Is the goal of the search for truth to find a belief that can't be argued against?

Question

Anything that you believe or state can be argued against. Whether or not you accept the argument is up to you.

However, if one is looking for ultimate truth, shouldn't it be something that is so true that one cannot deny that it's true? Or should one deny that there is any truth at all? Or should one take the middle road and say there are "levels" of truth?

Answer 1

No; the goal of the search for truth is not to find a belief that can't be argued against.

But not for the reasons you mention.

People will always argue a point, a fact, a truth.

The point of the search for truth is enlightenment. When one becomes enlightened one no longer needs to prove or disprove. One is simply enlightened.

Not to sound tedious, but the best thing to do is to recognize that there ARE levels of truth.

A child knows that candy tastes good. That is truth.

And an adult knows that candy will rot a child's teeth. That is truth.

A dentist knows that rotted teeth will put money in her pocket. That is truth.

God knows that the truth we understand is the truth that we CAN understand.

Please, do not despair over this business about truth.

You are on the right path.

That is truth.

Answer 2

The main question is a great question. The subquestions involve complex issues about relativism, pragmatism, degrees of truth, and even transcendental truth; these are too much for me to answer briefly here, so I'll just give an answer to the main question and hope that you can find out more about the rest either on your own or from other answerers.

Is the goal of the search for truth to find a belief that can't be argued against? I would say that the goal of the search for truth is to find truth. Not necessarily "The Truth", but truth about this or that, whatever your inquiry is. So now the question is: how are we more likely to find truth: by seeking a belief that can't be argued against, or in some other way? This is a VERY interesting question, with lots of implications.

Among those who still believe in truth, most modern philosophers (especially analytic philosophers) think the best way to find it is to find the strongest argument (i.e. a belief that can't be argued against, or one that can only be very weakly argued against). Their view is that belief should always attach to whatever we have the strongest reasons for. If the reasoning is impeccable, then, no matter WHAT the belief is, we should believe it. Suppose that there were an irrefutable argument for the view that seemed completely counter-intuitive; then (according to these philosophers), we should believe the counter-intuitive view, at least until the argument is refuted. The late Princeton philosopher David Lewis believed this, and he made it his business to describe extremely strong arguments for paradoxical conclusions. That's what he thought philosophy should do.

Other philosophers have a more tempered view. People like Harvard philosopher John Rawls spoke about "reflective equilibrium". That is, one shouldn't just let arguments, no matter how strong, divert us from equally strongly held intuitions. The intuitions are important, too, though we might have to do some work to see whether they are at all rational or not. That work is done by comparing the argument to intuitions, thinking things through, and seeing whether the two can be brought into equilibrium.

Essentially the methods of Lewis and Rawls are modern versions of the methods of Plato and Aristotle, respectively.

I find from my own experience that searching for just the strongest argument often leads away from understanding; it leads towards an interest in having the best argument, rather than an openness to whatever might really be true. But, ironically, it's hard to ARGUE for this position!

Hope this provides some food for thought.

Answer 3

In all correctness of the question it must be stated and understood that Man, unfortunately has not found a flawless way of discerning the truth or anything which is infallible under ALL circumstances. Therefore, our respective truth(s) as individuals can be argued in favor of or in opposition to what has been presented. It becomes obvious that what becomes a priority then is whether that truth(s) can or does work for us as individuals within our environs and personal levels of intellect.

This certainly would make the search for Objective Truth appear to be pointless and at best, disappointing since all things being equal, there will constantly be measures of doubt. Unquestionably, there will always be another source(s) amongst our world someplace that will argue the view no matter how rational or logical the individuals personal 'truthful' belief systems may appear to be. In addition, one individual’s personal truth can and will be altered, conceptualized, and reinterpreted into another’s individual elucidation of that idea or perspective. An overall example of this can be demonstrated in the various religions scattered about. Where in a truth has been presented, yet no one can agree on the truth. Countless bloody wars have transpired out of this simple assertion.

Essentially, we should not ever be under the assumption that all things related to a truth are what they appear to be. Truth does not exist in a void condition. There must be outside influences that will allow it to manifest itself weather in a pure state or a pernicious state. In either case, the form and structure of a truth will be revealed for examination and introspection and a conclusion drawn by the individual. Perseverance in seeking a truth can and will lead to associated truths or arguments being discovered thereby, creating a semblance of order in the investigative processes and also demonstrating that there are indeed levels of truth that permeate the spectrum of truth classifications. Which of these levels one wishes to endeavor in comes back full circle to that individual’s personal choice based upon the knowledge levels sought after to define and refine their personal belief system and the constructs of its truths.

Answer 4

Perhaps the goal is the search for wisdom, rather than "truth"? Wisdom does not depend solely on facts. (Consider Solomon and the baby). We can never have all the information that would be necessary to determine an unarguable "ultimate" truth, but we can have sufficient information, and the wisdom of insight, to make a reasonable judgement. Then we need the courage to act upon it, and the good sense to respond intelligently to the outcome. Often people mistake dogma for "ultimate truths", and persist with acting repeatedly upon them when they bring only anguish - to themselves and others. Or they will cling to fixed beliefs as "truths" without seeing the costs. There's a lot of all that about. I think beliefs, or preconceptions, are the rocks on which wisdom founders. They relieve us from seeing situations clearly, and the need and responsibility to consider what response might be most appropriate in any particular situation ... which is the best we can do.

Answer 5

Argument, questioning and search are different terminology. Argument is always for the sake of argument

Questioning is just a counter opinion

Search is out of inquisitiveness – Truth reveals itself to this kind of person who is continuously in search

The intention of argument and questioning are different from Search. If the intention is right, people can be always in touch with truth.

I asked one day a question to my brother “Do you exist when you sleep?” Here we had to first think about what we call existence? Then the condition of mind in sleep etc. He felt a bit offended in this question and told it is a foolish question. Then I asked him to prove why it is foolish? Or have you ever thought about it? Not to my surprise, we reached arguing upon whether water exists or we just feel so and both of us got into proving our intellectual capability by talking about Oxygen, philosophy requirement etc etc….what was my first question and where did we reach? This is the problem with argument. Search will keep you focused there is no acceptance required in argument, it is always for argument sake

Secondly there is no ultimate truth. It is relative. It is relative since everything in this world is in a flex. There is no levels of truth. It is all about understanding of it.

Answer 6

Ahh the search for truth.Humans have searched for the ultimate truth since they crawled out of the cave.
As human dictates I do not believe that we would all agree on the truth. It would always be argued for and against.There are philosophers today that argue their own existence.
I would take the middle road.

Answer 7

Even if one were to find "ultimate truth" there are so many stupid people that someone would deny that it's truth. No matter what someone believes, there will always be someone who disagrees. So maybe there are different levels of truth, or just different interpretations of truth.

Answer 8

Well, mathematics operates under principal of axioms. That is, there are certain things that we just "take" to be true, and everything else can be logically deduced from those few, basic premises. For example, in Euclician geometry, an axiom is that parallel lines never intersect. That can't be proved logically, it's just taken as a definition of what occurs in a Euclidian universe. In that sense, it can't be argued against. Different mathematical "worlds" are defined by their axioms.

Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, argued something similar for reality. Namely, there are a few things that we just have to accept axiomatically. Logic can and argument can only get us so far. From those few basic truths, everything else can be logically deduced. I guess reality is just defined by what our axioms are, then.

Answer 9

The goal of the search for truth is to find a belief.

Any argument (or denial) is part of the action drama called "communication", therefore not true.

Answer 10

Truth is different for different people, so finding your truth is different than my truth. Therefore, our respective truths can be argued for and against, but what matters is whether the truths work for us as individuals.