2007-01-02 03:31:03 · 13 answers · asked by ? 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If you look at a can of Pepsi from the bottom you may say it is a circle. The person looking from the side will say it is a rectangle. Both facts are relatively true from their perspectives. Both parties will offer proof of their view which will be compelling. The absolute truth however is that the can is a cylinder and only a person from the appropriate vantage point can see that. If this truth is conveyed to the other two observers they will not be able to confirm it from their positions and will decide to accept it on faith by knowing the character of the person conveying it or reject it by not trusting the person. Your question is deeper than that because it questions absolute truth but that philosophical debate won't fit here...hope my rambling helped.
2007-01-02 03:47:27 · answer #1 · answered by Pilgrim 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Like what was said earlier, the fact is the truth. We cannot really know anything. The way we "know" is, we take things about the fact and create an idea of it. The more things we take, the better the idea, thus we "know" it better. We don't really know, we just have ideas. Thus every interpretation will be different, because everyone will take different ideas from the fact.
2007-01-02 11:42:41 · answer #2 · answered by ptbc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truth is defined by the preponderance of evidence. For example some people look at the world and say it was made by a creator, while others look at the world and say it is the result of natural processes over billions of years. For the creationists there is no evidence, zip, nada, zero, none. Just a few sentences in an old book of religion. On the other side there is so much evidence that the study of it has had to be split into several dozen disciplines and sub disciplines, geology, astronomy, anthropology, paleontology, archeology and all their sub categories. Is it that hard to figure out which one is true.
2007-01-02 11:39:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Via experiment. If it is impossible, even in principle, to devise an experiment to distinguish between two purported "facts", then both may be considered hypothetical and are thus excluded from being used as a basis for subsequent conclusions.
2007-01-02 11:51:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If 4 people see an accident from 4 different street corners then I'm sure each saw it differently but each would give the truth to how they saw it /
2007-01-02 11:35:51 · answer #5 · answered by Terry S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact is truth. Any interpretation you have which is based on more than just the fact itself is only a theory, not truth.
2007-01-02 11:36:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By how we see it
2007-01-02 11:50:27 · answer #7 · answered by Lorne's Tribe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the fact stays in limbo until the correct definition of it is agreed on. Once that happens, then "the truth of the matter" can be acted upon.
2007-01-02 11:40:05 · answer #8 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do experiments and perform careful observations. Repeat the experiments and see if you can make any predictions. Have your peers repeat your experiments and see if they come up with the same conclusions. See if these new conclusions fit with previous shared ideas of reality.
2007-01-02 11:48:22 · answer #9 · answered by PØstapØc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is too general. Are you talking about situational truth, or Biblical truth?
2007-01-02 11:34:10 · answer #10 · answered by firebyknight 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋