Interbane wrote:Actually, impact is a dimension of truthfulness. We have to sort through all of the random noise in our environment to find that which is significant.
Impact is not a dimension of truthfulness(it is possible for a belief to be entirely false, yet have massive impact). They are distinctly separate conceptual attributes. The interplay you're referring to is that we have a much greater obligation to determine the truthfulness of beliefs which have impact. We devote our mental energy to the beliefs that matter, the beliefs that impact us.
No, I am actually saying that one cannot separate the factuality dimension from the value dimension. I am in the process of working out what is meant by "mythos" and the whole concept of truth which tells you that Shakespeare is true while Ayn Rand is false. One is about real people, even though it is entirely fictional. The other is not honest - it leaves out critical aspects of life, critical to the values it examines, in order to pretend to make a point about values. It is rhetoric, not mythos.
Perhaps I was misleading in skipping straight to the importance aspect of values. I was attempting to make the point hastily, that concern for factuality is not the only aspect of concern that deserves the name "truth". But I see now that more full-bodied examples are more likely to convey the point.
One level of complexity above significance is honesty. If I chose a series of facts deliberately with the intent to deceive you, you might hold that it is your fault if you draw the intended misleading conclusion. But of course this is too facile. We exercise a certain amount of trust about communication, and a person who takes advantage of that lacks truthfulness in an important way despite "sticking to the facts". "Intent to deceive" is not identical with "getting factuality wrong". Note that the way facts are used has something to do with their truthfulness. The value dimension of truth is beginning to interact in a more meaningful way, making it more difficult to argue that factuality is a "separate issue" from the values we attach to the "facts".
Mythos is yet more complex. It makes an effort not only to remain true to the deeper truths in evaluation, but to actually reveal such truths. Among other things, truthful myths direct our attention to the emotional aspects that will mean the most to us. Factuality is of very limited use when that issue is at stake. Like you on the spaceship, you would prefer writing which gets emphasis and value right, and is true to life, over writing that gets facts right but emphasizes less than the truly important.
If you ask me how tall my brother is, I'd tell you 6'4". If you then tell me that my life depends on the answer, I wouldn't be so quick to answer. That doesn't mean the truth has changed. Perhaps I wasn't correct with my first guess, but the fact that I might change my answer doesn't mean my brother grew or shrunk. Impact has an effect on our beliefs, and our lives, but not on whether or not something is true. Impact is a secondary characteristic of a concept, not a primary one.
People who have learned and lived with a lot of science tend to see "importance" as a side issue to truth. But as your example with your brother illustrates, literal accuracy is not as important as use value. We can state something that is inaccurate, but because it is close enough for the use we have in mind, it is true. You refer to importance as a secondary characteristic of a concept. But expand from "importance" to "being correctly valuable" and with some concepts, that taxonomy just doesn't work. If I ask you whether a society is truly free, or whether a court handed down a truly just decision, the concepts involved will not admit of treating values as secondary.
Start with the slightly complex version: the honesty with which a judge makes a decision is as important as whether she follows any other particular criterion. All the apparent justice she can muster is set to one side if it is clear that her decision is made to get a bribe - we would never accept calling it just. Then step one more level of complexity up to ask whether the structures erected to serve justice in a society are really aimed at serving justice or whether they are really about something else, such as guaranteeing the privileges of an aristocracy. Now take it one step further yet and ask if a proposition about justice is one that is faithful to the values we "really" mean when we refer to justice. (Example: is "might makes right" a truly just proposition?). Now you are ready for mythos. Ask whether a story (let us say, "the Merchant of Venice") truly conveys the issues that are faced by someone who is pursuing justice, or whether it draws our attention to the matters that must most carefully be considered when evaluating justice. The factuality of the story is so secondary, when you get to that point, that you need to begin asking yourself where that happened. At what level did factuality fade into the background and values issues move to the foreground?
If you recognize that "impact" was an example of the importance of values, rather than the central issue, I think you can begin to see my point - for some purposes, the aspect of truth that matters most is the faithfulness to certain values. Mythos always functions like that. A factual myth is better than a fictional one, but a "mythically true" fictional myth is better than a "mythically false" factual story. I am sorry for my bad beginning. Now that you know what use value I had in mind, you can better judge how true my conceptual apparatus is.
Ecstatic delusion is a great thing. Whatever beliefs instill happiness can be considered the opiate of the masses, and it may be vital to withhold the truth so the populace continues to believe. What you are saying is that impact is important. I agree, but it's not a dimension of truthfulness. For Stahrwe to mention items of impact as if they affect the truthfulness of the bible is simply false.
Think a little more carefully. The body produces opioids, not only to keep down suffering, but also to allow attention to be directed at the truly important issues. Once it is apparent my leg is broken, I don't really need the pain to keep giving me an "honest" view of the seriousness of the break. Toning it down some lets me get on with thinking about the complexity of dealing with a broken leg. I'm not saying the dulled pain is "more truthful" but that evaluating truthfulness should not be done as if the purpose of the information was irrelevant. I don't want to be tied up semantically in working out whether the two dimensions make up truthfulness, and factuality is a better term for the "accuracy alone" dimension, as I have been saying, or whether "accuracy" is the only meaning of "truthful" but values also matter. I do want to argue that many of the same processes and issues come up in evaluating truth in values as arise in evaluation of accuracy of information. The main differences are in epistemology - the accuracy dimension can be settled using "evidence" while the values dimension remains ultimately subjective and must be discussed in dialog.
