I partook in a hell of an argument yesterday on truth. I stood on the grounds that when looking at things from all premises, there is nothing like absolute truth. What we know as truth is limited to our knowledge base and our perspective. White is white to everyone because we see it as white, it might be that light plays tricks on us and a particular shade of yellow is always reflected as white, that's just an assumption. I think I am right. But I need someone to prove me wrong because my interpretation is toxic to many things I feel to be true.i.e in reality. Am I right?

Absolute truths exists...those truths are definitional .e.g a square has four sides....
relative truths are based on everyone's unique worldview...to get anyone to agree with you....you have to develop an objective method that your conclusions can be error-checked...
Take for example a fish in a curved glass bowl,viewing a moving object like a baseball...
To the fish,the ball would have a curved trajectory...(because the fish observed it from a curved "worldview")
Now imagine a person also witnessed the baseball moving....he claims the ball moved straight...
Intuition would tell you the person is right when he is just as wrong as the fish is...
Why this is so is because the person has to also rely on his flawed senses...senses that are also distorted by external stimuli and middle-men(synapses) that process and pass the information in a specific way...
Since the fish and the person have subjective views...an objective method is the way to agree on their unique paradigms...and that method is science.
If brown is seen as green or blue....then a method is developed to determine what "brown" is,when this is done....everyone would agree on the objectively defined term of "brown"
Take for example I can taste the chemical PTC,and another person cannot...
I would claim PTC has a taste and the other person would deny this...
We then use a method to verify why I can taste it....we reach a conclusion that it is genetic.....
So PTC to us would be a chemical that can be tasted by certain people with a genetic anomaly...

davien:
Absolute truths exists...those truths are definitional .e.g a square has four sides....

This is not absolute truth. It is a consensus, usually with appeal to some central authority. The "fact" depends on how the central authority was established and, to a lesser extent, on popular agreement.

davien:
relative truths are based on everyone's unique worldview...to get anyone to agree with you....you have to develop an objective method that your conclusions can be error-checked...

No. Two people can agree on something without an objective method, e.g "blue is a warm colour" or "veal tastes good".

davien:
Take for example a fish in a curved glass bowl,viewing a moving object like a baseball...
To the fish,the ball would have a curved trajectory...(because the fish observed it from a curved "worldview"

Not necessarily. "Straight" is relative. Try defining "straight" absolutely, and you will run into problems.

The "fish" can define straight according to the bowl.

Humans define straight according to some (changing) MODEL of space. It falls into the category of definitions.

davien:
Now imagine a person also witnessed the baseball moving....he claims the ball moved straight...
Intuition would tell you the person is right when he is just as wrong as the fish is...
Why this is so is because the person has to also rely on his flawed senses...senses that are also distorted by external stimuli and middle-men(synapses) that process and pass the information in a specific way...
Since the fish and the person have subjective views...an objective method is the way to agree on their unique paradigms...and that method is science.

This is not about straight being absolute. It is much more complicated than you think, and is highly psychological.

For example, imagine that you are looking down a long, "straight" road. The two sides of the road seem to converge. Your perception is of two straight, non-parallel lines that never meet! But there is nothing "flawed" in your perception.

The real problem is in how we "interpret" what we see.

davien:
If brown is seen as green or blue....then a method is developed to determine what "brown" is,when this is done....everyone would agree on the objectively defined term of "brown"

Only those who agree with the method.

davien:
Take for example I can taste the chemical PTC,and another person cannot...
I would claim PTC has a taste and the other person would deny this...
We then use a method to verify why I can taste it....we reach a conclusion that it is genetic.....
So PTC to us would be a chemical that can be tasted by certain people with a genetic anomaly...

A lot of assumptions, here.

sinequanon:


This is not absolute truth. It is a consensus, usually with appeal to some central authority. The "fact" depends on how the central authority was established and, to a lesser extent, on popular agreement.

It is not an appeal to any authority,but the definition of the term remains absolute therefore it is an absolute truth

No. Two people can agree on something without an objective method, e.g "blue is a warm colour" or "veal tastes good".

I don't think veal tastes good and blue is a "warm colour" because the term "warm colour" is definitional,so it can represent an absolute truth..

Not necessarily. "Straight" is relative. Try defining "straight" absolutely, and you will run into problems.

That is the point of using an objective method to define the terms..

The "fish" can define straight according to the bowl.

Again,this is the point of the example,that the fish also has a subjective view of what it perceives..

Humans define straight according to some (changing) MODEL of space. It falls into the category of definitions.

Can you mention a model where the definition of straight changes?

This is not about straight being absolute. It is much more complicated than you think, and is highly psychological.

Again,you are re-affirming my example that our perceptions of the mundane world cannot be justified by flawed senses....but empirical objective means..

For example, imagine that you are looking down a long, "straight" road. The two sides of the road seem to converge. Your perception is of two straight, non-parallel lines that never meet! But there is nothing "flawed" in your perception.

Your perception is flawed because your vision has presented that incorrect deduction....only through objective evaluation can you know if what is presented to you is infact true/real

The real problem is in how we "interpret" what we see.

Interpretation is of no relevance if you cannot show or justify it to be true.

Only those who agree with the method.

True,you cannot make one that does not apply logic to use it.

A lot of assumptions, here.

Kindly list my assumptions and lets correct that..

davien:
Kindly list my assumptions and lets correct that..

You can't correct it. You are psychologically stuck.

davien:
It is not an appeal to any authority,but the definition of the term remains absolute therefore it is an absolute truth

Terms do not define themselves. Authorities establish them, or people would have differing definitions.

I can see that you are going to get dogmatic even about the obvious. So, not much point in going to and fro.

The rest of your post is just repetition and spin, and misses all the points.

sinequanon:


You can't correct it. You are psychologically stuck.

You've assumed a conclusion a priori...

Terms do not define themselves. Authorities establish them, or people would have differing definitions.

I know terms do not define themselves...a language is chosen to define a term..it can also serve as an "authority" using that term loosely.

I can see that you are going to get dogmatic even about the obvious. So, not much point in going to and fro.

I clearly asked you to correct the perceived "assumptions" I made and you've failed to do that, not surprising.

The rest of your post is just repetition and spin, and misses all the points.

You made no point that I had not already addressed.

davien:
...a language is chosen to define a term..

Who chooses?

(This is what I am calling spin. You have phrased your response to avoid focusing on the point. If you don't want to debate, why pretend? I am not going to go through every sentence unpicking your spin.)

Truth is opposite of lie

mumumugu:
Truth is opposite of lie

That is a clever observation, because it brings up the question of "intent", which does not feature in the definition of truth as something absolute.

If you claimed that your train is canceled, just to avoid making a journey, and you later found that your train was canceled, is that a true lie?