(6) The Battleground of Truth

Chapter 6: The Battleground of Truth
The battle against truth is like a court case rather than a mathematical derivation. A defendant is rarely convicted on conclusive proof but rather on a variety of inductive evidence that proves the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.Show more

(1) Our minds are capable of fully understanding many finite truths. (2) Our minds are not capable of fully understanding all immeasurable truths and foundational truths. (3) Our minds are capable of partially understanding immeasurable truth through analogies and models. (4) Our minds are capable of partially understanding foundational truth and trusting it by refuting many of the alternatives that conflict with other foundational truth.

(1) All truth is logically consistent with other truth. Two propositions that logically conflict with each other cannot both be truth. (2) Propositions that are true cannot always be conclusively proven to be true. Propositions that are false cannot always be conclusively proven to be false. (3) Propositions that are false can never be conclusively proven to be true. Propositions that are true can never be conclusively proven to be false. (4) Propositions that claim to establish falsehood can always be refuted. Propositions that claim to disprove truth can always be refuted.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/18/the-war-against-truth

Do you think that if you were to examine all the evidence that is available that it would point towards the truth or a falsehood? Do you think that your most important decisions in life are informed by your own investigation of the evidence or by trusting other peoples’ investigation?

Falsehood is like a myriad of different types of vermin that cause disease. Truth is like the predators that subdues all the different types of vermin. Censorship is like a foolish plan to kill only one type of the vermin at the cost of also killing all the predators. When the predator is gone the other types of vermin will multiply.

Truth is not attacked by allowing falsehood to be accessible, but rather by making truth inaccessible. Accessible falsehood can be always be refuted as long as truth is accessible. Accessible falsehood cannot be refuted if truth is inaccessible. Falsehood will always be accessible. Anyone and everyone can find or produce falsehood. If one form of falsehood is quarantined, then another form will be produced to fill the void. Truth is more difficult to find than falsehood is to produce. If truth is quarantined from being shared, then there is no defense against the spawning falsehood.

The opponents of truth spread fear that a falsehood may arise that truth cannot refute. The opponents of truth use this fear to quarantine controversial information and arguments from the public forum of debate and instruction. The quarantine of controversial information makes controversial truth inaccessible. When controversial truth is censured from the public forum of debate, falsehood is able to spawn unchallenged on controversial topics. If debatable topics are not open to uncensored debate, then falsehood fills the void on those topics.

Are you afraid that falsehood will defeat truth in an open honest public debate? Are you afraid that falsehood will defeat truth if you did an open honest investigation of the evidence? How do you know that you have not been deceived by falsehood if information and arguments are allowed to be censured? What prevents truth from refuting falsehood in the public forums of debate and instruction?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/19/the-war-against-truth

Inaccessible truth is like a rigged court case where the defendant is not allowed to provide neither witnesses nor any evidence. Inaccessible truth is like a rigged court case where the defendant not is not allowed to be present and cannot respond to the prosecution’s arguments; a person pretending to be the defendant may be present to make the rigged trial imitate a legitimate trial. The person who trusts only contemporary knowledge and is ignorant of traditional knowledge is like a foolish investor who invests everything in a single risky insecure investment.

Truth remains accessible when all types of information and arguments have the opportunity to be presented, the opportunity to be refuted, and the opportunity to be defended in all public forums of debate and instruction. Truth remains accessible when objective evidence is distinguished from subjective speculation. Truth remains accessible when there is careful examination of the source, background, and context of the evidence. Truth can become inaccessible by being quarantined by censorship. Truth can become inaccessible by being diluted by unrefuted speculation. Truth can become inaccessible by being compromised by misinterpretation.

The opponents of truth seek to legitimize only contemporary knowledge and censure traditional knowledge. Falsehoods that have long been refuted can only become re-established if traditional knowledge is censured. The re-established falsehoods are easily refuted by the truth contained in vast store of traditional knowledge. The only way for the opponents of truth to prevent a re-awakening of truth is by censoring traditional knowledge. The opponents of truth censure traditional knowledge by deterring an impartial investigation of it through speculative slander. The authenticity of historical documents that have long verified by scientific, historical, and archeological evidence is attacked by the fabrication of alternative theories founded on speculation rather than evidence. The validity of traditional knowledge is attacked by criticizing its linguistic style rather evaluating its content. The practicality of traditional knowledge is attacked by misrepresenting traditional scholars as having less human intelligence than contemporary scholars. The censorship of traditional knowledge is rationalized by asserting that its evidence and arguments are too dangerous to be allowed in public forums of debate and instruction.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/20/the-war-against-truth

Do you rely solely on contemporary authors to investigate and interpret traditional knowledge for you? Do you think that traditional knowledge is too dangerous to be freely expressed freely in public forums of debate and instruction?

Speculation is like a voice that whispers in the ear of a mentally ill person. Speculation is like slander from an anonymous source. Speculation is like a diversion that a thief uses to steal your most valuable possessions. Decontextualizing content is like a child who invents a story rather than actually reading what is in the book. Decontextualizing content is like a baker who ignores the recipe and ruins the cake. Decontextualizing content is like imposter that kills patients while pretending to be a doctor.

The opponents of truth subvert traditional knowledge by distracting students with speculation. Students are required to read sources that contain speculation, but are deterred from reading sources that cite scientific and historical evidence; the primary sources of traditional philosophers and novelists are required since they are “classics”, but the primary sources of traditional scientists, theologians, and historic leaders are disparaged as being “antiquated”. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to John Banister:

A great obstacle to good education is the inordinate passion prevalent for novels, and the time lost in that reading which should be instructively employed. When this poison infects the mind, it destroys its tone and revolts it against wholesome reading. Reason and fact, plain and unadorned, are rejected. Nothing can engage attention unless dressed in all the figments of fancy, and nothing so bedecked comes amiss. The result is a bloated imagination, sickly judgment, and disgust towards all the real businesses of life. This mass of trash, however, is not without some distinction; some few modelling their narratives, although fictitious, on the incidents of real life, have been able to make them interesting and useful vehicles of sound morality. Such, I think, are Marmontel's new moral tales, but not his old ones, which are really immoral. Such are the writings of Miss Edgeworth, and some of those of Madame Genlis. For a like reason, too, much poetry should not be indulged. Some is useful for forming style and taste. Pope, Dryden, Thompson, Shakspeare, and of the French, Moliere, Racine, the Corneilles, may be read with pleasure and improvement.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/21/the-war-against-truth

The opponents of truth censure traditional knowledge by decontextualizing its content so that it will be misinterpreted. Traditional knowledge is often purposefully or negligently misinterpreted to justify the readers’ motives rather than as a legitimate quotation that explains and analyzes the intended meaning of the author. Students are encouraged to read only prescreened excerpts from primary sources rather than entire chapters. Students are encouraged to speculate an interpretation for the passages rather than investigating the author’s actual meaning based on the context.

Why is it important to read entire chapters rather than just prescreened excerpts? Why is it important to read primary sources that contain evidence rather than just primary sources that contain speculation? Have you impartially investigated the words of the most influential people in history? What objective evidence is there to support or challenge their claims?

Intelligence is like a motor, but truth is like a compass. Many intelligent people have gone off in the wrong direction by ignoring the compass. Many ordinary people have paddled their way to the correct destination using just the compass.

An intelligent quotient (IQ) measures the ability to solve puzzles that were fabricated by a human authority. In order to solve the puzzles a person needs to understand the information and assumptions accepted by the human authority. In order to solve the puzzles a person needs to use logic to make rational inferences from the given information and implicit assumptions. Intelligence therefore measures the amount of information, accepted assumptions, and logical reasoning skills acquired by a person.

An intelligent person can be indoctrinated with false information and false assumptions by a human authority. An intelligent person can neglect to use reasoning skills when they conflict with his or her desires. An intelligent person can selectively censure rational implications that conflict with his or her desires. A bubble of dishonest intelligent scholars are not going to admit when they are speculating, censuring, or are in denial of the objective evidence.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/22/the-war-against-truth

What does an intelligence quotient (IQ) actually measure? Why are very intelligent people still prone to making huge mistakes? If two different intelligent people have logically conflicting beliefs, do you think the two sets of beliefs can both be true? Do you think that people should make their most important decisions in life based on diligence and evidence or based on complacency and ignorance? Do you think you are the one judging truth or do you think that it is truth that will judge you? Will truth judge you to be a faithful hero, a selfish mercenary, an insecure coward, or a stubborn traitor?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/23/the-war-against-truth