How do we know there is such a thing as truth?

[Undertow]

I'm curious: how do we know that truth exists? Are we to prove it exists to know that it exists? If so, wouldn't that mean we have to frame an argument in which we'd need to concede some premises as true? Wouldn't this be cirular logic - relying on that which we are trying to prove to prove it? In such a case, is it just up to accepting the existance and possibility truth as a fundamental axiom to our human thinking?

Also, what do you think the ramifications of evolution on truth are? Does the nature of change through evolution change truth or is truth what is beyond our immediate mental capacity and our attempts to find it necessarily shortfalling because of our limited capacities as humans (perhaps hence why we're so focused on a scientific approach of weeding out the untruths to make truth hide in smaller and smaller spaces)?

[QED]

During the Victorian years good portrait artists were expected to paint their patrons as pleasantly plump. It was a sign of prosperity. Only the poor were thin and trim.
Later, the Flapper Girls were considered attrctive if they were thin and flat chested, a reversal. I'm not sure if this was evolutionary of human perceptions or evolution of fashion.
I can remember when the pegged trousers of men quickly changed to bell bottoms, a change for fashion not function.

The power of fashion is remarkable. It gets me every time I see some obviously outdated book on DIY or some other domestic pursuit: The photos of the insides of other people's houses look just the way mine did. Yet "in the moment" it always feels like we're doing "our own thing". Such a clear effect warrants some kind of name. It's got one: memes. Units of cultural inheritance, in the case of interior decoration, passed on through magazines and TV adverts. I think fashion is a good metaphor for the bizarre adaptations resulting from sexual selection, and is a solid pointer to the impression genetics can make in priming the mind for certain preferences. After all, presumably Peacocks don't get their ideas from magazines.

[realthinker]

I'm curious: how do we know that truth exists? Are we to prove it exists to know that it exists? If so, wouldn't that mean we have to frame an argument in which we'd need to concede some premises as true? Wouldn't this be cirular logic - relying on that which we are trying to prove to prove it? In such a case, is it just up to accepting the existance and possibility truth as a fundamental axiom to our human thinking?

Also, what do you think the ramifications of evolution on truth are? Does the nature of change through evolution change truth or is truth what is beyond our immediate mental capacity and our attempts to find it necessarily shortfalling because of our limited capacities as humans (perhaps hence why we're so focused on a scientific approach of weeding out the untruths to make truth hide in smaller and smaller spaces)?

We know that truth exists because we are able to apply reason independently and find consistent results, not only among our own endeavors, but across all of mankind, throughout all of time.

But we also know that our understanding of truth is incomplete or inaccurate because of the inconsistencies we find when applying reason in hind sight, after we've found new understanding.

Truth (some of you are probably seeing this coming) consists of the measurable facts we encounter through our experience, plus those ideas we use to fill in for what we cannot experience, in order to have a complete set of ideas from which to reason. This is necessary because man is mortal and the range of our experience limited.

Truth evolves as we discover new facts and as those facts change the way ideas fit consistently into our truth. With new facts, some ideas no longer support valid reasoning.

For example, while mankind's notion of the true scale of the Earth's oceans, the idea that the world was flat gave consistency to discussions of the world's shape. That idea had no consequence while navigation was line-of-sight or regional, even though it was false. It was truth, and it served sufficiently. But when man started wandering farther and when science suggested other than flatness, the idea of a flat world was shown to be inconsistent with observation. The spherical idea of the world's shape showed to be more consistent, and its use helped to solve real problems. So it overtook the idea of a flat earth in the widely accepted version of truth.

[Undertow]

I'm curious: how do we know that truth exists? Are we to prove it exists to know that it exists? If so, wouldn't that mean we have to frame an argument in which we'd need to concede some premises as true? Wouldn't this be cirular logic - relying on that which we are trying to prove to prove it? In such a case, is it just up to accepting the existance and possibility truth as a fundamental axiom to our human thinking?

Also, what do you think the ramifications of evolution on truth are? Does the nature of change through evolution change truth or is truth what is beyond our immediate mental capacity and our attempts to find it necessarily shortfalling because of our limited capacities as humans (perhaps hence why we're so focused on a scientific approach of weeding out the untruths to make truth hide in smaller and smaller spaces)?

We know that truth exists because we are able to apply reason independently and find consistent results, not only among our own endeavors, but across all of mankind, throughout all of time.

But we also know that our understanding of truth is incomplete or inaccurate because of the inconsistencies we find when applying reason in hind sight, after we've found new understanding.

Truth (some of you are probably seeing this coming) consists of the measurable facts we encounter through our experience, plus those ideas we use to fill in for what we cannot experience, in order to have a complete set of ideas from which to reason. This is necessary because man is mortal and the range of our experience limited.

Truth evolves as we discover new facts and as those facts change the way ideas fit consistently into our truth. With new facts, some ideas no longer support valid reasoning.

For example, while mankind's notion of the true scale of the Earth's oceans, the idea that the world was flat gave consistency to discussions of the world's shape. That idea had no consequence while navigation was line-of-sight or regional, even though it was false. It was truth, and it served sufficiently. But when man started wandering farther and when science suggested other than flatness, the idea of a flat world was shown to be inconsistent with observation. The spherical idea of the world's shape showed to be more consistent, and its use helped to solve real problems. So it overtook the idea of a flat earth in the widely accepted version of truth.

So your view of truth is as something more changeable, like our current knowns or facts? I don't necessarily agree with that view. I think there is a truth that does not change merely because man deems it as such, yet our facts are the tentative knowns - they will change to better suit what is true if need be.

[krosetm]

Truth exists independent of us. It might be useful to think of it as eternal law. We operate on cause and effect--as we obey or refuse to obey law. We grow as we obey truth. Truth is light and intelligence. You're an intelligence and so you have the capacity to recognize and know and grow in truth and light. Your intelligence existed before this life and is now housed in a mortal tabernacle.

[realthinker]

I'm curious: how do we know that truth exists? Are we to prove it exists to know that it exists? If so, wouldn't that mean we have to frame an argument in which we'd need to concede some premises as true? Wouldn't this be cirular logic - relying on that which we are trying to prove to prove it? In such a case, is it just up to accepting the existance and possibility truth as a fundamental axiom to our human thinking?

Also, what do you think the ramifications of evolution on truth are? Does the nature of change through evolution change truth or is truth what is beyond our immediate mental capacity and our attempts to find it necessarily shortfalling because of our limited capacities as humans (perhaps hence why we're so focused on a scientific approach of weeding out the untruths to make truth hide in smaller and smaller spaces)?

We know that truth exists because we are able to apply reason independently and find consistent results, not only among our own endeavors, but across all of mankind, throughout all of time.

But we also know that our understanding of truth is incomplete or inaccurate because of the inconsistencies we find when applying reason in hind sight, after we've found new understanding.

Truth (some of you are probably seeing this coming) consists of the measurable facts we encounter through our experience, plus those ideas we use to fill in for what we cannot experience, in order to have a complete set of ideas from which to reason. This is necessary because man is mortal and the range of our experience limited.

Truth evolves as we discover new facts and as those facts change the way ideas fit consistently into our truth. With new facts, some ideas no longer support valid reasoning.

For example, while mankind's notion of the true scale of the Earth's oceans, the idea that the world was flat gave consistency to discussions of the world's shape. That idea had no consequence while navigation was line-of-sight or regional, even though it was false. It was truth, and it served sufficiently. But when man started wandering farther and when science suggested other than flatness, the idea of a flat world was shown to be inconsistent with observation. The spherical idea of the world's shape showed to be more consistent, and its use helped to solve real problems. So it overtook the idea of a flat earth in the widely accepted version of truth.

So your view of truth is as something more changeable, like our current knowns or facts? I don't necessarily agree with that view. I think there is a truth that does not change merely because man deems it as such, yet our facts are the tentative knowns - they will change to better suit what is true if need be.

Truth outside of the human perspective is truth, unchanging. Facts are facts, and they're all there for all time. But I'd say it's all but impossible for any human to know all of it. We're forced to work with ideas. We've advanced as a species because we can transmit them, record them, share them. The recorded and shared ideas may be accurate or not, but regardless they may contribute to reason. Those that inhibit progress are discarded. Those that do not have adverse consequences are retained. Notice that I didn't say those that provide benefit are retained. Even those that don't have a real consequence may be retained if they are part of an overall concept that provides benefit.