The truth about a situation does not change based on one's opinion. It just is. Whether we know that truth or not is a different matter, but the truth itself stands apart from opinion. (There are exceptions I'm sure).
What is truth to you? How would you define it? How would you distinguish it from conjecture -from opinion and hearsay, from gossip, from propaganda, from fiction?
Specifically, how would you know an interpretation of an event accurately describes that event, and is not a creation of one's own mind? Eg. if you see a ball fall to the ground every time you release it, and interpret its falling to the downward acting force of gravity, then how would you know that that is the TRUTH, and be able in all fairness to discount all other possible explanations for the phenomenon, such as that ball had a will of its own and actively propelled ITSELF to the ground?
To state it more loosely, what makes us choose one "truth" over another possible "truth"? How specifically do people assess how probable one explanation is as opposed to another? The truth as we know it would be contingent upon 1. our awareness of alternative explanations and 2. a correct assessment of the probability of each of those alternatives. (It might also be due to other factors, but I'll leave them out for now)
If we're unable due to whatever reason to even speculate about a theoretical alternative, then we can't possibly accept it as Truth, even though it very well could be. Additionally, if our method of assessing the probability of something being true is unreliable, then that too would make us blind to it.
What is truth to you? How would you define it? How would you distinguish it from conjecture -from opinion and hearsay, from gossip, from propaganda, from fiction?
Specifically, how would you know an interpretation of an event accurately describes that event, and is not a creation of one's own mind? Eg. if you see a ball fall to the ground every time you release it, and interpret its falling to the downward acting force of gravity, then how would you know that that is the TRUTH, and be able in all fairness to discount all other possible explanations for the phenomenon, such as that ball had a will of its own and actively propelled ITSELF to the ground?
To state it more loosely, what makes us choose one "truth" over another possible "truth"? How specifically do people assess how probable one explanation is as opposed to another? The truth as we know it would be contingent upon 1. our awareness of alternative explanations and 2. a correct assessment of the probability of each of those alternatives. (It might also be due to other factors, but I'll leave them out for now)
If we're unable due to whatever reason to even speculate about a theoretical alternative, then we can't possibly accept it as Truth, even though it very well could be. Additionally, if our method of assessing the probability of something being true is unreliable, then that too would make us blind to it.
