law describes a natural phenomenon, but does not attempt to describe how it works. [Newton's law of gravitation] is a law because it describes the force but makes not attempt to explain how the force works.

A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explains how gravity works by describing gravity as the effect of curvature of four dimensional spacetime.
https://socratic.org/questions/is-gravi ... -or-theory

Broad acceptance of Einstein's theory did not in any way affect the "truth" of Newton's law, and it seems to me scientists are always free to consider the "if". Scientists would get nowhere if there were no facts to accept as true, no truths upon which to rely.

Just as we all need truths upon which to rely in order to have honest discussions and lead productive lives. Plain language and a commitment to truth and honesty, versus deceit and dishonesty in defense of a narrative or agenda.

Until recently, science had the ability to speak in plain language in discussions BECAUSE science constantly strives to understand THE truth.

This striving for THE truth is the polar opposite of the deceits employed in discussions of "morality" and "social justice", which are focused on maintaining a narrative or supporting an agenda - as you've described here:

When religous leaders claim something based on second hand retellings hundreds of years after the source material and then translated multiple times over the centuries to be "True" then what happens when something contradicts? IE like a discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls? How can both things be "True".

People believe things to be true. I'm not interested in beliefs, because people and the beliefs they hold are fallible, susceptible to biases and fallacies. Objective fact however remains fact. And the more facts you have, the better the theory which can be built.

We can easily identify many examples of believing what secular "leaders" claim to be "true" despite contradictions, as presented in the OP. Under the guidance of our secular leaders, the media consistently uses subjective language and biases to manipulate public opinion despite the contradictions - and people routinely make excuses for accepting this subjective language and bias as "inevitable" rather than demanding truth.

Worse, people who ought to know better routinely argue with those who do not accept what today's secular equivalents to "religious leaders" tell us we must accept because "everyone knows", and what we must do "for the greater good of all".

[alanjh595]

[icon_lol2.gif]

AND THAT is the truth.

what took you so long.

I wasn't speaking to or about anyone other than Ferri.

[MAPearce]

If you think CBC is centrist you don't know where the center is, you need to re-calibrate your compass.

Defund the CBC ... The last good thing on it was HNIC and they managed to blow that deal ...

CBC news has been bought lock , stock and barrel by Chairman Mao ... er.. Trudeau , who even bragged about it ..

The last place I'd look for truth is the Communist Broadcast Corporation .

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_ ... pY9vJuLmxU