Subjective Truth

Ian Goddard (
Sat, 16 May 1998 23:11:39 -0400

Was: ExI = Truth First ?

At 07:25 PM 5/16/98 -0400, Michael Lorrey wrote:

>> IAN: I think that that gets to the heart of
>> the matter pertaining to why truth is seen
>> as an unreliable standard... my truth, their
>> truth, this truth, that truth. The same sub-
>> jective morass applies to utility, their
>> utility, my utility, this, that...
>Unfortunately, I must seriously disagree with you, as treating truth
>subjectively is the first step toward the destruction of the concept
>of contract law.

IAN: I agree with you, I was stating the
above in the process of defining the case
I was countering, that truth is subjective.
Your point about contract law is excellent.

>> I believe that we can have a scientific
>> definition of truth (a one-one or maybe
>> onto function, or both) that eliminates
>> in one fell swoop this morass of subjec-
>> tive truth, which I think is a direct
>> threat to science and ethical standards
>> as this leads to a "utility first" frame-
>> work that leads to "anything goes."
>Yes, this is the whole reason behind what is termed by many conservatives
>as the 'degradation' of society. If everything is subjective, as liberals
>are wont to establish as a societal truth, then anything goes.

IAN: Exactly, and...

>THe resulting destabilization causes people to prefer more authoritarian
>statist measures to return society to 'normalcy'. This is not an accident.
>Creating dissafected classes is essential to generating support for
>authoritarian statist measures in any society, which is a central strategy
>of terrorists and subversive groups in order to generate general sentiment
>for their goals, as increasing authoritarian repression of dissafected
>classes is essential to creating the atmosphere for a general uprising.
>This is standard strategy taught in ChiCom, bolshevik, and other nihilist
>guerrilla schools.

IAN: I also have wondered if the "watering down"
of truth is not part of such a totalitarian agenda,
or, gasp, "conspiracy." Maybe and maybe not, it may
be taking the issue to a level that's not totally
necessary in the ground level rebuttal of subjec-
tive "there is no reliable truth" paradigms.

Thinking on this issue has made me realize the
"ungrounding" that can take place to the extent
that a "no reliable truth" standard takes over.
I see this standard approaching on every front.
If you could lead a population to believe that
truth is subjective and there is no reliable
truth, they'd be severed from the ability to
engage in rational thought and thus prevented
from independent thought and analysis of the
the things that their leaders tell them.

But rather than this being a conspiracy, I
think it may be more of an expression of the
fluid nature of scientific discovery, perhaps
nowhere more notably than in quantum physics.
The nature of the new findings and the rate
of redefining old standards may foster just
the atmosphere necessary for a "no reliable
truth" paradigm meme to suddenly spread.

In fact, I've had some strong reactions from
the "right-wing conspiracy-theory camp" after
I wrote an essay on TWA 800 and fuzzy logic.
The idea was expressed that fuzzy logic was
a conspiracy of the elite to destroy truth
and thereby undermine traditional values.
But that is just irrational paranoia based
on total confusion of what fuzzy logic is.
Fuzzy simply observes that WORDS do not al-
ways map onto the physical reality by 100%.
Fuzzy logic increases analytical accuracy
and is there an aid to rational thinking.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->