[elgayna]

When I was 15 years old I wrote in a report for ther schoolpaper: 'what is reality when facts seem unreal'. This was after an excursion to a concentrationcamp in Poland.

Now I am 32 years old and watch events unfolding which I simply cannot believe. Facts are being put in front of me which I have to question. The internet has made matters worse as I am being confronted with this unstoppable stream of 'facts' and the more I am trying to swim amongst those, the more I feel like I am drowning.

So my question to anyone that bothers to read this, how do you decide what the truth is? Do you think the truth always subjective or temporarily?

regards,
barbata :

[slick50]

Buy a good book on logic. The truth is out there, it's just hard to find.

[Aaron]

As soon as I decide I know something "for certain" I am suspicious of my estimation.

"The simplest explanation tends to be correct."

Slick50 is a man.
All men are mortal.
Slick50 is mortal.

There are no "facts". There is only information in a slice of time.

There you go... save your logic book money... you may need it.

[frankthetank]

I usually stick to the middle of the road... seems to work most of the time... IMO

[little pig]

I have been interested in the future for the last three decades and have looked for tools to help me separate the junk from reality.

One way people look into the future like Campbell, et. al. is by the sheer force of their technical knowledge in a particular field of knowledge. Obviously Hubbert was one such "expert" who did in fact predict the future accurately as to US oil production, so we know that his technical methods work. Since Campbell, Duncan, Simmons, etc. have used the same methods, we can rely on their estimates, given a certain tolerance for the unknowns which may prevent an exact moment in time for the peak, but which will get us close to the date.

Whenever a second method tells you the same thing then that reinforces thinking. Consider that statistical theory tells us that given a normal distribution, 68% of occurences fall within one standard deviation and that 95% fall within three standard deviations. When applied to a time series that same series tells you that the series cannot exceed three standard deviations from the mean more than 5% of the time. Apply this theory to the long series of human population and it is obvious that we are beyond three standard deviations from the mean. This tells us that the human population at the current level is a statistical anomaly. There is a tendency for any data series to snap back to the mean (and overshoot)
so this is what you should expect just from statistical theory alone.

If you recognize the obvious fact that the use of stored energy (oil, gas, coal) plus the rapid extraction of other resources have been the force behind the exponential increase in human population, then you can easily reach the conclusion that a massive dieoff is in the cards for the future. It seems equally logical that the drop in available energy after peak oil is the real world event that will be the mechanics behind the snap back to the mean of human population (which mean is closer to 1 billion than 6 billion).

It seems to me much more logical to rely on people like Campbell and statistical theory than it is to rely on some unknown white knight to invent us out of this impending disaster. Even more absurd is to think that government can alter the outcome other than to make it worse.

So I agree that logic is a reasonably sound way to help the otherwise often faulty think machine we carry around above our shoulders.

[Such]

I generally stick with the professional trade and industry journals (WOrld Oil, Oil and Gas, Petroleum Review, etc) - they follow the technology, money, and resource base with the most objective scrutiny. Here is the best collections of the facts... as well as can be known. However, generally, interpretation of those facts is often focused only on it's effect to the industry, and tends to not speculate on social and political effects... which of course is not their job. So, you may have to infer what the social effects may be. Also, the industry journals generally do not have a very penetrating "eye" into the companies themselves, who hold secrets in their own interest and also release information in their own interest.

Actually, one of the most interesting thing is to look very carefully at the way the advertising in trade journals is slanted. If, for example, there are many ads for companies making drilling equipment for very deepwater operations, or equipment for processing tar sands and oil shale, or imaging software/techniques with greater resolution to help find very small fields... you might infer that the companies are becoming very interested in these sources of unconventional oil. To me, that is a very striking demonstration of how unhealthy the conventional oil reserve base is becoming... the easy stuff has all been found or is unavailable for political or geographical reasons.

[Kingcoal]

The holy grail is knowing what the truth is at any given moment in time. People who are good at it are very successful (a good example: Warren Buffet.) The more time you have to decide, the easier it is to learn the truth.

Peak Oil is a no brainer however. We are at or post peak or rapidly approaching peak. In my opinion, we are post peak on the conventional oil. That's easy to see. What's harder to figure out is exactly how it will effect our economies.

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elgayna', '
')
So my question to anyone that bothers to read this, how do you decide what the truth is? Do you think the truth always subjective or temporarily?

regards,
barbata :

[Chicagoan]

You listen to what people say, test it against reality, and compare it with what other people say. Eventually, you will find that one explanation makes the most sence. Peak oil explains the irrational behavior of the government better then any other theory. The other explanations deal with ideas which may be true, but have no concrete evidence such as Planet X (Niberu), alien invasion, the Illuminatti, etc. Of course, there are conspiracy theories regarding peak oil which must be evaluated. The truth is that no one knows the "truth" except God. It is important not to put your head in the sand.

[smiley]

That is a common problem. What I always do when I'm presented with a 'fact' is try to find out whether it really is a fact. The internet has made that a lot easier because of the information that is available.

A real fact is something which is traceable to its roots, reproducible and observable.

First you have to find the source of the information on which the 'fact' is presented. If no source is given then I usually discard something as a 'possibility'.

Then you have to look at the methods which are used to derive the 'fact', often you will find that the presenter of the fact has used some dodgy statistics or has cut a few corners here in his reasoning and there to derive his 'fact'.

Finally you have to ask yourself. If this is a fact how would it influence its environment? One cannot see the atom, but one can reason it is there by its interaction with the environment.

It is very hard to tell a lie which passes this test of scrutiny. To tell a convincing lie is like switching two pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. It takes a miracle to make them both fit on all sides.

[chris-h]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elgayna', '
')
So my question to anyone that bothers to read this, how do you decide what the truth is? Do you think the truth always subjective or temporarily?

regards,
barbata :

[elgayna]

'There are no "facts". There is only information in a slice of time.'

My limited brainpower worked that one out as well, but not everyone seems to agree LOL

Bit ironic that my question itself was open to interpretation, I meant to ask how do YOU decide what the truth is. I already decided that there is no such thing as 'the truth' for myself, but wondered how other people felt.

[Pogma]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '[')
This is a question that has vexed philosophers down the centuries. Can we really know anything for certain ? This subject is discussed in the works of David Hume and Kants 'Critique of Pure Reason'.

[Pogma]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicagoan', ' ')The truth is that no one knows the "truth" except God. It is important not to put your head in the sand.

[elgayna]

Thanks Pogma, you've just proven my theory is right once again. People are always convinced that their truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth and spend most of their time slagging others off

Or maybe I misinterpreted your post

May be environmentalists are unemployed because they can't be bothered to work in the same office as the likes of you LOL

[Pogma]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elgayna', 'T')hanks Pogma, you've just proven my theory is right once again. People are always convinced that their truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth and spend most of their time slagging others off

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hanks Pogma, you've just proven my theory is right once again. People are always convinced that their truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth and spend most of their time slagging others off

[Pogma]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '[')He's got a point though. I'm appalled by the way the environmentalists use (or rather misuse) of data. Especially groups like Greenpeace often publish numbers which are erroneous. They are not erroneous because their data are wrong, but because there are errors in their calculations.

.

[schajw]

In Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton, he says something like: Truth changes - yesterday's truth is today's bullshit - yesterday's liberating insight is today's jail of stale explanation. I look at the "truth" as being something fluid, something that could change from one day (or even one moment) to the next. People change their minds, the undiscovered becomes the known, progress is made, etc. Peak Oil worldwide was predicted (conveniently) for 1999 (anybody hear Prince's song going through their head?). This was revised to this year, then to 2010, etc. (or something like that, from what I've read). Truth changes. Conservation happens. Undiscovered or undisclosed reserves are found. Etc. When will Peak Oil happen? For all we know, it has already. Or it could be a decade away.

Otherwise, there is some good stuff written above, so use it to find the "truth" for yourself.

- Jim

[Chicagoan]

I knew someone would get upset with that God comment.