What about Ben Franklin? (was Re: [PLUG-TALK] O.J. and guns)

glen e. p. ropella gepr at tempusdictum.com
Tue Jul 6 00:38:00 UTC 2004


=><=><= "russell2" == Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com> writes:

>>>>>> "glen" == glen e p ropella <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:
Russell> On the other hand, just because he (or anyone else) said it
Russell> and others repeat it doesn't make it true.

glen> In the same way that history is written by the survivors, the
glen> things that become "Truth" in our socially constructed world are
glen> those things that are said and repeated often enough and by
glen> enough people.

russell2> I don't think that truth is really democratic, I think of it
russell2> as fundamentally an individual thing, a thing that people
russell2> can come to through thought and evidence, all the more so
russell2> when people realize that authorities are fallable.  Lots of
russell2> people might agree on what truth is (like "Saddam == 9/11"),
russell2> but they might be also all be wrong (as, in that case, they
russell2> apparently are).  In a sense you may be right, but I think
russell2> there are other senses.

I _think_ you're conflating "belief" with "truth".  Belief is an
inherently personal thing.  People can jabber on and on about how
G = 6.672...e-11; and literally everyone who knows anything about it
can all agree on that sentence.  (BTW, I don't think the process is
accurately called "democratic"... "consensual" is a better word, I 
think.)

Whether or not it is true that G = 6.672...e-11 or not is one thing.
Whether or not I believe G = 6.672...e-11 is another thing.  Belief
and truth are probably not unrelated; but, I don't think they're 
the same thing.

Truth usually implies some "other"... some external world to which 
one can refer.  Belief usually only requires personal acceptance
(which could be logic-based or include some interpretation of 
sensory-motor controls as "evidence").

Now, I believe that truth is arrived at through consensus but 
belief is arrived at in as many ways as there are humans (and maybe
other life forms) on the planet.

Of course, there are _lots_ of people out there who believe that the
touchstone for truth is not consensus but some ontologically extant
"out there"... in a "realist" sense.  E.g. If I want to teach a child
that G = 6.672...e-11, then all I need do is point her at the
experimental protocol (which might not be considered rhetoric by some)
and let her discover it for herself.  That would, then, demonstrate
the truth of the statement independent of belief.  (Of course, if we
relied upon that, then underprivileged kids would never have access to
the truth because they couldn't afford the expensive equiment.)

russell2> BTW: the part of the Franklin quote I find troublesome is
russell2> the "deserves neither" part.  I don't think that part is
russell2> really subject to truth disambiguation.

Yes.  I find it a bit troubling, too.  But, there is, at least, an
ethical stand in there.... namely that an individual is to be held
accountable in her consideration of the potential tradeoff between
liberty and safety.  The basic point is that people like John Ashcroft
are suspect, because they seem to have little respect for the spirit
of the _liberal_ principles that the Jeffersonian camp fought so hard
for.  Our estimation of those people will continue to degrade as they
continue to demonstrate a lack of respect for those principles.

I _believe_ that's what the quote was really about.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list