Doesn't make it true, in Tim's sense--just makes it verifiable.
MacN
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jim Choate wrote:
Truth is that which can be verified to be reproducable by indipendant and unbiased parties. All else is opinion.
What exactly is Tim's sense to you? Perhaps Tim could clarify more clearly what he means by 'truth'. To me it sounds like he is saying that there is some viewpoint that is absolute. I no more believe in absolute viewpoints than I believe in absolute coordinates. If it is the 'truth' what makes it unverifiable? If I can look at it and claim it isn't the truth (because I can't verify it) how does one know it is the truth then? What seperates this unverifiable truth from opinion (which is equally unverifiable by definition)? What is the litmus test? And how do we know the litmus test is true? (I see a circle coming up) For example, lets say that I have a accident with another motorist. We each tell our story but they are different (or the same for that matter). Which is true? I would hold neither. The incident as described by either of us is simply our recollection of happenstance, in other words our opinion of what occured. It is not what occured. The only truth that could be derived would be that an accident had occured. Why? Because we would have two bent cars that anyone who cared enough could verify. The truth is not some mighty sword we can wield to reveal some shrowded mystery. It is the realization that the world is a complicated place and we deal with incomplete facts (ie fog of war). From this meager litany of facts we try to derive some conclusion that allows us to control our environment. Truth is a mundane everyday sort of thing, not some magical force. The truth will not free you nor will it guarantee a better tomorrow. The whole argument breaks down to the simple question of whether it is possible to know anything absolutely. If it is possible to know something absolutely what else to call it but fact (and therefore true)? If it isn't a fact then it is either a lie (ie the inversion of truth) or else an opinion. I don't see how there can be any other division than these three. Another way to look at it is to say that if it involves faith it can't be truth. Truth can't be dependant on faith (ie observer). [Looking over this I realize that we are talking about a form of computability]