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

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "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> Well, that's just because not _enough_ people are saying it.  If
glen> we could get more people to say it, then it would be 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.

I don't think that's true.  ;-)

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

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

-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com