Discerning what we believe to be Truth when we have no direct physical evidence is a difficult task, but possible based on the logical consistency of other witnesses and whatever incentives they have to lie or tell the truth. The inability to actually see Truth is not evidence it does not exist, and the fact that something may be difficu…
Discerning what we believe to be Truth when we have no direct physical evidence is a difficult task, but possible based on the logical consistency of other witnesses and whatever incentives they have to lie or tell the truth. The inability to actually see Truth is not evidence it does not exist, and the fact that something may be difficult does not relieve us of the responsibility to make the effort and even acknowledge error when presented with additional evidence.
I wasn’t referring to not having any object or direct physical evidence. In those situations we can say, 'I believe (or think) this is what may be going on.’ It has more to do with those trying to force you to believe or speak lies. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
There can be more than one truth. Toxic DDT is a good example. DDT was banned in the US before Africa had a chance to use it on scale. As a result Famine and insect borne disease in Africa continued to be rampant and many deaths were attributed to famine and disease that DDT would have alleviated. Which was the right course, death by starvation/disease or death by chemical poisoning? I am not pro DDT,
I am using this is an example of a conundrum of what is the truth.
My understanding is that the "dangers" of ddt were greatly exaggerated fed by outright lies. And yes those lies are responsible. for deaths numbering in the millions
There is only one absolute truth: DDT kills insects and is more or less (according to Dr Nash) toxic to other animals such as humans. The level of toxicity is in dispute, but reality is that it is either more or less toxic, not both.
Discerning what we believe to be Truth when we have no direct physical evidence is a difficult task, but possible based on the logical consistency of other witnesses and whatever incentives they have to lie or tell the truth. The inability to actually see Truth is not evidence it does not exist, and the fact that something may be difficult does not relieve us of the responsibility to make the effort and even acknowledge error when presented with additional evidence.
I wasn’t referring to not having any object or direct physical evidence. In those situations we can say, 'I believe (or think) this is what may be going on.’ It has more to do with those trying to force you to believe or speak lies. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
There can be more than one truth. Toxic DDT is a good example. DDT was banned in the US before Africa had a chance to use it on scale. As a result Famine and insect borne disease in Africa continued to be rampant and many deaths were attributed to famine and disease that DDT would have alleviated. Which was the right course, death by starvation/disease or death by chemical poisoning? I am not pro DDT,
I am using this is an example of a conundrum of what is the truth.
My understanding is that the "dangers" of ddt were greatly exaggerated fed by outright lies. And yes those lies are responsible. for deaths numbering in the millions
There is only one absolute truth: DDT kills insects and is more or less (according to Dr Nash) toxic to other animals such as humans. The level of toxicity is in dispute, but reality is that it is either more or less toxic, not both.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was expanding on what you wrote.