[MD] All the way down

[118]

Hi Craig,

I would differentiate between physical truth and metaphysical truth.
Physical truth can be demonstrated such as eating a poison and dying.
That a chair is in the room can also be demonstrated.  This is the
scientific approach.  Test and see.  The metaphysical truth is one of
concepts.  These are divided into the general categories of
philosophy.  Such truths are not demonstrable, but do rely on input
from the physical side.  There are of course many grey areas of each.
Theoretical physics provides provisional truths, MoQ provides
experiential truths.  All of these could be considered knowledge
claims, and their truths depends on agreement reached.

For example, for most people, walking on hot coals burns one's feet.
However there are some who do not subscribe to such a truth and can
walk unscathed.  The reaches of this form of truth are unknown, and it
is difficult to relegate truths to absolute as opposed to
indoctrinated.  Often science will try to impart scientific truths on
experiential truths.  Such a thing is indoctrination.  The so called
placebo effect is a good example of an indoctrinated truth.  Faith
healers are another.  This does not diminish the actual truth of each,
but puts them into a separate category.  The realization that every
truth has its exceptions also diminishes the concept of absolute
truth. The need for exceptions also needs not be a truth.

Perhaps a useful tool to differentiate between kinds of truths is to
look for opposites.  There is no opposite to a chair, but there is an
opposite to high quality.

Agreement between could be the healing factor in terms of truth, and
endeavors should be along those lines rather than providing dogma.  We
create what we like is a high Quality concept.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> [Steve]
>> The test of truth for a knowledge claim is then
>  > not correspondence with non-linguistic reality
>> but the consequences of believing or
>> disbelieving a claim.
>
> Take the knowledge claim
> 1) Toadstools are poisonness.
> The non-linguistic reality this corresponds to is: toadstools poisoning someone who eats them.
> The consequence of believing 1) is that I avoid eating toadstools.
> That I avoid eating toadstools does not test the truth of knowledge claim 1).
> Rather it's toadstools poisoning someone who eats them that tests the truth of
> knowledge claim 1).
> Craig
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>