Does truth have many versions?

[RainbowSingularity]

And the vast majority of people are not BASE jumpers. Both statements are true; neither bear on my answer above.

lol
flipping the narrative to apply your own anti-exclusivity statement to try and normalise your position to sell it to the readers

lol Troll !

 

[billvon]

flipping the narrative to apply your own anti-exclusivity statement to try and normalise your position to sell it to the readers

Got any ranch dressing to go with that word salad?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Got any ranch dressing to go with that word salad?

A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule." [1] Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin, [2] although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

here is a picture of a Rancher who may need a Dressing

 

[RainbowSingularity]

So, would you offer any advice to say a loved one who was addicted to a potentially destructive substance?

note the difference between opioid addictions where people pay retail legal & illegal for drugs
vs
the hard core meth addict with massive long term behavioural and economic issues resulting in violent crime being created to pay for the addiction

i suspect the difficulty in political leadership to comprehend the differences drives a carrot & stick ideology that does not seek to reduce the addicts as a primary source to reduce addictions.

The obvious USA massive issue of opioid addiction where the addicts are not committing crime to pay for the addiction seems to have no real political leadership ideological policy backing.

And the vast majority of people are not BASE jumpers. Both statements are true; neither bear on my answer above.

the vast majority of people are not political leaders

And the vast majority of people between those two extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Exception that proves the rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Look up exception that proves the rule in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
"The exception that proves the rule" (sometimes "the exception proves the rule") is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used, [1] and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule.

Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited. The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule." [1] Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin, [2] although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions. [1] The alternative origin given is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test".[3] In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value. There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.[1][2][4]

 

[RainbowSingularity]

So, would you offer any advice to say a loved one who was addicted to a potentially destructive substance?

yes i would
not only would i offer advice
i would un-addict them

keeping in mind the vast majority of people use drugs for dealing with emotional issues
alcohol, sugar, Adrenalin...

the main focus should not be the illegality and negative concept of the drug
the main focus should be to deliver the addicts self control back to them.
failing that then psychological re-structuring to undermine the psycho-active positive feed back of the drug(this is extremely risky & highly liable to result in serious suicidal idiation)

the vast majority of drug addicts do not want to be drug addicts

the except that proves the rule
does not validate a solution to incarcerating all drug uses.

the ideological metaphors of self indulgent wanna-be political leaders and religious conservatist anti drug charitys, do not solve addiction problems
equally their ideology does not solve them either.
unfortunately politicians have popularized concepts that simply do not work and make the situation much worse.

do you want to be the exception
or do you want to be the drug addict ?
or the politician ?
... mad hatters tea party of deliberate miss alignment of the cause and effect of the service process to deliver a result for those effected(the addict)
vilifying the addict to proclaim others to be the victims and thus usurping the rights of the addict to then victimize the addict is as close to evil as you can get without putting on a pair of horns

most people don't care
like i don't know
they care enough to want to throw a stone at the problem.
but not enough to learn about fixing it.

they want it fixed for their own personal emotional satisfaction
not the addict
thus a massive miss alignment, more so when you have the politicians who pander to that idea to sell their own popularity on being tough on something.
so they pick on those whom are weakest
the addicts
like a human sacrifice

WeGs
do you have a friend addicted whom you wish to help ?
PM me any time
keeping in mind,[turning it into a metaphor] some dont want help so you cant just give them free cups of teat and a biscuit to solve the problem by announcing them to now be rich with tea n biscuits.

* do not take my tone personally, i am a little tired & have a headache

 

[billvon]

(quote)/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Good choice, going with the quote salad instead of the word salad. The word salad was a bit dry.

(BTW you cannot un-addict anyone. Only they can do that.)

 

[river]

By “truth,” I don’t wish to beat a dead horse in terms of the whole “objective vs. subjective truth” line of discussion.

Rather, I mean can there be different versions of objective truths? (Or facts)

Let me provide an example to illustrate what I’m asking. So, you and a friend watch a movie together, at the same time. You both discuss it with one another after it finishes. Instead of agreement, you both get into a spirited debate over the plot and ending. But, the writers clearly have a certain, central message that they wish for their audience to understand.

Is it possible for and your friend to be correct? Is it possible for both of your “truths” to be objective?

Not subjective, but objective. If you were to tell your version of the movie’s plot to a friend, inspiring your friend to watch it, and that friend agrees with your version, is your initial friend...wrong?

With math, things are less grey but with science, I’ve read a number of posts on this forum that seem convincing. But with scientific theories to be accepted as truths, they need to be peer reviewed and agreed upon by a majority. Right? That is probably not as grey as I’d prefer for this conversation.

If I’m convinced of someone’s truth, is that enough? I ask because of my thread, A Christmas Carol and how members here who have viewed its different adaptations in their own free time, come away with their versions of the truth. Or are we more forgiving when it comes to literature, film and art?

One final question - can objective truth have many versions? Is a fact not a fact if you and I see things differently?

I look forward to our own spirited discussion on this topic.

The truth that does not have many versions is in the Universe its self .

The Universe has Life and energy<>matter .

 

[iceaura]

In a US Court one must sometimes swear to tell "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Legally, then (and they pay very careful attention to words), some of the ways of presenting versions of "the truth" are significantly misleading enough to take the trouble of excluding. Clearly lawyers regard misleading without lying - communicating versions of "the truth" that misrepresent its relevance to some current discussion, say - as something people can do.

Which is not to say that anyone can tell the whole truth about anything, under oath or not - just to note that people are aware of the problem, and value relevance as a property of some versions of the truth.

This relevance requires good faith in the receiver, as well as the communicator, btw. There are people who cannot discover or be provided certain relevant versions of some truths - they can only accommodate or comprehend other versions. Creating such people - inculcating bad faith in a population of the receivers of some communications - is a well-paid profession in the US.

 

[Bowser]

One final question - can objective truth have many versions? Is a fact not a fact if you and I see things differently?

What defines "objective truth"? If everyone agrees, then it is true? I'm not certain you can remove subjective perspective from the truth.

 

[wegs]

What defines "objective truth"? If everyone agrees, then it is true? I'm not certain you can remove subjective perspective from the truth.

Yea, that’s kind of the original question of the thread.

 

[Seattle]

Judge to defense attorney "Did your client commit the crime for which he has been charged?". Defense attorney "I think so but I'm not sure".

Is that the kind of truth that you, as a client, would want?

By the way, whatever happened to Rainbowsingularity?

 

[sculptor]

What defines "objective truth"? If everyone agrees, then it is true? I'm not certain you can remove subjective perspective from the truth.

truth
absolute truth
objective truth
truth as you see it
?
in all likelihood truth is much like a crystal with a thousand faces and, if you are lucky, you might be able to see clearly through one of them?

 

[wegs]

Judge to defense attorney "Did your client commit the crime for which he has been charged?". Defense attorney "I think so but I'm not sure".

Is that the kind of truth that you, as a client, would want?

By the way, whatever happened to Rainbowsingularity?

I don’t know but I miss him

 

[Seattle]

I don’t know but I miss him

I can try to be a little crazier in my posts if that would help?

 

[wegs]

I can try to be a little crazier in my posts if that would help?

Such team spirit!

 

[sculptor]

...
By the way, whatever happened to Rainbowsingularity?

from rainbow land
n/w corner of fayette iowa hard onto a bend in the volga river

our local soil if named a fayette soil first described near fayette iowa
it is a lively clay ritch loess soil prone to frost heaving
so
one might think of Rainbowsingularity as well grounded
or.........................................

 

[Dennis Tate]

By “truth,” I don’t wish to beat a dead horse in terms of the whole “objective vs. subjective truth” line of discussion.

Rather, I mean can there be different versions of objective truths? (Or facts)

Let me provide an example to illustrate what I’m asking. So, you and a friend watch a movie together, at the same time. You both discuss it with one another after it finishes. Instead of agreement, you both get into a spirited debate over the plot and ending. But, the writers clearly have a certain, central message that they wish for their audience to understand.

Is it possible for and your friend to be correct? Is it possible for both of your “truths” to be objective?

Not subjective, but objective. If you were to tell your version of the movie’s plot to a friend, inspiring your friend to watch it, and that friend agrees with your version, is your initial friend...wrong?

With math, things are less grey but with science, I’ve read a number of posts on this forum that seem convincing. But with scientific theories to be accepted as truths, they need to be peer reviewed and agreed upon by a majority. Right? That is probably not as grey as I’d prefer for this conversation.

If I’m convinced of someone’s truth, is that enough? I ask because of my thread, A Christmas Carol and how members here who have viewed its different adaptations in their own free time, come away with their versions of the truth. Or are we more forgiving when it comes to literature, film and art?

One final question - can objective truth have many versions? Is a fact not a fact if you and I see things differently?

I look forward to our own spirited discussion on this topic.

I myself have my share of biases....
I think that we all do....
and I plead guilty of being biased toward near death experience accounts that contain a Life Review with Jesus......
but.....
perhaps I am limiting my Creator and perhaps even the ones that do not have a Life Review with Jesus.....
may also be True and valid but......
they just contain truths that my poor little brain cannot comprehend at this time????????

 

[Michael 345]

My go to answer involves 3 people and may already have been posted in this thread

Two people stand facing each other. A third person runs between them

Each of the two people who faced the other are asked "Which way did the third person run?"

One says "Left to Right"

Other says "Right to Left"

Both are correct showing TRUTH is a product of PERCEPTION