[MD] Kahneman

[MarshaV]

Hi Steve,

I don't believe one needs to throw out the conventional use of the word 'truth' just because truth is relative.  I don't think relativism, philosophically speaking, is a "dirty word" or a "term of abuse".  Here is the definition:

---
relativism

noun Philosophy .
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.  

    (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism). 
--- 

Marsha:
Certainly there is nothing in this definition of relativism that would render 'truth as relative' to be
 useless.  But let's look at the term 'relative'.

---
relative 

noun
1. a person who is connected with another or others by blood or marriage.
2. something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.
3. something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. ( opposed to absolute).
4. Grammar . a relative pronoun, adjective, or adverb.

adjective 
5. considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.
6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.
7. having relation or connection.
8. having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent (usually followed by to ): to determine the facts relative to an accident.
9. correspondent; proportionate: Value is relative to demand.

    (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative)   
---

Marsha:
So, yes, the question is to what degree I consider Kahneman's theory to represent "truth".  I've already stated the theory is useful in one way because it challenges what we already think we know, but I will have to put a little more effort into its proper evaluation.  

Is there a problem with me using the term 'truth' in a conventional way?


Marsha


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would you wonder if it is the truth when you've already decided that truth is relative? It is certainly true for him. The only question is whether it is true for you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:39 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Steve and Mark,
>> 
>> As I began reading the book, all I I could wonder was 'Is this the truth?'.   Does winning the nobel prize add credibility to it being the truth.  -  Seems like good story-telling though.  Worth considering since it challenges what we think we know.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:04 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> Thanks, I'll give it a read.  
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> I will have to read it with some skepticism,
>>> however, for that is what my intuition directs me to do.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>