Who is Online

We have 181 guests and no members online

The Truth

Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. [81]

A lot of this essay is directly or indirectly about truth. I have talked about knowledge and what we can know and I pointed out that we rely on others for almost everything we believe.

Society would not work very well if people had no regard for the truth. But what is the truth?

One of the problems for understanding truth is the way we bundle events and actions in our direct experience with cultural insights (like stories or parables that seem to reveal a truth) and with scientific hypotheses (contingent facts).

Telling the truth often involves reporting actions or other events honestly; 'who stole the tarts?' I could be untruthful in a number of ways. I may have stolen them and deny it. I may have seen them stolen by someone but deny it or I could claim to have seen the tarts stolen by someone when I did not. But it is also possible that I honestly thought I saw the Knave of Hearts steel them when it was someone else, or it was not the tarts that I saw taken but a tea cake.

Our experience is subjective. If I am blind or psychotic I might perceive the same events quite differently. My truth may not be your truth.

It gets even more complicated when I am retelling someone else's report of the theft of some tarts. Not only might I make mistakes in the detail but I might feel the need to add my own interpretations or to make the story more interesting. People feel freer to lie in these circumstances, because it is much easier to do without being caught and being called a liar. A special case is reporting our own memories of some event in the past.

I discuss scientific hypotheses at length elsewhere. Truth in a cultural context is altogether a different matter.

 

too trusting indulgent

 

People often lie or don't tell the truth. In many cultural situations we demand or prefer not to hear the truth. We understand that telling the truth is not always socially acceptable or wise behaviour. To tell a host, or an employer, that: 'I think you're really ugly and smell terrible', would be very impolite and/or very foolish.

It seems that the more you can be described as intelligent (are good at tests of reasoning or are able to influence others), the better you are able to play with the truth without being detected or others objecting. People interpret the truth and select 'facts' to suit themselves. I am doing this right now.

Truth often has to be seen in context. Sometimes you are expected to lie and sometimes you will be punished if you are caught lying. I have already said that we admire people who are honest and you should try to be honest. Perhaps this means that you should be able to discover the truth and to use it wisely.

In a law court, skilled practitioners (lawyers or expert witnesses) are all but useless at reaching the truth because they are experts at persuasion and know how to select and present facts to support their case.

 

A large part of this skill is making opponents reveal facts that they want to keep secret while withholding facts damaging to their own case. Having ascertained which facts they are working with:

'I said the sparrow, with my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin',

Lawyers put these facts into cultural context by arguing about ethics and the letter of the law. Was the confession extracted unlawfully? Was it accidental? Was it self-defence? Was it justifiable for some other reason? Is it unlawful to kill robins anyway?

 

justice triumphs

 

We often find that fiction seems to tell us more than a 'true story' but when someone is telling a story they made up we expect them to let us know it is fiction. They don't have to put a warning label on their work; they expect us to understand the clues they give us. We learn to understand hundreds of these clues; like setting the story in the present or the future, presenting the story from a character's viewpoint or including obviously fictional or fantastic elements. We get particularly upset if they try to make us think it is a true story when it is not.

As we grow up we learn the signals that tell us when someone is making up a story or flattering us or lying in some more direct way. We also learn how to detect when they are leaving out something important. These signals include body language as well as what they say or do.

We also learn how to deceive others the same way and how to be polite. We learn how to play an elaborate game in which each understands the other is not telling the whole truth and guesses what is not being said. We call that being diplomatic.

 

whole truth

 

We learn to collect and use information that builds the patterns (view of the world) that help us to realise that others have been deceived or believe something that is false. For example, different religions believe contradictory things; even if one of them is right, a great many people must believe things that are false. Most important, we need to learn how to relate to those who do not believe what we do.

 

No comments

Travel

Egypt, Syria and Jordan

 

 

 

In October 2010 we travelled to three countries in the Middle East: Egypt; Syria and Jordan. While in Egypt we took a Nile cruise, effectively an organised tour package complete with guide, but otherwise we travelled independently: by cab; rental car (in Jordan); bus; train and plane.

On the way there we had stopovers in London and Budapest to visit friends.

The impact on me was to reassert the depth, complexity and colour of this seminal part of our history and civilisation. In particular this is the cauldron in which Judaism, Christianity and Islam were created, together with much of our science, language and mathematics.

Read more: Egypt, Syria and Jordan

Fiction, Recollections & News

The Atomic Bomb according to ChatGPT

 

Introduction:

The other day, my regular interlocutors at our local shopping centre regaled me with a new question: "What is AI?" And that turned into a discussion about ChatGPT.

I had to confess that I'd never used it. So, I thought I would 'kill two birds with one stone' and ask ChatGPT, for material for an article for my website.

Since watching the movie Oppenheimer, reviewed elsewhere on this website, I've found myself, from time-to-time, musing about the development of the atomic bomb and it's profound impact on the modern world. 

Nuclear energy has provided a backdrop to my entire life. The first "atomic bombs" were dropped on Japan the month before I was born. Thus, the potential of nuclear energy was first revealed in an horrendous demonstration of mankind's greatest power since the harnessing of fire.

Very soon the atomic reactors, that had been necessary to accumulate sufficient plutonium for the first bombs, were adapted to peaceful use.  Yet, they forever carried the stigma of over a hundred thousand of innocent lives lost, many of them young children, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fear of world devastation followed, as the US and USSR faced-off with ever more powerful weapons of mass destruction.

The stigma and fear has been unfortunate, because, had we more enthusiastically embraced our new scientific knowledge and capabilities to harness this alternative to fire, the threat to the atmosphere now posed by an orgy of burning might have been mitigated.

Method:

So, for this article on the 'atomic bomb', I asked ChatGPT six questions about:

  1. The Manhattan Project; 
  2. Leo Szilard (the father of the nuclear chain reaction);
  3. Tube Alloys (the British bomb project);
  4. the Hanford site (plutonium production);
  5. uranium enrichment (diffusion and centrifugal); and
  6. the Soviet bomb project.

As ChatGPT takes around 20 seconds to write 1000 words and gives a remarkably different result each time, I asked it each question several times and chose selectively from the results.

This is what ChatGPT told me about 'the bomb':

Read more: The Atomic Bomb according to ChatGPT

Opinions and Philosophy

Gaia - Climate Speculations

 

 

 

 

Our recent trip to Central Australia involved a long walk around a rock and some even longer contemplative drives.

I found myself wondering if there is more or less 'life' out here than there is in the more obviously verdant countryside to the north south east or west. For example: might microbes be more abundant here?  The flies are certainly doing well. Yet probably not.

This led me to recall James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis that gave we readers of New Scientist something to think about back in 1975, long before climate change was a matter of general public concern.

 

Read more: Gaia - Climate Speculations

Terms of Use

Terms of Use                                                                    Copyright