"What is Truth"?

We get into a conversation with the taxi driver or the guy behind the counter at the diner or our brother-in-law. They all say they don't vote. Why? "Because politicians are liars." And we remonstrate.

You should see the recriminations in Israel over this last war. And the way journalists question politicians even the Prime Minister.
How did Americans become so deferential when the Brits, our colonial masters, aren't.
I guess the difference is that they have the Queen.
By definition she is beyond questioning while the PM is just a politician.
Maybe we need to make the Bushes or the Clintons our royal family and have a President who is a mere mortal, and is expected to tell the truth.
Actually, I think we can do better than the Bushes or the Clintons.
Maybe, Harry Truman's descendants. Or Eisenhower's (he lied about the U2 but felt bad about it although he had no similar pangs about lying about Guatemala and Iran).

Ahhhhh...reading this gave me another warm fuzzy MSM moment.  If you ask many in the MSM it isn't their job to verify the accuracy of what is said but just to report it.  So for me it begs the question...when did so many reporters start feeling they are no more then glorified stenographers?  

They've always been glorified stenographers. What's changing is our expectation of them. Now that we have readier and better access to information and research, we're wondering why they can't avail themselves of it too...

According to Tarski--which is the widely accepted minimal definition of truth-- the following are the requirements

1) Only statements/propositions/declarative sentences are true or false. So when you say "she is a true friend" it is metaphorical verbiage)

2) A sentence p is true if and only if it corresponds to a FACT.

Note1:: Sentences are not (ordinary) facts they are linguistic items. It is what they say about states of affairs which is true or false.
Note2: Of course a sentence is a fact in this sense "it is a fact that when someone utters a sentence, that that event is a fact" But when we say a sentence is true we mean that it corresponds to a fact. How do sentences correspond to facts? Well the sentence "Water is H2O" is true ( corresponds to a fact) just in case that stuff that comes out of your faucet actually is composed of two atoms of Oxygen and one of Hydrogen, held together by a covalent bond of some sort.
Note3: We use language to talk about the world. The tool we use is the declarative sentence, which is a physical thing of some sort (ether an inscription as in the written word or a sound as in the spoken word)

To summarize: Truth is properly ascribed to declarative sentences (statements/ propositions) which are linguistic items and FACTS are states of affairs of the world. Facts either obtain or they do not, Statements are either true or false depending on whether the fact they purport to describe obtains or does not.

Finally according to Aristotle (I paraphrase here)" "To say of what isn't that it is and to say of what is that it is not, is false. And to say of what is, that it is and to say of what isn't that it is not, is true.
Things have not changed on the subject since then.

I'm not sure you're correct about the moral strictures in daily life, M.J.  A few years back I watched a TV interview with California Highschool kids.  They were asked "Is it OK to lie."  The response was surprising to me.  It's not OK if you get caught lying, otherwise go for it.  About 10 kids were asked the same question, and they answered in the same way.

But I do think a perjury clause in the conduct code of public officials would be a good thing. Something with teeth that would apply to "I didn't shoot that man, he got in the way of my bullet."

Neoboho

Were the teens responses not correct?  Or to ask the question in a different form ---

1.  Why do we teach young children not to lie?

2.  Do the answers to question #1 apply to teenagers? 

mj, I've been advocating something like this for a long time. It really does seem to go against human nature to deal rationally with a chief executive who is also supposed to embody the national image. I guess the cities that have a mayor to cut ribbons and a city manager to run things are trying to fix the problem.

I don't think we'd want another pol as our royal. Maybe Alan Alda or Andy Rooney or somebody. No political power. They dine with heads of state, direct grants for the arts and sciences, make their speeches. No castles, though. They pay their own rent.

mj, Surely you don't really believe that ordinary people are prevented from lying by "moral strictures"? We are surrounded by lies every day, every minute. They're certainly not mostly promulgated by extraordinary people. Essentially all advertising this side of the classifieds is lies. So is nearly all the "news", since its content is simply a rehash of PR press releases. So is most of what we all say every day, from "you look great" to "I certainly did not kick your goddamn dog" to "I didn't vote for Bush".

If you want to make the case for honesty among the elected I think you have to call for exceptional honesty as part of the job description. The whole job of journalists is to keep the pols honest by following up their answers. Too bad we don't have any with access in this country.

OTOH, Britain has its wonderful Question Time and rabid dog journalists and they still end up with Blair, aka Bush With A Brain. So maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

They're allowed to lie because people are afraid of them.

Here's a question I have - reporters allow politicians to lie because they're afraid they'll have their "access" cut off - why aren't politicians afraid that if they lie to reporters, they'll have their access cut off?

Think about it. Cheney said he didn't see the Senate report. That is, of course, a lie.

Actually, no. IIRC, he said he had not read the report. Which is plausible denial. Given that the report was more than likely summarized for him by one of his aides, he can truthful deny having the read the report himself,while being fully cognizant of what the substance of the report says.

Such that a better question by Russert would have been...have you been briefed on this report. Afterall, Cheney by executive order, has authority to declassify documents, so he certainly must be alerted when documents are declassified and briefed on what is in the declassified documents.

What I wanted Russert to ask Cheney,was why he believed that liberating or bringing democracy Iraq and ridding the world of Hussein was sufficient reason for 20K dead Americans, given that he would do the 'eact same thing' knowing what he does not about the false WMD info and us no being greeted as liberators.  Why the hell, does he think that it was America's responsibility to rid the world of Hussein and bring democracy to the ME...and if he felt so strongly about that, why was not that the case made to Congress?

Given Cheney's documented intense interest in Joe Wilson it is hardly credible that he was not familiar with the report, but as you say, Russert asked the wrong question. Clinton was an anomaly in actually reading reports and briefs. These guys just ask for summaries.

As to Santa and the Easter Bunny, which are like all fairy tales and are not harmful unless the parents turn it into such a big deal that the children are manipulated by it. But talk about harmful lies; how about these:

--God never gives you more than you can handle. Right. Tell that to a family whose father or mother just committed suicide.

--You got a good grade on your test? You are soooooo blessed! Yeah, all your hard work was gooooooood, but it was only because you prayed last night that you actually passed. Never mind that little children are starving in Darfur, god heard YOUR prayer for an "A" on this test, because you are a christian, and so he has once again, micromanaged your education!

--If you take Jesus (Mohammad, insert name here ___________) to be your savior you will have eternal life. And Santa will fill your stocking if you are good.

--If you blow yourself up and take out some infidels you will have 70 virgins in heaven.
....Don't actually know where those virgins are coming from, but don't ask religious people for consistency!

--When the Rapture comes, you will go up into heaven and all the others (who are not as good as you because they differ with your thinking) will be LEFT BEHIND IN A LAKE OF FIRE) -- what wonderful news!!!! (Tee Hee! I never did like that 3rd grade teacher, anyway) Oh, the glee, the gleee!

--It is okay to send 20 year-olds with families to die in a war for oil, but anyone who would use a 10-celled organism (less differentiated than the eye of a fly) to cure diseases, is doomed to that lake of fire mentioned above). Or for that matter, even take the morning after pill--show me where the bible even alluded to that! OK, if the bible was really written by god (all-knowing, right?), why didn't it anticipate such things? Why? Because it wasn't written by god. It was made up by men who could never have predicted scientific advances. ....Um, all life is prescious....

I was struck by the video of the American Alqaeda guy who recently said, essentially, "Convert to Islam or go to hell." How is that different than the Christian message? If the reason people "believe" is out of fear, is that a BELIEF?...Not only do you have to believe, but you also must pay us -- sign right here!

It strikes me that someone who behaves morally because they believe it is the right thing to do, is infinitely more moral than someone who does it out of fear, or out of anticipation of a reward. ...Liberal hype! Doing things because you believe in it is moral relativism! We, of the religious right, do it because we get the reward of heaven, and we don't want to go swimmin' in no lake of fire!

Jan Knaus

Yes, we know what a lie is, Jan.  I agree.  It's just that the "value" we place on truth has been sublimated.

Was Adlai Stevenson the last truthful politicial?  I got thinking about this.  He rejected the idea of Madison Avenue managing his campaign against Ike on moral and ethical grounds.  "A candidate should to be able to stand up before the public  honestly and say what he/she believes." Words to that effect - I was pretty young then.  But now we have advertising firms doing the research and telling candidates what to say in order to get votes, and the candidates actual position on an issue is hidden.

Isn't that the great lie - I mean the original lie taking the first footsteps out of the primeval ooze of politics?  How about a law that offers jail time for not fulfilling campaign promises, huh? 

Neoboho

Everyone in the ancient times thought the earth was flat, but it was not so.  It was false then as it is now.  But they did not know it was false. 

What does that have to do with lying?  If I say I am going to be home at 6 PM and then I get stuck behind a tractor on the road and I'm 15 minutes late, it is not a lie.  If someone believes in a particular god and professes that this belief is the pathway to heaven it is not a lie to say so.

None of these scenarios -- the earth believed to be flat, the ETA for home, or the promise of eternal life -- flunk the first-grader test I alluded to.   Now, saying that global warming is bogus is an example of SOME people lying to keep others ignorant.  In that case the first group is lying, and the others are, well....ignorant.

 If you believe you're lying, you're lying.  You can dress it up; you can justify it; you can lablel it as spin; you can even enjoy it, but the fact is that liars know they're lying.

Yes, we all lie.  Sometimes it just feels kinder; sometimes it is harmless; sometimes it hurts no one; sometimes it is even the right thing to do; but sometimes it is selfish; sometimes it hurts people, and sometimes it is despicable and venal and gets people killed. 

But when we do it we know it.  That is my point. 

Jan Knaus

It is NOT tautological. Truth and Falsity are VALUES of Sentences. Facts just are or are not (facts are not true or false. Facts obtain or they don't. To talk about a fact being true, is absurd, but people say absurd things all the time without most people noticing it). There is a difference between FACTS and Truth. It is sad that most people simply cannot make the distinction clear in their minds and thus suffer from confusion.

Facts -- except perhaps in a Platonist's febrile imagination -- are nothing until proferred and thereupon, judged true or false. In the absence of a champion arguing on its behalf a fact is dismissible as unworthy of notice and uninteresting.

I'm rather confused here -- Eisenhower took personal responsibility for the U-2 incident, the upcoming summit cancelled as a result. Before it reached White House levels, there were some fairly pathetic explanations it was an off-course NASA weather aircraft.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Facts -- except perhaps in a Platonist's febrile imagination -- are nothing until proferred and thereupon, judged true or false.

there crops up your confusion again.  Facts are not judged true or false.  Sentences are.  Facts either obtain or do not obtain.  A false fact is a conceptual absurdity.  Please think about these things a little more before you repeat the same old confused thinking.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Mediamatters 09/01/2006
a statement from a WP reporter on lying politicians

_Last week, we noted Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman's suggestion, during an online discussion, that journalists have a choice between "complicity" and "stenography" -- between ignoring false statements by government officials (complicity) and credulously reporting them without challenge (stenography). When readers pointed out to Weisman that he and his colleagues have a third choice -- to "report[] the ... claim accompanied by actual reporting to determine its credibility" -- Weisman explicitly rejected that option. Weisman went on to suggest that such an approach would be inappropriate "analysis."

Jim Lehrer of PBS echoed these views in the same article. Broder of the WP also voiced a similar opinion concerning the veracity of GW's summer reading list. So even if the MSM can define a lie, pointing it out to the audience is not their role.
It's interesting that during the Clinton years the MSM was felt that lying was something really important. Bob Schieffer of CBS called Clinton a liar during an interview with Gore.
Sex trumps war in determining when a lie is important.

So even if the MSM can define a lie, pointing it out to the audience is not their role.

Ha!  Their role is to provided balanced news coverage, not analysis, I agree. However, balanced coverage means presenting ALL sides of an issue, not just the politicians statements. Viewers, should hear all the FACTS that support and refute the politicians position.  We can then do our own analysis and decide what our position is on an issue.

What the press does, is present only one side. Where was the statement from the Congress and or Reid/Pelosi following Bush's 6hr infomercial broadcast by Disney? That is how the press abdicates their role in our democracy, by not INFORMING the public about an issue from more than one perspective.

We have instead Fox and Hardball and Limbaugh engaging in Faux news, with their own skewed analysis.

Sex trumps war in determining when a lie is important.

Amen.

Torture, open-ended global religious war, death on a massive scale are meaningless to the phony moralists in the Republican party. A bj, however, is worthy of all the attention you can give it.

(unless it was either from or recieved by Spokanes Republican mayor Jim West who turned out to be gay)

Come on...Everyone knows what "PW" stands for, and it is not "Prairie Wanderer" ...

Downrated for duplication of unsupported cant.