Yes. Truth is manifest, instinctive, and potent. Complex arguments are desperate labyrinth constructed to hide a big lie in the middle of the maze, attempting to ensnare and exhaust the interlocutor.
Maybe, but a well told lie told by The One Authority on Truth has more destructive power than a billion chaos monkeys typing on their typewriters for the next hundred generations.
This little debate is a good example of how difficult it can be to communicate meaningfully about huge topics. Everything said in this topic has a certain amount of ‘truth’ to it.
> Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk.
Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but to take the following a little out of context ...
> I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device.
That can be taken too far and become the words of propaganda (whether or not the commenter intends it). Truth is not simple or always easy, but it's a real thing. The liar (not calling the parent a liar, but for purposes of example) says, 'the truth is complicated; we just have different opinions; look at all sides'; they say 'I lie, you lie, what's the difference?' No, there is truth, it's something to strive for, and it makes all the difference.
> lies, misinformation and misrepresentation have been a part of human communications since the dawn of time
Yeah, but they were never shrugged off. Even the worst charlatans insisted they speak the truth; they didn't just go "meh, maybe it's not true after all, what is truth anyway".
While rhetoric is real, sometimes the threat is real too. Consider the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" - at the end, he really was telling the truth (although we can be forgiven for ignoring him).
Sure. The key is whether a statement is a genuine truth, or a policy based on a genuine truth plus various moral priors. Moral priors aren't genuine truths, they're predilections or rules of thumb.
And even baldly stating a genuine truth enough times will have effects outside of its truthfulness. People respond to truths, they don't just hear them.
reply