////I think you did not grasp the illustration given earlier.

Suppose a man is thinking of selling his stocks, (call APEX); should he sell or should he not sell? Let’s say he sold is stocks (APEX). Two months later the stocks rose significantly, his decision is not correct. However, one year from the date he sold, the stocks (APEX) fell by more than 80% for which he sold. His decision is correct.////

this is a very different analogy from the one you posted in
post #38 on September 11th, 2009 6.03 pm

its very difficult to grasp what you main point is… -.-”

////Fang Shihan is correct, “…the truth in politics or society at large is always a multiplicity of perspectives.”////

this article is about different media outlets, not the truth in politics or society at large. more accurately, how the facts are chosen or ignored (hence, different perspectives), then presented to its target audience. i think this is what the article is about.

I think you did not grasp the illustration given earlier.

Suppose a man is thinking of selling his stocks, (call APEX); should he sell or should he not sell? Let’s say he sold is stocks (APEX). Two months later the stocks rose significantly, his decision is not correct. However, one year from the date he sold, the stocks (APEX) fell by more than 80% for which he sold. His decision is correct.

So your statement, ““There is only ONE truth on any issue….So, truth is not variable.” is wrong because it depends on the time frame you are looking at the issue.

Fang Shihan is correct, “…the truth in politics or society at large is always a multiplicity of perspectives.”

Your assertion needs tuning.

Especially the way they spin about opposition news and the way those dogs wrote about their master.

First World Media indeed. Perhaps MSM journalists might want to consider ‘exchange programmes’ with North Korea, Cuba, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Rwanda to teach these Third World countries a thing or two about ‘journalistic ethics’.

You said -

“While there may only be one “truth”, the means to figure out or attain that “truth” should not defeat the purpose of gaining the “truth” itself to begin with.”

My answer -

The truth stands by itself. It is not for you to predict the truth or for you to use such predictions to prevent any future disasters. Yet, it is important for you to seek the truth however ugly it may be and to accept it the way it is. Only with such honesty can one live a life of value. Only with such acceptance can one be at peace with the world.

You said –

“Only 19th century positivist dinosaurs will argue that there is only one rightful perspective on every single event/issue/occurance today. Especially with issues that deal with human society. Unlike “the natural world”, human society is based on human perceptions which are relative. there exists no “real” society outside the amalgamations of perceptions we have about it. which is why there are multiple viewpoints.”

My answer -

I did not say that there is only one viewpoint on anything. Obviously, there will be multiple viewpoints in human affairs, but out of all those viewpoints, only one will conform to reality. Conformity to reality is what truth is! Since there is only one reality, there is only one truth.

post #106 on September 13th, 2009 11.59 pm

JW’s analogy in post #38 on September 11th, 2009 6.03 pm
is not a good 1, so why is there a need to further discuss it?

can anyone say with absolute certainty how the future will unfold?

as for
“will a convicted rapist and child abuser after being in prison for sometime is being considered for release. One psychiatrist thinks she has been cured and is safe to be released , whilst another psychiatrist is not convinced and thinks she is still a danger to society if freed.”

factors beyond the control of both psychiatrists does have an influence on a person’s behaviour.

things like:
. social intergration
. support from family & close friends
. availability of profession help at reasonable cost for counselling to further reduce the tendency to re-commit the crime
. personal history of the offender

also, such analogy does not take into account the odd chances of things panning out in ways that defy indicators that point in opposite direction. both psychiatrists will never know the future, they are making accessment/s based on limited, past indicators to draw a conclusion. a conclusion based on probability (of re-offending), not predicting future events.

Correct, that issue, in that instance would only have 1 truth, whether the rapist is fit to return to society, or not. But to let nature take it’s course, and then to use time to see which person was right kind of defeats the purpose you know. I mean, the WHOLE POINT of getting those two psychiatrist in the first place WAS to preempt the rapist’s actions, if any, and to determine if he/she was fit to return to society. In your scenario, that purpose is fully and wholly defeated. What is the point of having your pointless “truth” then? What is the value in knowing the “truth” if it is brought out via a failure to protect more children from being raped?
Is there honestly any point in that? It’s like arguing over whether a person will shoot you if you give him a gun, and you give it to him, only to have him shoot you. What’s the bloody point?
I suppose what I’m trying to say is this. While there may only be one “truth”, the means to figure out or attain that “truth” should not defeat the purpose of gaining the “truth” itself to begin with. As mentioned above where you end up being shot at anyway. It’s totally pointless, in such a scenario, to bother with trying to find out the truth anyway, ‘cus you’re just gonna follow through with it. So why bother?

i was like you in the last 2 elections.
the result proved that there was no change.

i hope its me and not u who is living in false perception or denial.

change can only come when the fat lady sings.

everything else is false impression.

you hear the people’s voices here already or not?
you respond oready not?

why not you say something?

Their new book’s title doesn’t mention PAP.

The wave of change is coming.

It’s not surprising that the Ag Minister of MICA spoke in such a banal and shallow way because he, like many of those younger “ELITES” in the gahmen have been indoctrinated by the same MSM as he is trying to defend……People posting here seem to have forgotten what then Legislative Assemblyman Lee Kuan Yew had talked about the role of the press om 1956….that of singing the gahmen’s praises even if such praises were inconsistent or contrary to the facts. Let’s also remember that there is the NPPA law circumscribing how BALANCED our MSM could be.

As then Minister of State, Education, he had aped the (fundamental) Christian slippery slope argument that decriminalization of S377A would lead to calls to amongst other SINS, for the decriminalization of INCEST. Being a staunch X’tian who claimed never to have watched porn, and would therefore upheld the CREATION view of human origin, he forgot to ask himself how could mankind multiply itself if there were NO INCEST?

Such is the level of CRITICAL THINKING skill or the lack thereof amongst our (fundamental) Christian ELITES like Lui, TLA etc. ……….Sad

But then, what to expect?

On the other extreme, would you belief Dr. M if he said that there is no corruption in Matland?

you are wrong about there only being one “truth” to every issue.
Clearly there is only one truth for simple matter of fact things like “is this chair red?” ( although there might be more complex debates about colour spectrum and the universal perception of red )

for other issues which try and explain the causes and effects of complex situations there exists surely a multiplicity of views. Thats why academic and professional historians are involved in intense debates about historical interpretation ( which keeps changing ). They always finding new sources of evidence and reinterpreting events. They dont just sit down and memorise “facts.”

Only 19th century positivist dinosaurs will argue that there is only one rightful perspective on every single event/issue/occurance today. Especially with issues that deal with human society. Unlike “the natural world”, human society is based on human perceptions which are relative. there exists no “real” society outside the amalgamations of perceptions we have about it. which is why there are multiple viewpoints.

Take the example of global terrorism. Some will argue that religious fanaticism is the root cause, others will argue that its more about the “have-nots” in the world expressing their grievances at structural inequalities put in place by the “haves.” Religion then merely becomes a rallying point for these people, because its a convenient and pre-existing element in society. Where is the truth? surely that depends on the context, the location and the individuals involved. In some cases might it not be grey?

“…..Some people are becoming obsessed with how NS is relating to living and working in the real world. Please remember that NS is to prepare and protect this nation from foreign attacks. Keep your war experiences our of real life and ESPECIALLY out of politics….”

Gosh, the years I did reservist while in the midst of my working career are considered as UNREAL!?! With this flip-flopping between real and unreal worlds, I now understand why there is so much confusion and gripes about NS. Thks pinkskinned for enlightening us!

About 50% of the my time in NS/Reservist were on C-rations. Did I imagine those smelly sardines or what? Maybe ppl that are not forced to survive on sardines gets pink. Another revelation?!?