Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I think your distinction between factual evidence and truth is an interesting concept.

But there IS another category of factual evidence that is VERY unlikely to change.  For example, I seriously doubt if the acceleration due to gravity will change much no matter how refined the instrumentation gets.  There are literally millions of such examples.

And then there are practical considerations.  We can know the distance between the 86th floor of the Empire State Building in New York and the clockworks in Big Ben in London to within a few centimeters.  Of course we should want to be willing to update our information but in such a case, whatever would be the point?

When facts get so solid, mature, and unlikely to change, they in fact become secular truths.  My father was a Lutheran clergyman.  We argued about the nature of truth--a LOT!!  I have been arguing that scientific investigation could produce better truths than any ever found in religious books (including self-help and philosophies) since I was quite young and have spent my life collecting good examples.  I am regularly astonished at the complex insights that come directly from my simple hobby.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Tue Sep 11th, 2007 at 02:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series