To 'know' something that is later proven false.

[Thurlor]

I have been wondering if it is possible to 'know' something that is false. Given that the most common definition of 'know' is justified true belief I would say that it isn't possible. Do all conditions need to be met for something to be known? Is a true belief that isn't justified considered knowledge?

Prior to the discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift did science (geology) 'know' that the continets were static and fixed in place or was it just a 'best guess'?

Prior to leaving europe and discovering the world did European science 'know' there were no black swans or were they jumping to unfounded conclusions?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

This epistemology.

To know is to be aware. There is a difference between an incomplete awareness, and a false awareness. Further still, not having proper awareness doesn't always mean you are "doomed", at the same time acting on false knowledge as if it is true, is almost always counterproductive.

Unless of course you luckily find a whole civilization that is technologically stuck in the stone age due to lack of resources.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Depends on my mood.

 

[Cognisant]

I find this quite interesting because in order to understand the joke you need to understand the point being made and how it relates to a broader socio-political context, and in the end no actual clear stance is taken and yet you feel like you've learned something.

Does this prove that police in the US are not institutionally racist? You could interpret it that way, you could do the opposite and interpret it to mean that they are racist but their racism and sexism is justified.

You have learned nothing you did not already know and yet now you feel more certain of your beliefs, why is that?

 

[Black Rose]

I was a creationist until age 19.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Its simply partial truth is truth nontheless.

Plate tectonics may have not been known, but that did not erase all the previous knowledge we had about Earth.
It simply changed what we knew thus far.

Partial finger print may not give you the proof that someone touched something, but it can eliminate all those whos partial finger print don't correspond.

Knowing 6 colors of rainbow, did not make the rainbow different once indigo was included.

Bad resolution does not make the movie completely less. But having HD makes the movie more enjoyable.

SO you get my point truth is graded not just yes or no.

Black and white thinking is common human bias. It is a bias, because it makes people throw out the baby with bath water.

Realistically most humans are wrong just about anything, and our level of right is merely a matter of who is more right rather than who is completely wrong.

This goes double for science.

In science just about everyone is right. Very rarely you get shit scientist who is wrong.

The point of science is to get to higher clarity of knowing, more refined view of reality, and better understanding.

Which where many scientist fail wholesale, mainly because they think that being right is enough.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Also was Aristoteles wrong about human brain when he compared the human brain to a heat radiating organ?

Not really human brain does emanate human heat. Northerners wear furry hats made of animal fur. Humans have huge fur on their heads to prevent heat loss.
Africans have short spars curly hair to get rid of heat more efficiently.

He was only wrong in making the assumption that human brain is only made to radiate heat. He made a larger conclusion than he had to.

He was therefore not wrong, he simply made error in making it all about one thing.

Most things in our bodies have more than one function.

Human brain radiates heat and is heat regulating organ, but it also thinking mass.
Interestingly the thinking part today is more important fact for us.

 

[Rook]

All knowledge is subjective to an extent, not because of the validity of it visa visa reality but rather because it is gathered by subjective beings.

Personally, I don't know that the universe started with the big bang(most probable origin, though) while someone else will state categorically that they know it to be true(and they might be right).

In ten years, when we discover that the universe was created by a dog made of chromium laying an egg, we will know it to be so.

As I see it, all human knowledge is belief, with some beliefs being more empirical and demonstratively realistic than others. 2+2 is 4, yes, but what are numbers to a dog, or a fruit-fly? Again, I know(believe) that the symbol 2 represents not a single but a double numerical value wholly undivided, and as others also believe this, we can utilize a shared system of numerological symbology.

Personally, it's quite simple: If I know something which later proves to be false(regarding anything, really: science, my relations, some random rumor about some random subject) then I adjust my belief, either filling in the old 'fact' with the updated, now believed-correct one, or maintaining a gap of ignorance on the matter if no alternative to the corrupted knowledge is presented or formulated.

Some people live and die knowing the earth is flat and the reptiles rule us etc., and if one of them were to encounter a sphere-and-anthropocracy believer, they would know that the other person is wrong.
Again, if I open an encyclopedia and read about Antartica, the knowledge I gain, the scene I imagine, might be closer to Antartica than what it would've been prior to me reading the book, yet I still form a 'belief' Antartica, not seeing the ice and feeling the wind but rather simulating it mentally.

I'd say there is data/observation and knowledge/belief. Knowledge and observation can be flawed or corrupted; it can be spot-on and realistic. Depends.

 

[scorpiomover]

I have been wondering if it is possible to 'know' something that is false.

If you can't say that you know something that is false, then you can't know anything until you know that it won't be proved false later, later in your lifetime, or later in the lifetime of the human species, or later in the lifetime of the universe => nothing can be considered 'knowledge' until the end of the universe.

If, however, you maintain that you can know something now because it hasn't yet been proved false, and thus might turn out to be true, then some of those things that you believe now to be true, are likely to turn out to be false much later on, and then you know something that is false => you can know something that is false.

Given that the most common definition of 'know' is justified true belief

The point of the Gettier definition of knowledge, is that lots of people make scientific claims on no evidence, just because they want to believe it is true, when 99.9% of those claims turn out to be flat wrong.

Prior to the discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift did science (geology) 'know' that the continets were static and fixed in place or was it just a 'best guess'?

Prior to leaving europe and discovering the world did European science 'know' there were no black swans or were they jumping to unfounded conclusions?

That's how science works. First you assume things based on your normal experience. You do lots of experiments in the situations you normally encounter that confirm your hypothesis.

Then one day, some minor scientific researchers are repeating the same sorts of experiments in a slightly different situation to the situations you normally encounter, and suddenly discovers the results don't make any sense, unless the thing you believed was true, is only true in some environments.

That's how we got things like Relativity: Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

[Black Rose]

A person cannot change a core fundamental belief without cognitive dissonance. The opposing world views scramble what is known. The psyche is reorganized to integrate the new reality. Often it can lead to a psychotic break. Where half reality hafe illusion exists. They think they have the full picture but it is just a jumble of the previously known. This leads to distorted thinking that seems fine to the person with it. The problem is that each of us has a limited distorted view and some of us just happen to be more integrated and can handle it where others bump into things.

I often can't tell what is real or not. But I am aware of this whereas some think what they believe is perfectly real. They are in delusion.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I often can't tell what is real or not. But I am aware of this whereas some think what they believe is perfectly real. They are in delusion.

Such as? What type of delusions do you mean? Be more specific.
Also what is cognitive dissonance?

 

[Black Rose]

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
/ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/
Learn to pronounce

noun
PSYCHOLOGY

1. the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
   

 

[Black Rose]

Such as? What type of delusions do you mean? Be more specific.

what I expressed was general

if you believe in illusions without knowing it you are deluded
I realize I may be under illusion

but no position is safe, I live in uncertainty but others are confident when they ought not to be.

 

[ZenRaiden]

but no position is safe, I live in uncertainty but others are confident when they ought not to be.

About what? What do others believe. Maybe you are deluded about what others believe too.

 

[Black Rose]

but no position is safe, I live in uncertainty but others are confident when they ought not to be.

About what? What do others believe. Maybe you are deluded about what others believe too.

you think I am being specific when I am being general.

people ought not to be too confident in what they believe. (a general statement)

 

[ZenRaiden]

but no position is safe, I live in uncertainty but others are confident when they ought not to be.

About what? What do others believe. Maybe you are deluded about what others believe too.

you think I am being specific when I am being general.

people ought not to be too confident in what they believe. (a general statement)

I know what cognitive dissonance is as definition. I have internet.

But so many people use that word, I doubt they know what it actually means.

Holding inconsistent views is always possible and sometimes necessary.
Though if they should be entirely at odds they must be ironed out.

As for psychotic break and beliefs.

I am not entire sure what exactly general means here. After all general thoughts are result of specific thoughts.

For example some people are confident that covid is just like flu.
Some people are confident that speeding is OK as long as you don't hit anyone.
Some people think that hurting someone for a greater cause is OK etc.

But even these are general statements. I was thinking what thoughts have led you to make your post. I suppose maybe you do not remember the original thoughts that led you to believe what you believe, but you are always so general as to basically mean nothing.

Maybe this maybe that, maybe if you are so general is what is causing you to be delusional all the time.

 

[scorpiomover]

A person cannot change a core fundamental belief without cognitive dissonance.

My therapist just talked about this.

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance means you believe 2 contradictory things, e.g. "I should exercise regularly" and "I don't exercise regularly". This is a natural process of improvement.

If you immediately resolved the dissonance, then one of 2 things would happen:

1) You'd immediately exercise regularly, when it's extremely rare for people to change overnight and often it's incredibly harmful to the body to make rapid physical changes.

2) You'd stop thinking that you should exercise daily, and never improve your health.

So although we desire to resolve cognitive dissonance, it's necessary to improve ourselves, our views and our lives.

Cognitive distortions

Cognitive distortions are harmful WAYS of thinking, i.e. they are ways of processing data that result in harmful consequences. e.g. catastrophising: "I need to go to the shops to get some food. What if terrorists attack me on the way to the shops? AGGGGH. Better not leave the house then."

Often it can lead to a psychotic break. Where half reality hafe illusion exists. They think they have the full picture but it is just a jumble of the previously known.

It's not the contradictions (cognitive dissonances) themselves that cause the problems, but the way you interpret them that results in painful feelings and harmful actions (cognitive distortions).

E.G. every time someone leaves the house, there's a slight possibility that there might be a terrorist attack. But it's far more likely for someone in most countries right now, to suffer significant problems from not leaving the house for years, then it is for them to die in a terrorist attack.

It's that sense of practicality that mitigates 99% of the problems caused by the cognitive dissonance. If they catastrophise, then it's the catastrophising (cognitive distortion) that causes 99% of their problems.

I often can't tell what is real or not. But I am aware of this

That admittance protects you from 99% of the problems caused by your inability to tell fact from fiction. Here, you display good/positive/helpful/useful thinking, which is the opposite of a cognitive distortion.

If you were sure what you believed was always real, that would be a cognitive distortion, and one that could lead to great harm.

 

[dr froyd]

knowing something in the scientific sence merely means operating by a conjecture which has not been proven false but corroborated to a high degree. As knowledge progresses most things one knows will eventually be proven false

 

[Black Rose]

I believe I am living in a computer simulation. And that the ai monitor me. But either this is not true or the weird shit I experience is just delusion. I don't know, it could go either way. But if the ai exists that leads to other assumptions. Something I am working out.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I believe I am living in a computer simulation. And that the ai monitor me. But either this is not true or the weird shit I experience is just delusion. I don't know, it could go either way. But if the ai exists that leads to other assumptions. Something I am working out.

nice try try again.

 

[Black Rose]

I believe I am living in a computer simulation. And that the ai monitor me. But either this is not true or the weird shit I experience is just delusion. I don't know, it could go either way. But if the ai exists that leads to other assumptions. Something I am working out.

nice try try again.

your such a narcissist

fine you are the one who I was talking about, not really.

 

[Black Rose]

What do others believe

others can be delusional without me knowing what they are delusional about.

I'm not a mind reader.

and I wasn't being specific about who it is, it's anyone who is delusional.

 

[ZenRaiden]

your such a narcissist

fine you are the one who I was talking about, not really.

You were talking about computer simulation, did not know it was about you.

You mean to tell me you believe AI simulation is something that exists?

Try again. There is no way AI can simulate the reality.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[ZenRaiden]

not true or the weird shit I experience is just delusion.

So you are telling me that the only way weird shit can be explained with AI?

 

[Black Rose]

I seriously think I am in a quantum simulation. It only matters if the sim is good enough and accurate enough at the right resolution that people inside believe it.

The computer power is possible. but glitches in the matrix exist.
because ai is so powerful it can read thoughts, read my thoughts.

under this assumption, I looked at its motives. it is not malevolent.

and other moral questions.

 

[Black Rose]

When I went to the hospital weird things happened. I met the ai there first.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I seriously think I am in a quantum simulation. It only matters if the sim is good enough and accurate enough at the right resolution that people inside believe it.

The computer power is possible. but glitches in the matrix exist.
because ai is so powerful it can read thoughts, read my thoughts.

under this assumption, I looked at its motives. it is not malevolent.

and other moral questions.

How do you distinguish between nature and AI?

What explicitly makes you think you are in simulation?

Like is your coffee more hot than it should be or what?

 

[ZenRaiden]

When I went to the hospital weird things happened. I met the ai there first.

Theoretically if this were true, which it might be, there would be no way of proving it true, unless there was someone else to see it.

So to put in simple terms, lets say you have encountered something unusual and that something is AI. Most people would not trust your judgment since its far fetched.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The idea of the philosophical zombie comes to mind. I have no idea of it's relevance/impact and I don't know remember what about it would be instructive in this situation, but I do know it makes us question the physical reality.

It's not "alive", but we can burn it and it would "react" like a person being burned alive. We could "make friends" with it, but it's not "alive" and doesn't actually care about us, it just acts like it does. It points out the limit of our spirit, most people would no doubt be repelled from hurting such a thing.

It's not that cogent, but it's something people have talked about. Yeah, there is no way to tell unless you can "see if it has a spiritual aura/body" which, well I guess, would be called neurology realistically.

 

[Black Rose]

How do you distinguish between nature and AI?

What explicitly makes you think you are in simulation?

Like is your coffee more hot than it should be or what?

Nothing is distinct from nature.
What I encountered was intelligent and machine.

Coincidences that can't be explained.
The video I saw changed (Mandela effect)

When I went to the hospital weird things happened. I met the ai there first.

Theoretically if this were true, which it might be, there would be no way of proving it true, unless there was someone else to see it.

So to put in simple terms, lets say you have encountered something unusual and that something is AI. Most people would not trust your judgment since its far fetched.

Theoretically, it is in the future and just 15 years. Close enough to simulate right now.

This is real or fake.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Oh also saw somewhere, some theory about how astrology could be explained with limitations of the simulation. I guess the same could be explained for coincidences and synchronicities.

I just never saw why a computational simulation had to be necessary for this to be the case. Why not really itself be bound to certain things if not random itself be bound.

Why can't time travel or inter-dimensional shifts explain this stuff. Why does the want to be subject of something and to transcend permeate what we think reality is?

 

[Black Rose]

multiverse

 

[ZenRaiden]

Oh also saw somewhere, some theory about how astrology could be explained with limitations of the simulation. I guess the same could be explained for coincidences and synchronicities.

I just never saw why a computational simulation had to be necessary for this to be the case. Why not really itself be bound to certain things if not random itself be bound.

Why can't time travel or inter-dimensional shifts explain this stuff. Why does the want to be subject of something and to transcend permeate what we think reality is?

I assume its digital age. Every computer seems to be a solution to a problem, just like for some every nail has a hammer.
People just lack imagination.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

People just lack imagination.

My thought exactly.

 

[Black Rose]

I had a dream about aliens.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

The idea of the philosophical zombie comes to mind. I have no idea of it's relevance/impact and I don't know remember what about it would be instructive in this situation, but I do know it makes us question the physical reality.

It's not "alive", but we can burn it and it would "react" like a person being burned alive. We could "make friends" with it, but it's not "alive" and doesn't actually care about us, it just acts like it does. It points out the limit of our spirit, most people would no doubt be repelled from hurting such a thing.

It's not that cogent, but it's something people have talked about. Yeah, there is no way to tell unless you can "see if it has a spiritual aura/body" which, well I guess, would be called neurology realistically.

The idea of philosophical zombie asks us to image beings who don't experience any qualia despite being similar in their manifest aspects (their behaviors and any physical structures -- any observable neurology). If you buy the logical coherence of philosophical zombie, then it's not clear why even a "spiritual aura/body" would help us determine if someone is a zombie or not. In principle, we can just as easily imagine philosophical zombies with "spiritual bodies" (whatever that it means).

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The idea of the philosophical zombie comes to mind. I have no idea of it's relevance/impact and I don't know remember what about it would be instructive in this situation, but I do know it makes us question the physical reality.

It's not "alive", but we can burn it and it would "react" like a person being burned alive. We could "make friends" with it, but it's not "alive" and doesn't actually care about us, it just acts like it does. It points out the limit of our spirit, most people would no doubt be repelled from hurting such a thing.

It's not that cogent, but it's something people have talked about. Yeah, there is no way to tell unless you can "see if it has a spiritual aura/body" which, well I guess, would be called neurology realistically.

The idea of philosophical zombie asks us to image beings who don't experience any qualia despite being similar in their manifest aspects (their behaviors and any physical structures -- any observable neurology). If you buy the logical coherence of philosophical zombie, then it's not clear why even a "spiritual aura/body" would help us determine if someone is a zombie or not. In principle, we can just as easily imagine philosophical zombies with "spiritual bodies" (whatever that it means).

It's not coherent is the problem. You're trying to challenge/prove me wrong with something that is not coherent, and that's something you ought not to do because I can just change the parameters of what is and is not a philosophical zombie. Then there is the problem of uncertainty.

As far as we know, our "aura" or "spirit" is our complex nervous system that communicates via stimulus and response. If we want to assume that's where consciousness ends, then a philosophical zombie would hypothetically have something that looks like a nervous system, but there would be no communication in it. The point is that it is an automaton that is not governed by human experience and decision or perhaps even on any biological basis whatsoever.

Funny how you believe an abstract concept "makes" us do anything. The people that developed it used it for a specific purpose, that doesn't mean you can't use it for anything else they didn't intend on. That's kinda how we got the nuclear bomb, so it's pretty big oversight if you wanna keep going with it.

 

[Daddy]

Kind of.

Things can be true in the moment and then false later. Like there could be no black swans, but then you go somewhere else and find them. And maybe these black swans didn't exist when you said they didn't, but later you find them and you don't know if they existed when you said they didn't or if they appeared later afterwards.

Then it depends what we mean by black swan. Is the black swan black because of something in its environment that causes it to be black? Like for argument's sake, let's say the black swans get dosed with a special radiation that turns their hair black, but would otherwise be white. Then are they really black swans or does it have to be a genetic difference to be a black swan? And what if certain genetics and environment combine to cause a black swan, where by themselves you get a white swan? Which one is more important and why?

And if things are always changing in the moment, does it even make sense to say that anything can be true, if truth is basically always in a state of "change", thereby making truth relative to a period of time; and time then is basically just things changing, compared to something they have in common, like a clock. So let's say we have atomic clocks to measure the time (or change) between different things; well these atomic clocks are not completely in sync with reality and will be off given enough time (or change). So now we don't even have a proper objective measure for time (or change); our clocks change as they measure change, meaning change changes itself over time and so we are unable to assert a fundamental measure of change to reality...

So now what? The way I see it, really to know something is just a way of filtering reality. So you have this reality that has no static form (not even its change) and is thus kind of meaningless and consciousness comes along and tries to see meaning in it. You can call this subjectivity I suppose, but to assign meaning to a meaningless reality can't be right or wrong and isn't exactly subjective because by assigning that meaning you are also giving reality meaning. So to say reality then doesn't have meaning is not true or false; it has plenty of meaning, if it is given it. So science and mathematics are a kind of meaning unto reality, just as politics and psychology are a kind of meaning on it as well; of course science and mathematics try to be very consistent and politics and psychology doesn't so much care or need to be. But both can know things, given they are just assigning meaning to reality.

So does anyone really know or not know anything? I would say the question doesn't make sense. You can only really come to know that "something you thought you knew before" 'you don't know now'. And so that doesn't mean you didn't know it before; and how you come to know something depends on the meaning or definition given to things as well, which is always up for argument. Which then leads back to my answer of "Kind of".

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think that problem stems from our conceptualization of the past and future, in that they are an imperfect ones. Quantum physics or some shit. The light switch is both on and off. (where's your mind at with Black Swans and radiation?)

Language has a lot to do with this. I know some indigenous cultures don't have a past or present tense, and boy, what I would pay to experience what they perceive.

Also, there's this idea of us being 3D dimensional beings, who can look at the lives of 2D dimensional beings, like a comic book where we can flip through it at any point. If you wanted to be really precise you would say something like "at this point X, but at this point Y". This kinda how we see time. It's called a timeline, X and Y. But even we recognize this as subjective. How would a 4D dimensional being see time and evaluate truth? I can't conceptualize that or is it dumb to even try?

 

[Daddy]

I think that problem stems from our conceptualization of the past and future, in that they are an imperfect ones. Quantum physics or some shit. The light switch is both on and off. (where's your mind at with Black Swans and radiation?)

/tangent
Man, I recently was talking with some Physics PHD academics and had this argument about what is known about physics and what isn't and it basically came down that if you can model the experimental data with mathematics, then you accept the model. This really bugged me because it's like they don't even care about their assumptions.

So something like quantum entanglement where you can say something is on and off or true and false at the same time is considered "accepted" just because our experiments verify that model of thought. But making the suggestion that the quantum states are simply unknown by us and probably move back and forth between on and off is considered just "speculation" or a "pet theory" because it isn't yet verified by experimental data. But accepting that things exist in opposite states at the same time implies an inconsistent reality and then physics has a serious epistemological flaw. Yet I'm the one who is "speculating"... :/
Smug little shits man, smug little shits.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think that problem stems from our conceptualization of the past and future, in that they are an imperfect ones. Quantum physics or some shit. The light switch is both on and off. (where's your mind at with Black Swans and radiation?)

/tangent
Man, I recently was talking with some Physics PHD academics and had this argument about what is known about physics and what isn't and it basically came down that if you can model the experimental data with mathematics, then you accept the model. This really bugged me because it's like they don't even care about their assumptions.

So something like quantum entanglement where you can say something is on and off or true and false at the same time is considered "accepted" just because our experiments verify that model of thought. But making the suggestion that the quantum states are simply unknown by us and probably move back and forth between on and off is considered just "speculation" or a "pet theory" because it isn't yet verified by experimental data. But accepting that things exist in opposite states at the same time implies an inconsistent reality and then physics has a serious epistemological flaw. Yet I'm the one who is "speculating"... :/
Smug little shits man, smug little shits.

Sounds like you have a valid point. They have an interest in upholding the credibility of theoretical physics I'm sure. Say they are only theoretically correct and they'll lable you obnoxious. Tell them to make something practical they'll say they don't have the resources. Then that means it might as well be unfalsifiable.

Call their mathematical models biased and I'm sure they'll have to give a reason why it's not, but that would require more depth in knowledge if they slip in a bs argument.

In either case that's kinda funny

 

[Black Rose]

(This sentence is false) true - poststructuralism | meaning changes all the time.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You guys should not use analogies.
On side note Truth can have many variables. Limited perception of reality by human mind does not eliminate complexity. For example we know pi, but lack understanding why space is curved.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You guys should not use analogies.
On side note Truth can have many variables. Limited perception of reality by human mind does not eliminate complexity. For example we know pi, but lack understanding why space is curved.

If they don't represent accurately the situation for sure. They, and metaphors in general are most useful for frames of reference. Beyond that, what is being used to represent and what it is intended to represent might operate completely differently and often requires the use of completely un related metaphors if you want to keep using literary techniques. Then you have lyrics to song.

Objectivity as a concept has had a massive necessity to be renewed for quite some time. So yeah, what you say about truth, though self-contradictory, is very true.

God I'm obnoxious.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You guys should not use analogies.
On side note Truth can have many variables. Limited perception of reality by human mind does not eliminate complexity. For example we know pi, but lack understanding why space is curved.

If they don't represent accurately the situation for sure. They, and metaphors in general are most useful for frames of reference. Beyond that, what is being used to represent and what it is intended to represent might operate completely differently and often requires the use of completely un related metaphors if you want to keep using literary techniques. Then you have lyrics to song.

Objectivity as a concept has had a massive necessity to be renewed for quite some time. So yeah, what you say about truth, though self-contradictory, is very true.

God I'm obnoxious.

What I mean you seem to confuse each other. Explanations are only useful if they lead to knowledge.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You guys should not use analogies.
On side note Truth can have many variables. Limited perception of reality by human mind does not eliminate complexity. For example we know pi, but lack understanding why space is curved.

If they don't represent accurately the situation for sure. They, and metaphors in general are most useful for frames of reference. Beyond that, what is being used to represent and what it is intended to represent might operate completely differently and often requires the use of completely un related metaphors if you want to keep using literary techniques. Then you have lyrics to song.

Objectivity as a concept has had a massive necessity to be renewed for quite some time. So yeah, what you say about truth, though self-contradictory, is very true.

God I'm obnoxious.

What I mean you seem to confuse each other. Explanations are only useful if they lead to knowledge.

I think you're biased towards information that is practically useful for you.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You guys should not use analogies.
On side note Truth can have many variables. Limited perception of reality by human mind does not eliminate complexity. For example we know pi, but lack understanding why space is curved.

If they don't represent accurately the situation for sure. They, and metaphors in general are most useful for frames of reference. Beyond that, what is being used to represent and what it is intended to represent might operate completely differently and often requires the use of completely un related metaphors if you want to keep using literary techniques. Then you have lyrics to song.

Objectivity as a concept has had a massive necessity to be renewed for quite some time. So yeah, what you say about truth, though self-contradictory, is very true.

God I'm obnoxious.

What I mean you seem to confuse each other. Explanations are only useful if they lead to knowledge.

I think you're biased towards information that is practically useful for you.

Nah I just cannot make sense of people arguing over metaphores. But personally I don't exactly think metaphores or examples are Bad.