[Guest]

Don't be sorry smiley, I just set myself high standards which seem to change as soon as I have reached them LOL

Hahahaha Pogma, I like your wind ups.....surely that's what they are? Wind ups?....Pogma? Pogma? Oh, he couldn't hear me...he had his head too far up his own backside....

[elgayna]

I forgot to log in, that last reply was from me.

[bobcousins]

I'm not surprised to see a sensible thread descend into a flame-war, but I am quite disappointed that no-one has mentioned the one method that was specifiically designed to "get at the truth", has a long and successful track record, and unfortunately, is part of the reason we got where we are.

Of course, the hand waving philosophers get their mention, Kant et al, but really philosophy never gets you anywhere, its just a lot of hot air. Logic will have you going in circles ending in a paradox.

The method that works is of course science. Science isn't perfect, it is better suited to some types of problem than others, but it has been spectacularly successful in certain fields.

At the end of the day though, you have to have an understanding of what is being talked about. If certain facts fit into my world theory, I can accept them, if they clearly disagree, I can reject them. There are a lot which I just can't decide about yet. I also recognise that facts may be subjective, relative, provisional or probabilistic.

But there is no quick or easy way to decide what is true. You have to work it case by case. I can see that if someone doesn't have a method to so, it can seem like "drowning in a sea of facts".

Are there any particular things you are having trouble with, or was it a general question?

[holmes]

i think u will find the truth in nature and its cycles. spend enough time studying and observing its patterns and then it seems to come about. Thats why i do beleive that there is a problem going on. In fact i think the truth is that highly industrial dependent countries have +-50 years of life left.
I mean how can exponential growth keep up when there is not a really cheap energy source? How can 400 billion dollar annual deficits be maintained where the true costs arent even figured into the equation. each year 400 billion dollar plus ecological destruction is inflicted on us and future generations. Its all just the laws of nature and common sense really. Its not this big radical doom and gloom that mainstream society labels. Nature is the biggest radical of all especially when we rely on it to survive. even in my short life i have seen a decline in quality of goods, life and services. resources are just not there like they used to be.
so i would say the truth is that there is a problem, what we have now is not sustainable and the truth is economics minus common and ecological sense are making all the decisions. Oh by the way cheap energy is most definately the thing of the past even if they find new fields they will be sucked up by exponential growth fast. So it will change cuz its all about cheap energy. no way around it at this point.
so its not really radical at all just natural laws.

[holmes]

Hey pogma . I have many friends and colleagues that work in the natural resource and other profession. In south america, america, etc.. They are being converted to steril deserts and/or grasslands or being genetically deneuded. I am a hunter/angler as well as being educated in ecology and computer science. spend alot of time out there in the filed. Although we have made great strides in conservation in america it all is just a hollow victory with exponential growth. But mainstream man wouldnt know it. they havent done the water testing with massive levels of mercury or backpacked out into our grasslands that are loaded with grasshoppers(sign of overgrazing and misuse) and the waterways stinking and virile from the cows. The buffalo being shot off which the grassland depends on for its grazing and migrating. cows just fester.
oh yeah my computer science professor living in brazil telling me how the forests are just burning and being hacked down for grazing which only lasts for a year or so due to the ultra thin soils. so you see its only for the educated on this issue. sadly we exterminated the native indigenous tribes who knew these natural syncopations intuitively. alas we are societies of disconected dependent industrialists and most have not a clue on the natural world. why would they they are insulated from it from birth. Personnly i grew up in the fields and forests fishing, hunting and playing finding arrowheads. I always was the indian when i was out there.
I realize now that these areas were denuded then.
Most of these areas are now parking lots and sprawl. so u see ya gotta get educated and get out there man. see it for yourself.

[Matrim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not surprised to see a sensible thread descend into a flame-war, but I am quite disappointed that no-one has mentioned the one method that was specifiically designed to "get at the truth", has a long and successful track record, and unfortunately, is part of the reason we got where we are.

The method that works is of course science. Science isn't perfect, it is better suited to some types of problem than others, but it has been spectacularly successful in certain fields

[airstrip1]

Shame about this thread. It looked as though it might be an interesting discussion about the nature of truth but ended up as a tired series of mud slinging posts about environmentalists. It is sad to see how easily people get diverted by one tedious troll using the most lame ad hominem arguments.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '
')Of course, the hand waving philosophers get their mention, Kant et al, but really philosophy never gets you anywhere, its just a lot of hot air. Logic will have you going in circles ending in a paradox.

The method that works is of course science. Science isn't perfect, it is better suited to some types of problem than others, but it has been spectacularly successful in certain fields.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nce upon a time science was known as Natural Philosophy. Does this mean Newton was full of hot air ? More seriously are you saying that logic has no place in science. I would have thought it was essential to mathematics and underpinned the whole scientific process.

[milesofsmiles]

But by breaking down their 'unreadable' prose using deconstruction it may be possible to reveal greater 'truth'. No text reads the same to any one person and neither does it read the same the next time the person reads it. It exists in time and is continually evolving.

Just reading your post again Smiley you may well be talking about deconstructionists!! (Derrida amongst others?) Deconstructing the deconstructionists... Owch my head hurts.

[bobcousins]

Heh, I thought my dig at philosophy might elicit a response.

I make the distinction that philosophy is about thinking, whereas science is about thinking + doing + thinking again. Or put another way, philosophy is just logic, but science is logic + experimentation. This is more or less true of modern philosophy. The distinction gets more blurred the farther you go back as philosophy, science and theology get intermingled.

I beg to differ with the previous poster : the problem with ancient (and modern) philosophers was that they didn't test their conclusions. For example, the theory of 4 elements may have been quite logical, but is quite wrong. This theory set back progress for several centuries. A competing theory, atoms, the "correct" one, was disregarded.

The problem with pure logic is that it can't add new information, only rearrange what is already there. Experiments test theories, and add new information.

With some exceptions, Galileo was arguably the first "scientist", who actually performed experiments to test theories, e.g. dropping weights off the Tower of Pisa. It seems incredible that no-one else thought to perform this experiment, but simply accepted as "fact" that a heavier object should fall faster.

Logic may be a prerequisite for doing science, but by itself is insufficient.

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elgayna', 'F')acts are being put in front of me which I have to question.

[gg3]

I still have to read through a couple more pages of this topic, but the quick response is:

It depends on which realm of truth.

Religious truth, scientific truth, literary and artistic truth, legal truth, journalistic truth, and "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, God/Nature."

Religious truth is mediated through scripture, prayer, meditation, reflection, and good works. Scientific truth is mediated through hypothesis, experiment, publication, and replication. Etc.

One can't judge a sculpture by the standards of a symphony; and so one can't read a novel with the mindset of reading a scientific paper.

Each in its own realm, and in the implicate order, all/both.

I'll say this, though. One can hardly contemplate such things as Avogadro's number or Planck's constant, and not see God staring back, saying "Hi!"

[mindfarkk]

"facts" in a research sense are qualitative or quantitative:

qualitative: usually some kind of survey where people rate their experiences; it is a "fact" that i checked "always do that it" on a scale of 1-5 "1" means never and "5" means "always". my report of my behavior or feelings may be accurate or not, but it's a fact i checked the box.

quantitative: statistical measures, i.e., number of occurences. in 600 samples of air taken at 100 feet above sea level at random locations throughout X area, (define an area by latitude and longitude), each sample is tested for carbon dioxide content, or whatever. established tests are used to evaluate the numerical results. if a significant difference is found, that can be reported as having been found.

what these "facts" *mean* is conjecture. and the conclusions reached are only as good as 1) the quality, completeness, and accurateness of the "facts" at hand, 2) the integrity and ability of the person making the conjecture.

most good clinical research will be careful not to claim proof of fact, but support of claims (hypotheses).

so you can never eliminate the human element - error, finiteness, bias, and outright dishonesty. so what do you do? well, you look at this particular researcher, and you look at their history, and you look at their claims. how well do their claims fit the observed facts? are there any other theories that would also fit the observed facts? how has this person done making predictions based on research in the past?

the truth is bullshit can and has been passed for "truth" in the highest research circles. in fact, in the 1990's, a highly respected scientist deliberately wrote up and published a completely bogus article in a highly venerated publication specifically to show that because of who he was, noone would challenge his interpretation of fact. he then came out and told the scientific community what he'd done. it created quite a storm of controversy. the point was made that we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and that we have to be able to trust our colleague's work. but of course his point was that yeah, in an ideal world, maybe! so he fooled some of the best minds in the world! i guess i better be careful huh!

so there is this "peer review" process in research where any research that reaches a point of being published in an industry journal has at least been checked and accepted by the group of "peers" in the research community. that has advantages and disadvantages. it means there is some accountability, but it also means there is a lot of political control.

so what do i do about peak oil and politics? well, i take what i already know or think i know about science and history and so forth, and have observed about people and the Way Things Are, and i have hopefully done the work to be thoughtful and critical of my own information and assumptions along the way, and i check this new "fact" against what i already know, and i consider where the fact comes from and how it comes to me, and i ask myself: does this fit? and if it doesn't, i ask myself what else i need to know, or what i need to consider about my own beliefs that needs to change. and i try really, really hard to discipline my emotions, because they color the "facts" more than anything else i can think of.

Now, my emotions (and, i would add, my intuition) are IMPORTANT sources of information themselves, so i don't discount them, but i try not to let the horses drive the cart, and i try not to over-egotistically assume that my intuition is always correct.

so i have this big committee in my head. there is my memory bank. there is my deductive logic. there is my inductive logic. there is my scientific method. and there is my heart. there is my intuition. there are my spiritual beliefs and practicies. there are my values. there are my instinctive drives. and who knows who the hell else is in there! there are ll looking at the "facts" and trying to work out what is the closest reflection of reality. but you know ultimately we all have to take a leap of faith, which is to take our best assessment of the facts and go with it, knowing we may have to change our minds sooner or later, and knowing we will almost certainly adjust our assessment as More Is Revealed.

right now my best assessment of the facts is this:
1) there is an energy crisis coming and it's not going to go away.
2) the economy may or may not ebb and flow, but ultimately i see a long recession and maybe a depression ahead, sooner or later.
3) there is an ecological crisis coming also in the form of global warming which may put PO to shame.
4) i need to prepare for both.
5) i am not ready for either.
6) i tend to go straight to fight or flight, and that's a pattern obvious from my personal history, so it is very important that i have control of this impulse before i make any decisions.
7) take small steps every day to learn and prepare.
don't trust the media, don't watch the news on TV EVER, read read read.
9) question everyone's motives (that's part of critical evaluation of research too, not just paranoia).

now, i have no real clue who any of the experts on this board are. not because i haven't read their bios or seen their credentials, but because i'm not directly involved in what they do. i don't move in their circles and i don't have a common ground for their expertise.

i DO have an acquaintance with noam chomsky, who just joined the expert section. he is a heavyweight in a community i used to belong to, an academic community. i don't know if what he has to say is right, but i do know he is a very, very, very smart man, and i'm pretty sure he moves outside corporate circles - maybe, maybe not. i don't know who pays his rent these days. i do know i respect his work and have some of his books on political and cultural criticism at home. so no, i'm not going to take what anyone says at face value. i'm going to add it to my growing pile of information and see what patterns are shaking out and what i want to do with them.

and i'm going to listen to my gut. when i hear a lot of saber rattling, i know fear is involved. when i hear black-and-white thinking and generalizations, stereotyping, i know more fear is involved than thought. i know i have to avoid extremism in my own life. that doesn't mean i don't react promptly, it means i avoid extreme beliefs and i avoid IMPULSE. so anything that to me has the ring of reactivism, rather than activism, i will listen too pretty critically and handle pretty carefully. i try to look for the place where all the "facts" and claims and my own informatoin come together, my experience is that is as close to "truth" as i will ever get.

[Chuck]

If you want absolute truth, go find yourself a religion.
If you can handle the endless quest, than learn to think.

[Vexed]

"Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first stage it is ridiculed. In the second stage it is opposed. In the thrid stage it is regarded as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"Truth is the daughter of time." - ?

Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else." - Jerry Garcia

"The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority." - Paul Tillich

"What I tell you three times is true." - Lewis Carroll

[mindfarkk]

Lewis Carroll... now there was a thinker!

[PenultimateManStanding]

Betelgeuse, betelgeuse, betelgeuse

[gg3]

Mindfarkk, sounds like we use a similar process of thinking things through. Though, I'm not so easily given to fear; geeks tend to be solution-oriented, as in "something's broken, what can I do to help fix it, and what tools do I need in order to do that?"

[manashebabel]

everything comes down to personal accountability.are your hands bloody,there are those that would dare call themselves leaders.who practice all manner of evil.manipulate,decieve and do murder.are you willing to practice self denial in the face of prosperity?..if you will not,then i assure you that a time of famine will come upon you....every creature needs enough room to feed itself and its offspring.do we turn a blind eye to the oppressors.while we are yet comfortablewill you sacrifice sons and daughters on their altars of war and (prosperity)or do you love truth.truth is self evident.those who make aliving from oil make a living.from death.every drop is baught with an equal amount of blood.those who make the deals make merchandise of the minds bodies and souls of their fellow men and women.this is just the beggining of a long journey to a new awakening.death and rebirth.an epoch and the dawn of a new paradigm and new government.