If evidence is required for truth, could you prove to a blind man a rainbow is real? Would this mean?

Question

that it doesn't exist to the blind man, other than having faith in people telling him it existed? Why/why not?

Answer 1

You have hit the nail! This question is of great philosophical importance.

For an unfortunate blind person only one sense organ is unfunctional ..eyes.To him explaining something that exists , to our eyes, but not for him is a stupendous task.Your explanation , he has to internalise and visualise in his own way. And , most of all, he has to believe the person he is listening to.He has to have faith.

Similar is the case of understanding the larger issues of life... mind, thoughts, soull, God... you name them.Atleast in the case of the rainbow the "ser' is able to see and convince hi,mself before he describes to the blind.

But what about the other issues that the ordinary person does not see?This is where one has to go to a teacher, well versed in these subjects. If you have faith in the teacher , he will make you "see" the realities of these complex issues.

Answer 2

Well, the truth is that you cannot prove to a blind man that a rainbow is real, if you mean "real" the way you seem to be using it.

The problem is analogous to a scientist trying to prove to a typical citizen that there is convincing evidence the universe came into its present state through an event called the "Big Bang". The average person is not going to know whether they argument is sound or if they are being fooled.

This is why Thomas Dewey included authority as one of the sources of truth. Authority is the least reliable however as it suffers from the same problem of belief. Both do not have a way of separating truth from falsehoods.

From here you get into the ethics of authority, with the explicit requirement that it not be a single authority. That is why the scientific community requires that important experiments be conducted by more than one scientist independent before it is agreed that something has been verified. Often from another country to counter the potential damage from political pressures.

Likewise, the blind man would probably feel confident because no one would tell him that rainbows didn't exit.

Back to beliefs, this would be a good reason to doubt any religion that claims it is the sole source of truth, for it is clearly nothing more than a cultural bias not shared with others.

Answer 3

If evidence is required for truth, could you prove to a blind man a rainbow is real?

I believe the error in this sentence is the "If evidence is required for truth". Evidence is not required. If something was true only if adequate evidence was provided to anyone that questioned it, nothing would be considered true. Evidence is required for scientific method, for proving a shared reality perhaps, but "Truth", depending on what that is, doesn't require evidence.

It doesn't exist in the blind man's reality like it does for the rest of us. But then the Nitrogen / Oxygen mixture of our atmosphere doesn't exist in a childs experience nor does the truth that if it didn't exist the child would die.

Thankfully the "Reality" we share does not depend on our experience of it to exist. If anything it should give us a firmer grasp on our dependance and less on our management of it.

-Rob

Answer 4

One doesn't have to be blind to reject truth, just narrow minded. Anyway evidence is only as good as what is considered valid proof.
Before one engages in proving something to be true, one must establish what is considered good proof. You could prove at least a rainbow exists by several independent confirmations, and also explain the nature of their phenomena. However, blind or not, the proof can still be rejected even if it can't be disputed. That is a matter of the will.

Answer 5

I don't think evidence is required for truth.
If you tell a blind man about the sun, he can't see it, yet he can feel the heat from it. And if you tell him it's night, he doesn't know what that means, or what it looks like, though it does exist.
As a child, I once asked a blind fellow what color he saw...was the blindness all black? But he couldn't answer b/c he didn't know what color black was. And only he can know what color he sees b/c he's the one who sees it (or doesn't see it), yet he doesn't know what color it is b/c he can't compare it to anything else that we've ever experienced ourselves.
Sometimes, belief of something's existence needs to be based on faith...like a blind man walking down stairs. He has faith that there's another step below his falling foot, but he doesn't know, and won't know until either his foot touches it, or he falls. And somebody could tell him that there's a step there, but he has the choice as to whether or not he wants to believe them or not.

Now on this same topic, even if somebody has the truth, and they have the evidence, but choose not to believe either of them, then can it still exist as truth?

Example: in the Holy Bible (1 Corinthians 1:17-25), the Apostle Paul tells about his ministry to the people of Corinth. The Gentiles CHOSE not to listen to the truth...not b/c of lack of evidence, but lack of elequence in the communication of it. the Jews had the scriptures (truth), prophets (evidence), and many of them even lived at the time of Jesus' death & resurrection, or knew somebody who did (more evidence), but yet b/c their pre-understanding of the Messiah didn't match Jesus, they CHOSE not to believe.
So the question comes to, even though they had the evidence, and they had the truth, yet CHOSE not to believe, does that mean it's not the truth afterall? Or just in the eyes of the beholders?
And atheists today have the truth (they're fighting against something that they continue to hear), and they have the evidence (even science continues to prove God's existence), yet they CHOOSE not to believe that God exists. They have all that's needed to believe, yet by CHOICE, they push it away.

So to take it back to the blind man...If he has the evidence of even the POSSIBILITY of the existance of a rainbow, and he has the truth (maybe a trusted friend confirms its existence to him), then wouldn't whether or not he believes it really does exist, depend on his choice to believe it?

Answer 6

Some People don't need evidence to see the truth...I said only *Some*!A blind Person has to put their trust in every one in their life....Like Jesus says when you have a *true*Friend you have it all....Come own I had a Great friend that was blind and She thought me things that you would not believe....Just through smell....Touch....Listening....and many more...Unless you seen it you would not believe....Because some seen and then went blind......Is that why some of them still think Things are so just because you tell them that they are...no because if you had told them something new that they had not seen would they believe...ask a blind person...Do some research...and you will find out that all people that a blind person has delt with has been honest and not done them wrong ever then yes you should put your faith in them .......But anyone that has ever done you wrong and try to hurt you that yours choice to listen to them if that have given you edvice that has hurt you Then co men sense tells you their is no trust move own...That is a choice that that Blind person will have to choose.....Should I or should I.....Blind or not they still have a brain And a heart.....And most Important a Soul.....That's why....God bless the U.S.A. and Israel...And all....

Answer 7

I think the necessity for evidence to be required to be proof, is the latter step in the making something ligament. It seems that before the scientific community can make such a claim, that there needs to be tangible evidence and then something qualifies as being "real." To the individual, I believe that it has to do with what they are willing to believe and for their own personal reasons.
Perhaps the blind man may or may not be able to conceive of the sight of a rainbow, but that may not have anything to do with his belief that they are there.

Answer 8

Truth is based on a 'preponderance' of the evidence, regardless of whether one blind man believes or not. Truth is transitory and is always changing, based on the new evidence presented. In your example, the existence of the rainbow does not rely on the belief of one blind man, whether he believes it or not. From his perspective, he can only believe things that are told to him based on his own rationality. If i were him, i'd want a 'preponderence' of evidence, ie, more than one person telling me what's what.

Answer 9

If he refuses to believe anything other than what he himself can experience, then you couldn't prove it. He would, however be unable to deny the existance of the word rainbow, and the belief of other people in the rainbow, because he would have evidence of that.

If, however, he was willing to accept other evidence as proof, then you could prove it.

It doesn't seem much different than proving that electrons exist. I cannot see them, and I'm still willing to accept the opinions of others on the subject.

Answer 10

the man would have faith in someone, as someone has had to help him to get to the point he is within his life. therefore......would the blind man not trust person actually seeing the rainbow and describing it to him? i know this to be the truth by the way. in my US History I class I have a fellow student that is blind, he wears a halo necklace.....when I asked him why he choose that particular necklace he said when it was "described to him" it sounded beautiful. food for thought.