Is the truth elusive?

[finder]

This quote is from another members favorite quotes he has listed at the bottom of his posts. I found it interesting because the implication is no one knows the truth and no one can find it...

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
[Terry Pratchet]

So that got me thinking, is truth so elusive we can never know it? Or will we only find parts of it, forever being incomplete? Should we keep seeking if we know we can't find it? If so, why? What would be the point? Is there a point? Should the goal be to have "found it?"

[Jack]

First it should be noted that Terry's quote doesn't address the concept of "the truth" itself but rather says that he finds those who are striving to find "the truth" better company than those who believe they are in possession of it. In other words, it's a comment on people and their attitudes, not the nature of truth. I, too, think that people who are willing to admit they don't posses "the truth" make better companions than those who presume to already know it. They have no interest in changing their opinions since they believe that what they know is absolutely true. While this attitude affects religious people, it doesn't only affect them. There are many people with many opinions on a variety of subjects who believe that what they know is unassailable and claim that nothing will ever change their mind. I've found people who think they know "the truth" to be pompous and arrogant, uninterested in learning anything that may challenge their presumptions. They aren't fun to be around because all they're interested in is their own thoughts. They have no motivation to listen to anyone else or entertain new ideas.

Then we need to define our terms. What is “the truth” and what is meant when it’s capitalized as “the Truth”? We need to know the context in which that phrase is being used. That will help us understand what “the truth” may represent on a certain topic.

Lastly we ought to acknowledge the limitations of our humanity. We can only know what we have the means to discover and the words to describe. We as humans, because of the evolutionary limits of our senses, cannot perceive everything. Because of the capabilities of our brains we cannot know everything. The inability to posses absolute knowledge means we cannot reach absolute conclusions. There’s always the possibility that exceptions and contradictions to what we currently know exist and we just haven’t encountered them yet.

That’s why the search for knowledge, the quest for “the truth” whatever that means in any context, ought to be considered an ongoing, lifelong pursuit. I like being around people who can admit their own ignorance and yet continue to explore and learn as opposed to those who believe they have nothing left to learn as they already posses “the truth”.

[finder]

They have motivation to listen to anyone else or entertain new ideas.

I think you meant "They have no motivation..." So with that let me tell you right now, I'm open to new ideas, just lay them on me.

I get your point about theists but all I can offer you is that isn't true across the board. Some of us may believe Christ is the creator but we can never lay claim to absolute knowledge of creation. That's why I find science so interesting.

But really what intrigued me about the quote was the implication that it would be a bad thing to know something others do not just because you might not be able to prove it. Kinda of like it destroys the thrill of seeking knowledge. And because of that it would be better to not know then be around one who does know. Just some of my own thoughts.

[minorwork]

But really what intrigued me about the quote was the implication that it would be a bad thing to know something others do not just because you might not be able to prove it. Kinda of like it destroys the thrill of seeking knowledge. And because of that it would be better to not know then be around one who does know. Just some of my own thoughts.

There is a way I've found to get out of the quagmire of incomplete knowledge. Leave aside the subjects that are defined as non-empiric since they can, by definition, never be confirmed by the present physical reality. That leaves the things that can be confirmed and thereby the knowledge one has can be wagered upon.

The wager is just a self-measurement of the amount of faith a person has in the validity of his knowledge by equating that faith to something of value. I'd bet on it.

Don't know about the thrill of having knowledge, but useless knowledge that has no positive benefits to the knower is a waste of valuable memory space.

[finder]

By minorwork Don't know about the thrill of having knowledge, but useless knowledge that has no positive benefits to the knower is a waste of valuable memory space.

Oh, I agree. I specifically referenced the thrill of seeking knowledge.

[minorwork]

Oh, I agree. I specifically referenced the thrill of seeking knowledge.

Ah man, the pain of experience. Yes quite a "thrill" but not in the seeking, in the finding. A two-headed sword, surely, with different standards for each participant depending on...well...gender, for one thing, e.g., virginity as a virtue when all it does is promote ignorance.

"The trouble with people is not so much with their ignorance as it is with their knowing so many things that are not so." ~ William Alanson White

[Jack]

I think you meant "They have no motivation..."

Yes I did, thanks.

[KayTwee]

Well put, Jack.

"Truth" is nothing more than agreement within a given frame of reference so lending it any more significance than that is fruitless.

Love the Pratchett quote, and I agree completely. Another of his gems on the topic.. "The truth isn't easily pinned to a page. In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap and much more difficult to find." - Sourcery - Terry Pratchett

[finder]

"Truth" is nothing more than agreement within a given frame of reference so lending it any more significance than that is fruitless.

That quote to me seems to be an eloquent lie by nature. Whether or not an agreement is reached within any given frame of reference is irrelevant to what is true, for it's true regardless. I think it would be more accurate to say "truth is absolute by definition though we may never understand or obtain it in it's entirety." Truth is wouldn't you say, more significant in the long run where knowledge is concerned then lies? I don't think truth has to do with arrogance as much as it has to do with the logic of absolution. Reemphasizing again, our understanding of it is what's insignificant when it comes to the reality of what is true and what is not.

[finder]

Ah man, the pain of experience. Yes quite a "thrill" but not in the seeking, in the finding. A two-headed sword, surely, with different standards for each participant depending on...well...gender, for one thing, e.g., virginity as a virtue when all it does is promote ignorance.

"The trouble with people is not so much with their ignorance as it is with their knowing so many things that are not so." ~ William Alanson White

Love that quote by White, thanks.

[KayTwee]

That quote to me seems to be an eloquent lie by nature.

That wasn't a quote, just an observation. It's not only my observation, mind you.. it is the basis of mathematics which, like it or lump it, is nothing more than our best attempt at compressing the world around us into a single dimension.. and it's a rather flat attempt at that.. har har

In any case, in my original point about fruitlessness I was speaking of truth as an abstract, not "the truth" in any absolute sense. We can go on and on about absolute truth but when you consider that there can be only one "absolute truth" and it must encompass everything in the universe we must admit that it is likely too far beyond our capacity to comprehend it for us to even recognize it, if confronted by it. Thus, in the end, all that really matters is the truth we experience in our personal frames of reference (lives).