Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, could they have discovered a method for finding truth in any circumstances? Lets say two or more parties dissagree on a particular thing we can lable C. By using the bodies of truth of each party involved to build off of can one prove C is true because A and B are true? A and B must be known to be true, exsisting in the body of truth of all parties disagreeing on C, and what A and B are, must be structured in such a way that when one puts them together they get the truth or untruth of C. If it is structured correctly then should it be able to prove C true if it is true? then could it be added to the body of proven truth that A and B come from allowing that body of truth to be expanded for both or all parties involved slowly resolving disagreements in that body of truth? the body of truth i speak of is what the partys involved hold to be true. is this a way to resolve complex dissagreements one step at a time?
2006-08-02 08:20:06 · 10 answers · asked by Stan S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
come out of the cave......
now the problems are more effectively solved by daisy cutters,cluster bombs,jdam etc
2006-08-03 16:35:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wishful thinking. You have to bear in mind that in politics and socialogy, things are seldom rational. Moreover, in politics things are always placed in such a way that truths are hardly revealed. For example goverments wont know what the intelligence divisions of their countries are doing. But during the talks there will only be politicians. The funding for one cause maybe justified but the same funding after the first cause is done, could be misused grossly and there is nothing that one can do about it.
Also today's politics many a times wants complex disagreements to continue. Some people just survive on these issues being complex.
2006-08-02 15:28:15 · answer #2 · answered by SamWiseGamgee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One step at a time sounds good to me-- however-- if A B & C were to agree that if you (lie you die),then all three partys would only tell the truth.
2006-08-02 15:38:26 · answer #3 · answered by Poppy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The process you have described is deductive logic, of the sort on which geometry is built. It does not allow for the injection of factual data, especially when that data is colored (as it always is) by the different backgounds, observational techniques, biases, etc. of the observers.
2006-08-02 15:26:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your seem really smart. I think that this way is a very good, scientific way to prove things. It is kind of like geometry. To prove Theoroms, you have to use postulates and definitons that you assume are true.
2006-08-02 15:25:59 · answer #5 · answered by think2day 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
... don't need a way to determine if politicians are telling the truth... just assume they are lying and then if by some miracle something turns out to be right.... Hell, lets have a public holiday!!!!
2006-08-02 15:23:41 · answer #6 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We can't get an agreement that either A or B is true. Ergo, you have a vacuum.
2006-08-02 15:27:43 · answer #7 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Politics and truth.... LOL -- sorry pal the two are mutually exclusive.
Modus ponens (or any other logic) does not apply....
2006-08-02 15:23:38 · answer #8 · answered by jeepfaust 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
k....i think they have been out dated but thanks 4 the 411...by the way did u cut & paste that into your question???
2006-08-02 15:25:01 · answer #9 · answered by Laura B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
factmonster. com
2006-08-02 15:23:21 · answer #10 · answered by cookedermott 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋