Fiction or fact, or both?

[median]

I was having a sociable brew with our I.T. bod the other day at work and initially we touched on subjects like the inability of people to accurately and fully describe cyber-problems via telephone and the binary definition of what a gigabyte actually is but as it progressed we got round to the subject of people's general perception of what computers could and could not do.

Following from this we came round to the idea that the general publics perception of many aspects of science and technology are in many cases ill-informed but this is not necessarily the full picture.
We discussed that through the media, specifically television and the internet, a blurring of boundaries has occurred in which fiction and fact are now inextricably intertwined.

I would like to say that such exploration of fiction (ostensibly science based) is by no means a bad thing but many assume a general progression from fiction to fact.
However, it is my speculation that there exists a more bidirectional relationship between the two states.

Perhaps that is why such 'woo' ideas (ghosts, alien visitations) are so strongly perpetuated?

Is there any evidence to suggest that people are more likely to believe in alternative ideas nowadays compared to earlier periods in time?
Is it a case that now people are 'better informed' such fringe ideas have become more acceptable?

Your inputs are appreciated.

Regards

Median

[Cuddles]

If anything I think it's the opposite. Go back a few hundred years and every single person on the planet believed in woo. Atheism was practically unknown, medicine was almost solely quackery, alchemy was thought to work, and so on. I think the main reason we notice the extent of woo nowadays is because there is actually an alternative to compare it to.

Of course, the type of woo has changed a lot. Where it used to be all witchcraft and magic, now it's UFOs and quantum. This doesn't mean technology is actually causing the woo though, it just means people are transferring their woo from traditional things to technological ones.

[bobdezon]

It could also be a backlash against a decadent and culturally bereft society maybe? People feel the need to believe in something?

[SteveH]

Isn't it more likely that there is now, due to the dreaded science, so much information about that some people can't handle it and so, unable to build a world-view on all this confusing data, they build one on something that is simpler and more comfortable?

Other people have some vague faith in 'science' and, as they don't understand most of it, can be persuaded by a plausible rogue who can string together some rubbish that sounds impressively 'scientific'.

PS Apologies if resurrecting this old thread offends - I lost my links and have only just returned to this board!

[SKIRRID5]

I think you're right, Steve. This may be off at a bit of a tangent, but there is a tendency which seems to be common and is dangerous. People demand simple understandable answers to everything, and are annoyed or frustrated when they aren't forthcoming. Fair enough. But I think sometimes there is a perception that if a proposition cannot be explained in layman's terms, then the proposition itself is worthless.

[seren]

Speaking only for myself- and bear in mind I was never a raving woo- I'd say I was unsatisfied with the inanities of life. Technology has made us (in the West) very comfortable. We are spoiled rotten, and I quickly got bored and disillusioned by the consumerism and shallowness I perceived. I also grew up with environmental concerns at the forefront of my mind- the hole in the ozone layer, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal.

So technology and science seemed to me to bring shallowness and destruction. Add that to teenage rebellion, idealism, naive political beliefs- and you've got a vegan anti-capitalist protester eating organic sprouts and teaching herself herbalism.

What did modern life have to offer that had any heart?

[SKIRRID5]

Good music (more of it available in recorded form than ever before, thanks to the dreaded technology). Good writing (libraries are free, before they're all turned into internet cafes). Good films (not necessarily big-budget). It's there.
Personally, I find the most upsetting aspect of modern life is the unending flood of what could superficially be called "heart", but is really puerile sentimentality or casual hatred.

[Tony Williams]

I can recommend a great book which I've just read: How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich, subtitled The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life.

I know that I haven't posted here for long enough to post external links, but I've written a long review of the book on my SFF blog at //sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ so I hope the moderator will forgive me...

[Matt]

Linkygram for Mr Williams (http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-we-know-what-isnt-so-by-thomas.html)

[Tim the Mage]

We seem all very agreeable on this thread! I am reminded of that observation by Donald Runsfeld about the meaning of knowledge - we can distinguish in our minds pretty easily (excusing some readers of 'The Da Vinci Code') between things intended to be fictional and things we 'know' are facts. It's something we learn as very young children.

But then fiction, we say, can contain truths (this may come as a surprise to some science graduates who fail to see the point of studying literature) and is used very often to convey important messages about morality, ethics, relationships and the wider mores of our society.

The problem comes with things that are 'made up' but are presented as 'fact' (fictional facts as opposed to truths in fiction) - this might be the collected works of Erik Von Daniken, the Koran or Richard Dawkins works on atheism. Especially when superficially these works contain many verifiable facts.

[farmersboy]

The problem comes with things that are 'made up' but are presented as 'fact' (fictional facts as opposed to truths in fiction) - this might be the collected works of Erik Von Daniken, the Koran or Richard Dawkins works on atheism. Especially when superficially these works contain many verifiable facts.

No points for guessing where this is going...I think you meant to say the Bible instead of Richard Dawkins there.

[Tim the Mage]

No points for guessing where this is going...I think you meant to say the Bible instead of Richard Dawkins there.

I meant precisely (and was precise in) what I posted. The 'God Delusion' is a fine and convincing book but falls specifically into the category I described.

I am however bemused by the first part of your post? Going where?

[farmersboy]

I am however bemused by the first part of your post? Going where?

You include the Koran in your final list, but omit the Bible, when surely they are both equally guilty of presenting fiction as fact?

[Matt]

I meant precisely (and was precise in) what I posted. The 'God Delusion' is a fine and convincing book but falls specifically into the category I described.

I am however bemused by the first part of your post? Going where?

Where specifically in the God Delusion do you think the author presents fiction as fact?

[Tim the Mage]

You include the Koran in your final list, but omit the Bible, when surely they are both equally guilty of presenting fiction as fact?

Agreed - as is the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. Dawkins argues for the non-existence of God and fails to prove it but still concludes God's non-existence which puts him in the same box as those who believe in the resurrection or other parts of religious mumbo-jumbo.

I perhaps chose examples in the interests of contraversialism rather than clarity but my central point was that it is rather harder than we think to discriminate between truth and fiction but rather more easy to distinguish between fact and what is made up.

Since we should be acting in the manner of the apostle Thomas by seeking verifiable proof, there is a difference. My point about the study of literature tried to point out the difference between "truth" and "fact".

[Matt]

Dawkins argues for the non-existence of God and fails to prove it but still concludes God's non-existence

No he doesn't.

He examines the arguments for Gods existance, dismisses them (correctly for the most part) and finds Gods existance a hugely improbable and unecessary hypothesis. However his approach doesn't afford him the opportunity to discount God completely. This he clearly acknowledges as a scientific approach. He explicitly says he's not 100% absolutely certain that God doesn't exist as that would entail faith over reason.

If I accept your criticism of Dawkins I must accept a similarly structured critcism that says I can't completely disprove the claims of the flat earth society. Sure all their arguments can be clearly show to be bunk. Sure I even have an extraordinarily high level of confidence in conclusion drawn from empirical evidence that would exclude the possibility of a flat earth (something Dawkins doesn't quite have for his God Hypothesis) however it is not the sort of question of pure reason that can survive the application of hyperbolic doubt. There is a vanishingly small probability that despite their argments being invalid and mine being sound, I am nonethess wrong and by pure chance the flat earthers are right.

[Mulder]

... my central point was that it is rather harder than we think to discriminate between truth and fiction but rather more easy to distinguish between fact and what is made up...

If 'fiction' is not the same as 'what is made up', then what is the difference?

[Tim the Mage]

No he doesn't.

He examines the arguments for Gods existance, dismisses them (correctly for the most part) and finds Gods existance a hugely improbable and unecessary hypothesis. However his approach doesn't afford him the opportunity to discount God completely. This he clearly acknowledges as a scientific approach. He explicitly says he's not 100% absolutely certain that God doesn't exist as that would entail faith over reason.

If I accept your criticism of Dawkins I must accept a similarly structured critcism that says I can't completely disprove the claims of the flat earth society. Sure all their arguments can be clearly show to be bunk. Sure I even have an extraordinarily high level of confidence in conclusion drawn from empirical evidence that would exclude the possibility of a flat earth (something Dawkins doesn't quite have for his God Hypothesis) however it is not the sort of question of pure reason that can survive the application of hyperbolic doubt. There is a vanishingly small probability that despite their argments being invalid and mine being sound, I am nonethess wrong and by pure chance the flat earthers are right.

I am tempted to say that we are dealing in sophistry - of course Dawkins can't acknowledge faith because that would be to accept one of the arguments for God's existence. But it is more likely that we are dealing with the true believer's moments of doubt rather than any kind of rational argument. 'We all have doubts" says the priest "and examining those doubts makes our faith stronger." But then you are dismissive of God on the basis of your faith in someone else's view (which accords very closely with Christ's words to Thomas). Go away, read Aquinas and explain (which Dawkins doesn't) why his proofs of God are so easily dismissed as bunk? Finally, when Dawkins uses science his is at his weakest, when he engages with the philosophy and metaphysics much stronger.

Oh, and I say all this as an ex-believer...

[Matt]

I am tempted to say that we are dealing in sophistry - of course Dawkins can't acknowledge faith because that would be to accept one of the arguments for God's existence. But it is more likely that we are dealing with the true believer's moments of doubt rather than any kind of rational argument. 'We all have doubts" says the priest "and examining those doubts makes our faith stronger." But then you are dismissive of God on the basis of your faith in someone else's view (which accords very closely with Christ's words to Thomas). Go away, read Aquinas and explain (which Dawkins doesn't) why his proofs of God are so easily dismissed as bunk? Finally, when Dawkins uses science his is at his weakest, when he engages with the philosophy and metaphysics much stronger.

Oh, and I say all this as an ex-believer...

Surely you're winding me up.

No-one who's read the God Delusion could claim any of this.

Aquinas arguments include the telelogical argument, a.k.a. argument from the appearance of design. To suggest that you've read any Dawkins book and manged to miss him attacking the idea of Intelligent Design, is simply silly. I suspect that most people would recognise this as one of his hot button issues even if they've lived their entire life in cave. Having read the God Delusion I can assure you that he discusses this at length not just with respect to evolution but how this exception to the telelogical argument, is a consiousness raiser that highlights the invalidity of the telelogical argument in general (many things that appear desgned in fact aren't) He further discusses the telelogical argument as applied to such matters as the fine tuning of cosmological variables and mentions the anthropic principle. It's quite fascinating and you really should read it but if his response to this Blind Watchmaker argument is what you're after I recommend instead "The Selfish Gene" and "The Ancestors Tale" for a good solid grounding and then of course "The Blind Watchmaker"

Aquinas also rephrases the prime mover argument tracing back chains of movement in particular, and cause and effect in general. Since you can't seriously be telling me that you've read the God Delusion and not noticed discussion of infinite regression... I'll just chuckle at this.

Those are the three most comonly repeated of Aquinas's arguments and the ones that Dawkins gives the most attention to. There is some discussion of St Anslem's ontological argument which is similar to one of Aquinas' other arguments but whilst it is a difficult philosophical enterprise to dismiss with rigor it's hardly necessary. I doubt any non-believer or even an undecided has ever heard the argument that perfect things must exist and been convinced by it. No more than Xeno ever actually convinced anyone that tortoises outrun arrosw.

I don't remember him addressing Aquinas's argument that all things are eventually destoryed and so without God there would be nothing left by now. I won't dignify this curious suggestion with a response either.

However the critcism that science is his weak point and that he should focus on his specialities of philosohpy and metaphysics is what gave you away as a wind up merchant. It almost the exact opposite of the one usually levelled at him, that he should stick to his professional specialism as he is theologically unquallified.

Thank you for the most amusingly bizarre argument of the day. At least now I know your critcisms of Dawkins aren't serious.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Tim the Mage said:

Go away, read Aquinas and explain (which Dawkins doesn't) why his proofs of God are so easily dismissed as bunk?

Tim,
I see that Matt has already replied to you— IMHO rather neatly.

Let me add my tuppenceworth. You imply that Dawkins hasn't got good reasons for dismissing Aquinas's " proofs". Here is a link:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays.htm

Do you agree that it is a reasonable presentation of Aquinas' views?

If you do agree: in what way does Dawkins fail to answer Aquinas? If you don't agree: why not?

[Tim the Mage]

My objective was to explore the difference between fact and fiction and these responses have helped. I had not intended to get into a discussion about the existence or otherwise of God rather to point out by way of illustration that the non-existence of god is not a 'fact' but neither is it, in our regular understanding, 'fiction'. Hence my rather clumsy phrase 'something made up' (there's a better phrase or word I'm sure). Equally I observed that, in the case of God,'s existence, the books arguing either way contain many verifiable 'facts' but that their core purpose is to promote something that is not a 'fact' but as both theologians and athiests conclude something unknowable and reliant on 'faith' (which I think is conceded by Dawkins). The reason why metaphysical arguments for atheism are stronger that scientific ones is explained - science can only take us part of the journey. To complete the trip we need philosophy, metaphysics and old-fashioned reasoning!

[Tony Williams]

For anyone objectively examining the evidence of what reason has discovered (and continues to discover) about the material world, the scope for a "creator God" is now limited to kicking off the Big Bang and setting the initial conditions which permitted life to emerge and evolve. There really is no argument for or against that, since no-one has any idea why "life, the universe and all that" actually exists. Possibly mankind never will understand that, any more than harvest mice can understand why the seasons exist.

However, it is a large and illogical step from admitting that we don't know how it all began, to conjuring up a divine creator to explain it, for all the usual reasons.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

My objective was to explore the difference between fact and fiction and these responses have helped. I had not intended to get into a discussion about the existence or otherwise of God rather to point out by way of illustration that the non-existence of god is not a 'fact' but neither is it, in our regular understanding, 'fiction'. Hence my rather clumsy phrase 'something made up' (there's a better phrase or word I'm sure). Equally I observed that, in the case of God,'s existence, the books arguing either way contain many verifiable 'facts' but that their core purpose is to promote something that is not a 'fact' but as both theologians and athiests conclude something unknowable and reliant on 'faith' (which I think is conceded by Dawkins). The reason why metaphysical arguments for atheism are stronger that scientific ones is explained - science can only take us part of the journey. To complete the trip we need philosophy, metaphysics and old-fashioned reasoning!

Tim,

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems to me that in this context we want to distinguish fiction not from fact but from non-fiction— just as librarians and booksellers do. If a scientist or theologian or philosopher gets an argument about the existence of God badly wrong, his book is not transferred from Non-fiction to Fiction. It may be transferred from Worth-reading to Rubbish— but that's another story.

[Tim the Mage]

Tim,

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems to me that in this context we want to distinguish fiction not from fact but from non-fiction— just as librarians and booksellers do. If a scientist or theologian or philosopher gets an argument about the existence of God badly wrong, his book is not transferred from Non-fiction to Fiction. It may be transferred from Worth-reading to Rubbish— but that's another story.

Perhaps? But is it as simple as that. To take just one example - The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is sold as fiction. Yet the book from which it derives its central premise, Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh's, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was sold as non-fiction.

The distinction is that 'The Da Vinci Code' is a story whereas "The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail" is presented as a history. But Dan Brown implies in his opening that the source for his story is true (i.e. a fact within a fiction) whereas there is no substantive, verifiable support for Baigent & Leigh's contention (i.e. it is 'made up' with facts selected as post hoc support).

[dalriada]

Perhaps? But is it as simple as that. To take just one example - The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is sold as fiction. Yet the book from which it derives its central premise, Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh's, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was sold as non-fiction.

The distinction is that 'The Da Vinci Code' is a story whereas "The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail" is presented as a history. But Dan Brown implies in his opening that the source for his story is true (i.e. a fact within a fiction) whereas there is no substantive, verifiable support for Baigent & Leigh's contention (i.e. it is 'made up' with facts selected as post hoc support).

'The Da Vinci Code' is accepted as fact by very many people, who haven't read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" . The equally fictional Baigent and Leigh creation forms a background myth which helped propogate and add further substance to "The da Vinci Code". It doesn't matter that the story isn't true, the sheer fact that it exists and is spreading about the public consciousness supported by the power of its own myth, means its given as much importance in the world as something which actually is based on fact. I think the spread of this kind of nonsense meme is something worth studying.

(see Dawkins on Viruses of the Mind). (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html)

Stories are incredibly powerful and can be dangerous- like the myth of Aryan supermacy, or HIV not causing AIDS. People can get killed just by the sheer force of a narrative. On the other hand stories can provide ways of people integrating their lives and provide entire cultures with a means of survival. I think what I'm trying to say here is that when trying to assess situations or make judgements we need look beyond just scientific method and I think the analogies with literary criticism being brought up in this thread are useful ones. Kark Popper argued that "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths", I think having an awareness of that also guards against science creating its own myths.

On another thread (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20) I've posted about a rather bizarre theory concerning ghosts (http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/musings.htm) put forward by a paranormal group which claims to be the foremost in the country. The author (or authors) muse on stone-tape theory (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Recording%20ghosts.html), point out what they see as its problems and propose something several shades more unlikely to replace it. Unfortunately the main problem with the original theory, before getting to any scientific considerations, was that it was complete fiction (http://www.p-s-i.org.uk/stonetapearticle.htm) to start with. However as the authors hadn't realised that, they went ahead with their critique and unleashed a more monstrous mutation on the world, which is at this point in time, is probably taken for fact by very many people. After all, we are told it is much better than the old theory. This time next week, several hours of an academic conference (http://www.parapsych.org/2008-PA-tentative-program.pdf) will be taken up by a discussion of ghosts and hauntings presented by the perpetrators of the incredible new theory (http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/musings.htm) who will hold centre stage as experts. Perhaps they may even talk about their new theories, they have an audience. At what point can we say fiction has become accepted fact? The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

If fiction becomes interchangeable with fact, where does that leave reality? But then the world is a very strange place. What exactly is reality?

In his book The Trickster and the Paranormal (http://www.tricksterbook.com/) George Hansen has said (half jokingly) that Foucault's Pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum), Umberto Eco's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco)a satire on the futility of conspiracy theories, is the best ethnography of American Ufology he's seen. I think his comment could be extended further out into the rest of the paranormalist world and parapsychology. I'm astonished that "The da Vinci Code" should have gained such a hold on public imagination when Eco's antidote was sitting there on bookshelves, but there you go. Perhaps literary taste might be as important as intelligence after all...? ;)

When asked if he had read the Dan Brown novel, Eco replied:


I was obliged to read it because everybody was asking me about it. My answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel Foucault’s Pendulum, which is about people who start believing in occult stuff.

- But you yourself seem interested in the kabbalah, alchemy and other occult practices explored in the novel.

No. In Foucault’s Pendulum I wrote the grotesque representation of these kind of people. So Dan Brown is one of my creatures

I rather like the thought that Dan Brown-bestselling Author may only be a figment of Eco's imagination.

[Tim the Mage]

Stories are incredibly powerful and can be dangerous- like the myth of Aryan supermacy, or HIV not causing AIDS. People can get killed just by the sheer force of a narrative. On the other hand stories can provide ways of people integrating their lives and provide entire cultures with a means of survival. I think what I'm trying to say here is that when trying to assess situations or make judgements we need look beyond just scientific method and I think the analogies with literary criticism being brought up in this thread are useful ones. Karl Popper argued that "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths", I think having an awareness of that also guards against science creating its own myths.

The power of stories is widely recognised as is our human need to create mythologies that explain. However, the power of stories and myths can be exploited which is why Karl_Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) placed so much emphasis in the Poverty of Historicism on applying the scientific method to what he termed sociology (meaning broadly what we would now term social sciences).

Criticism is still useful and the study of literature provides techniques (literary theory (http://literary theory) ,http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/literary.htm) that can help to counter the threat that comes from the misuse of myth and story. Even those these are not remotely scientific, they allow the analysis and investigation needed to derive the best questions and challenges to the claims of the myth-makers.

[Pebble]

My objective was to explore the difference between fact and fiction and these responses have helped.

... The reason why metaphysical arguments for atheism are stronger that scientific ones is explained - science can only take us part of the journey. To complete the trip we need philosophy, metaphysics and old-fashioned reasoning!

Given the definition of fiction you appear to be working with all science is fiction. In science nothing is proven absolutely. If a theory has the ability to predict future outcomes in real life scenarios, then the theory is supported. If over many observations, the predictive accuracy is excellent, and deviations are rare, then it becomes accepted as fact. This is not absolute truth.

From your postings you appear uncomfortable with uncertainty, even though this is the very essence of nature. Truth is a man made invention to allow our brains to create certainties from apparent chaos.

[Tim the Mage]

Given the definition of fiction you appear to be working with all science is fiction. In science nothing is proven absolutely. If a theory has the ability to predict future outcomes in real life scenarios, then the theory is supported. If over many observations, the predictive accuracy is excellent, and deviations are rare, then it becomes accepted as fact. This is not absolute truth.

From your postings you appear uncomfortable with uncertainty, even though this is the very essence of nature. Truth is a man made invention to allow our brains to create certainties from apparent chaos.

I'm not sure I was working with any particular definition of 'fiction' - or 'fact' for that matter. And I'm equally bemused as to your mystic capability to discern my feelings from a small number of words typed in a box.

I could ask you what you understand the word "truth" to mean? It clearly isn't exactly synonymous with the word "fact" and, as I have said already, there is 'truth' in fiction. Yet your apparent definition makes truth the same as factual which is plainly wrong. I was not seeking to explore the nature of scientific investigation but to understand how - as the original poster asked - we distinguish between fiction and fact? But then you may be uncomfortable with semantics?:smiley:

[Pebble]

And I'm equally bemused as to your mystic capability to discern my feelings from a small number of words typed in a box.

Stating what 'appears' to be the case is nothing to do with discerning feelings



your apparent definition makes truth the same as factual which is plainly wrong.

In what way is truth not fact? You need to help me out here, is truth greater than fact, if so in what way (evidence please), or are there facts that are not true?


then you may be uncomfortable with semantics?

Please see above

[Pebble]

Still trying to understand where you are coming from!




But then fiction, we say, can contain truths (this may come as a surprise to some science graduates who fail to see the point of studying literature) and is used very often to convey important messages about morality, ethics, relationships and the wider mores of our society.

From this I gather that you take parabels, or perhaps morals to equate with or relate to truth. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is the only way I can see that you can remove truth from factual reality. In which case truth relates to beliefs or constructs of reality beleived in a cetain place at a certain time. Thus truths in respect of relationships is very different in India, Saudia Arabia and the West presently. Or in the USA when slavery was accepted and now etc.


The problem comes with things that are 'made up' but are presented as 'fact' (fictional facts as opposed to truths in fiction) - this might be the collected works of Erik Von Daniken, the Koran or Richard Dawkins works on atheism. Especially when superficially these works contain many verifiable facts.


This seems very confused to me. Certainly one can selectively use facts to create false certainties or messages. But the bible/koran doesn't really set out to do this. There you start with a fairy tale and insist that it is true, then tell people what to do in private. What has this got to do with Dawkins?

[Tim the Mage]

Still trying to understand where you are coming from!

It would help if we could agree on what we mean by the words we are using. You see 'truth' and 'fact' as the same whereas I say that 'truth' has a broader meaning (which isn't, as you surely know, not the same as saying that facts aren't truth). Thus 'facts' (whatever we mean by that word) are a sub-set of 'truths' since 'fiction' may contain ideas, message and mores that we accept to be true.

My point about the Bible/Koran and Dawkins was not that they started from the same place but that these books contain verifiable facts yet their conclusion "there is/isn't a god" (and I take on board Matt's crticisms of my reading of Dawkins here) is not a verifiable fact.

Finally without truth being broader than mere scientific fact how do we deal with ideas such as 'love', 'hatred', 'happiness', 'grief' - there is surely truth in this too?

[dalriada]

Ok, taking this back to subject of good taste how about some Keats?

Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know

Good science has its own symmetry, follows its own conventions of hypothesis testing, Theory building, Peer review etc.

Good literature has its own style, compelling themes, elegant structure, speaks to its audience etc.

Done well, both are beautiful. Perhaps aesthetics are an important means of judging the worthiness of something ? Even babies have a preference for beautiful symmetrical faces. That sense of the aesthetically pleasing can serve as a sharp little aid to human survival, perhaps its something to be added to the skeptic's armoury?

[Pebble]

Finally without truth being broader than mere scientific fact how do we deal with ideas such as 'love', 'hatred', 'happiness', 'grief' - there is surely truth in this too?

I would propose the following.

There are no known facts, there are accepted facts. Some have such a high degree of certainty associated with them that they are very unlikely ever to need revision. Others will do for the moment, they provide an adequate basis for continued understanding of a given field. In other fields we know that there are 'facts' but our level of understanding does not presently permit workable hypotheses. Here emotion scores highly. Indeed much of the workings of the brain is still in this group.

In this area we have belief systems, that form constructs which to varying degrees are adequate for most, but intolerable for some. Such constructs are confused with truths, but this is simply a denial of the possibility that science can ever deal with such issues, and the creation of false certainties.

[Tim the Mage]

I would propose the following.

There are no known facts, there are accepted facts. Some have such a high degree of certainty associated with them that they are very unlikely ever to need revision. Others will do for the moment, they provide an adequate basis for continued understanding of a given field. In other fields we know that there are 'facts' but our level of understanding does not presently permit workable hypotheses. Here emotion scores highly. Indeed much of the workings of the brain is still in this group.

In this area we have belief systems, that form constructs which to varying degrees are adequate for most, but intolerable for some. Such constructs are confused with truths, but this is simply a denial of the possibility that science can ever deal with such issues, and the creation of false certainties.

You see the difficulty with this discussion? Unless we can agree on a definition of terms we cannot resolve your difficulties with the idea of truth. I have no disagreement with your understanding except that it is too narrow and too constrained.

Leaving aside your issue with certainty/uncertainty, you do seem to be unable to conceive of an idea of truth that transcends accepted scientific fact. To dismiss art as - using your definition - untruthful is I think to miss the point entirely. Nor can we simply describe 'love' as an emotion - as a concept it again transcends that limited definition.

Using my definition of truth we need not concern ourself with the narrow conception of certainty/uncertainty and we are able to see truth within art, within fiction. You however are hung up with contending the theological concept of truth which I have never claimed was valid (I used religion as an example of the situation where the presence of 'facts'does not make the 'made up' a fact as well).

[Pebble]

To dismiss art as - using your definition - untruthful is I think to miss the point entirely. Nor can we simply describe 'love' as an emotion - as a concept it again transcends that limited definition.



I do not dismiss art as untruthful, I see art for its own sake, neither true nor untrue. I can appreciate the beauty of art and literature without any need to invest it with properties that do not therein exist. Not being an artist I do not feel any need to believe that there is something magical (eternal truth) about any given art form.

As to the fashion in which love is more than an emotion - you will have to give me some clues here. Certainly love sick individuals may exhibit otherwise irrational behaviour and more long term love has a clear survival advantage. But I am unclear in what way love is more than an emotion - however intense and however durable.

[Tim the Mage]

To limit the appreciation of art to the aesthetic (this thing is beautiful) is to take an incomplete view of art. The writer, artist or performer doesn't do something just because the result is beautiful - although that is an important element of the work. The artist wants equally to use the opportunity to communicate with us, to explore something about the world, about life.

.

[dalriada]

To limit the appreciation of art to the aesthetic (this thing is beautiful) is to take an incomplete view of art. The writer, artist or performer doesn't do something just because the result is beautiful - although that is an important element of the work. The artist wants equally to use the opportunity to communicate with us, to explore something about the world, about life.

If this is done well though, is it not beautiful?

Even if the primary purpose of a book is to create social change or promote a scientific theory (Like the Selfish Gene) one of the ways of knowing that the work is done well is that internal cohesion and vital force in the artificial creation of an artist's mind which creates... a resonance in the outer world and draws attention to it.

By "beauty" I don't mean pretty. A shark is beautiful. Beauty can be harsh or troubling. "The Selfish Gene" is a beautiful book. I think what I'm saying here is that although "aesthetic" judgements may be seen as superficial, they might serve as quick and useful rules of thumb when making assessments.

For example, "The da Vinci Code" has as little aesthetic merit as it does historic...You don't have to spend years researching the history to damn it on grounds of "fact" you just have to read a few pages and bin it on grounds of taste/ literary style.

There's a discussion about the meaning of Love on this other thread.
(http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2804&highlight=love)
On a totally different subject, Mr Mage, what are your Avatars supposed to represent? The one in your profile looks like a turnip...possibly on a christmas tree? :)

[Pebble]

To limit the appreciation of art to the aesthetic (this thing is beautiful) is to take an incomplete view of art. The writer, artist or performer doesn't do something just because the result is beautiful - although that is an important element of the work. The artist wants equally to use the opportunity to communicate with us, to explore something about the world, about life.

Point taken that there is more to art than simple aesthetics (thanks for the English lesson), it does not necessarily follow that truth is the added ingredient. Great art should 'move' you, challenge your world view, whatever. There are many ways of achieving this, in this respect I would regard art as just another medium for communication.

Any comments on 'love'?

[dalriada]

Any comments on 'love'?

There were, and I accidentally over-edited them. Bad me.
We already have A love thread (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=41846) though.

For bitter 'n' twisted skeptics I think we're doing quite well on the whole truth beauty and love debate.

We should be sitting around in some fin de siècle Paris cafe drinking absinthe and dying of consumption... >:D

[Pebble]

There were, and I accidentally over-edited them. Bad me.
We already have A love thread (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=41846) though.

For bitter 'n' twisted skeptics I think we're doing quite well on the whole truth beauty and love debate.

We should be sitting around in some fin de siècle Paris cafe drinking absinthe and dying of consumption... >:D




As for the neuro-chemical basis for love, the same argument must hold for delusional states. One may never recreate the actual experience, but only by understanding the neuronal pathway abnormalities and chemical/receptor imbalances that under pin such states can we ever hope to be able to understand these conditions fully and alleviate the suffering of those afflicted. Applying the same approach to love, are there those who are relatively incapable of love, would they be better off if we could facilitate such experiences, and what of those who are excessively prone to love, and end up forming destructive attachments say to 'fences' or gods, would it ever be appropriate to provide a method of reducing such levels of neuro-chemical addiction?

Just when it was getting all maudlin, I feel the overwhelming need to throw in a hand grenade.

[bindeweede]

There were, and I accidentally over-edited them. Bad me.
We already have A love thread (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=41846) though.

For bitter 'n' twisted skeptics I think we're doing quite well on the whole truth beauty and love debate.

We should be sitting around in some fin de siècle Paris cafe drinking absinthe and dying of consumption... >:D

We all know what absinthe makes, but more importantly, do you lean in favour of Violetta or Mimi?

[dalriada]

We all know what absinthe makes, but more importantly, do you lean in favour of Violetta or Mimi?

Aesthetically Mimi, realistically Violetta.

I think Sarama's little green fairy beats them both tho'!

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/image.php?u=749&dateline=1213991854

[bindeweede]

Aesthetically Mimi, realistically Violetta.

I think Sarama's little green fairy beats them both tho'!

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/image.php?u=749&dateline=1213991854

Sorry, I'm dragging the thread elsewhere. I'm a Mimi fan, and what about Cio-Cio San?:'(:'(:'(

[dalriada]

Sorry, I'm dragging the thread elsewhere. I'm a Mimi fan, and what about Cio-Cio San?:'(:'(:'(

"Butterfly" is my favourite (I'm not proud).
I may cry....:-[

[Tim the Mage]

On a totally different subject, Mr Mage, what are your Avatars supposed to represent? The one in your profile looks like a turnip...possibly on a christmas tree? :)

It's a mushroom but quite what it's doing there I'm not sure - a picture file with mushrooms, wizards and assorted poisonous garden plants is probably to blame along with the extremely stilted nature of my IT skills (in truth skills isn't the word most folk would use).