Establishing practical standards of truth for the application of philosophical and religious doctrines in public life.

[Bovril]

As the twentieth century progressed in the west, there was a shift in thinking amongst intellectuals towards a pragmatic/concensus theory of truth, i.e. redefining truth as as a proposition or set of propositions that individuals or groups should or can agree to act upon.

In a democracy the citizens ideally (though perhaps not in actual fact) have a defining influence on not only the policies that governments enact, but also the ideological underpinings of policy formation. This being so, it is vital to reach an answer to the question 'which philosophical/religious doctrines are only applicable to the life of an individual, and which have legitimate broader applications?', for if we cannot answer this question, then society as a whole becomes rudderless.

And thus we return to concensus theories of truth. We will progress very little, if at all, by rehearsing ad nauseum old controversies, but by searching for common ground we can define a realistic program for advancement for a given society.

The questions for this thread are, how should we go about finding such a common ground, and what do you propose this common ground might look like?


N.B. If you wish to argue for the viability of the corespondance theory of truth to the public sphere of modern democracies, you may do better to start a new thread.

[Ummon]

That leads unavoidably to totalitarianism and a society based on control of information. Most of our reality cannot be subject to science, and science is a tool, not a master.

[finsternis]

This is a difficult question since people with opposite views will have very little ground (example racist and immigrants). I do not think that we can find a common ground in which we can all agree because of cultures and religious differences. The only ground we can agree is on the fundamental morals, but people mess them up and thus we don't agree on them either.

So I have to go with Oswald von Wolkenstein, even though saying that it should be based on freedom is not something everyone agrees on (some people want to "infringe on others" like homophobics, racist and fundies).

[eventhorizen]

The questions for this thread are, how should we go about finding such a common ground, and what do you propose this common ground might look like?

It is called the rule of Law. It already exists in every society. Concensus has already ingrained practical applications of commonly held views deep within every culture, and it is common concensus that will determine what continues to survive.

To ask for its creation seems to me to be a case of understanding the principle but missing the fact. If anything needs to be done with regards to this question it is to uncover the basis of what already exists, and to understand the rules that govern its continued existence and further evolution.

[Broken Pope]

Scientific empiricism. No other approach should be tolerated.

[Bovril]

Scientific empiricism. No other approach should be tolerated.

Two things: its neither a question of tolerating or not tollerating, its a question of not using ideological premisses that cannot acheive a high degree of concensus in the given society. Second, scientific empiricism really has very little to do with the ideological underpinnings of public policy and public life in general, since it cannot make any value judgements, or establish any goals for human action.