The philosophy of truth and deceit; part III – Thin difference between truth and deceit
The philosophy of truth and deceit – part III – “Thin difference between truth and deceit”
Lies may look like truth not only because we are liars, but because a lie can be consistent with our views, with our beliefs in certain ideologies, arguments and historical facts – which are in fact pure fiction! How do we know that certain theories are not only products of someone’s manipulation, which are aimed to enslave people by blurring the differences between truth, lies, believes, assumptions and emotions? ‘Truth’ can be tried on just like a suit in a shop, and then it can be fit to one’s size and taste, according to one’s expectations. That kind of ‘truth’ usually fits people perfectly. That kind of ‘truth’ is in their nature, but especially when lies pay off.
We already know that truth is a presentation of certain events in accordance with actual facts. However in my point of view, in certain circumstances lies can also look like a version of events, which are consistent with the facts, which we honestly recognize as real. Why does it happen? Because lies may look like truth not only because we are liars, but because a lie can be consistent with our views, with our beliefs in certain ideologies, arguments and historical facts – which are in fact pure fiction. Reflecting on the word ‘hypothesis’ I realize that this word could hide both truth and lies. How do we know that certain hypothesis with regards to certain events from the past is true…..or not?
When you finally find someone who you can trust, in the end you get one of two results: a friend for life or a lesson for life.
Perhaps hypothesis which we see as truth is only one of many aspects of the alleged truth, that makes up the ultimate truth? This means that the hypothesis that we believe in does not necessarily exclude all the others, and it does not completely oppose them neither. This is because people create ‘their own truths’ by themselves, first through honest faith in falsehood and then by presenting commercially available falsehood as ‘truth’. Regardless of people’s background or education different people have different opinions, and everyone defends their own ‘truths’ as real. On the other hand if everyone has their own opinion and each one is different, it means that only one of them could be true? Still however, in certain cases accumulation of all different opinions can create one ultimate truth ….. or one ultimate falsehood. This reflection prompts me to examine the word ‘hypothesis’.
Hypothesis = truth + falsehood
As an example I’m going to introduce the dinosaur extinction theory, which in my opinion is an accumulation of hypotheses based on certain evidence. The dinosaur extinction theory is a great example which shows that people are able to create their own truths on foundations of hypotheses, at the same time completely ignoring the meaning of ‘hypothesis’. Hypothesis is a presumed theory created on the base of conjectures and incomplete evidence, which needs further investigation. Despite that we are so desperate to believe in something, that to millions of people word ‘hypothesis’ means ‘truth’, which they don’t want to undermine.
People desperately want to believe in any of the theories or certain parts of them, and they do want to identify themselves with one way of thinking. On that basis, through their faith in certain events people form their opinions which become their own ‘truths’. Very rarely people want to remain indifferent, because such behaviour could be taken as lack of thinking and ignorance; and people don’t like that.
Let’s talk about extinction of dinosaurs, to prove that truth built on honest belief in certain theories can be both true or false, or accumulation of both. Modern technology brings us closer to replacing hypotheses with thesis, which apparently are opinions built on iron evidence. However in my opinion only time travel will be able to give us all the answers and the ultimate truth, as it is for example with pre-history, so the times before the written sources. We already know that t-rexes kept their tails in the air, and not on the ground as it was still believed in the 1920s. of the XX century.
We also know that small predatory dinosaurs hunted in packs, because we can deduce that strategy after observing wolves. We know that herbivorous dinosaurs lived in groups, the same as antelopes. We know that skeletons of plant eating dinosaurs were found next to each other, what once again shows clearly that herbivores lived in herds and died in herds, for example by drowning while swimming to the other side of the river. We also know the relationship between predators and prey, because of bones of plant eating dinosaurs discovered between teeth and in stomachs of predators. We already know a lot, but unfortunately it is not a lecture of palaeontology, but a constantly returning question about the perception of truth based on opinions, both true and false.
The generally accessible hypotheses accepted as the indisputable oracle of truth regarding the extinction of dinosaurs, I’m going to present from the best known, or rather those deemed to be true by the majority of the population. Then I will present the least known, so those which people do not believe to be true, or have not even heard of. As the author of this article I’m also going to give my own hypotheses of dinosaur extinction, in order to expand ‘the scale of truth’. This doesn’t mean that the least-known theories are false or true, but only that ‘truth’ built on other people’s opinions on this topic can be only a scientific error; and in other topics, such as for example in political matters, it could be a deliberate manipulation. Most importantly however, the diagram of building opinions, and no matter what kind of opinions, is always the same.
Each of these points represents not only theories, but also millions of people who believe that their version is the real one. The topic on dinosaurs is quite a delicate example, which we can always change into a more controversial one. What if we replaced ‘the extinction of dinosaurs’ with topics such as:
– Who killed President Kennedy and why?
– Who is really responsible for the two World Wars of the twentieth century?
– Which nation had the greatest interest in those wars, and was therefore responsible for destruction of the European civilization?
– Who is behind the Great Ethnic Replacement project of NWO?
What would happen if the media publicized those cases and decided to look for the honest answers? Could divided groups searching for different truths cause wars? Can a quest for truth become a tool in the hands of the enemies of humanity? In my opinion the answer is ‘yes’, because search for the truth in historical, religious and political matters between hostile to each other militant groups would prove a far more dangerous challenge than the neutral matter of the extinction of dinosaurs.
Humanity has come to terms with the opinion that after 160m years of domination over the Earth dinosaurs went extinct because:
1. A meteorite hit the earth and in a spectacular way crashed all dinosaurs into pieces.
This version is considered not only to be true but even so incontestable than an open denial of this real theory of dinosaur extinction can make us look ridiculous. It seems that at the beginning of the twenty-first century the world is populated with eyewitnesses of that event, and that’s why so many are ready to defend that ‘truth’. This spectacular and highly suitable for film industry theory, which edges over invasion from the space is easy to accept, it boils blood in people’s veins and it helps to get away from a boring life.
This kind of ‘truth’ is exciting and nice to talk about. Perhaps impact of a huge meteorites or an asteroid was the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs, perhaps it wasn’t’, or perhaps it was only one of many major reasons. My point is that no matter how it came to the end of dinosaurs, most people have not only accepted this hypothesis as ‘truth’, but they have accepted it as “the only truth”. Most people don’t bother to take into account any other reasons, what in my point of view is a breeding farm of potential lies based on laziness and ignorance. This version is also extremely advantageous economically, what means that promotion of this version in the media (partially truth or false) simply pays off.
I believe that this theory is true, but it is not the only reason why dinosaurs became extinct. In my opinion, this theory, among others, is confirmed by numerous craters around the world. However, I very much doubt that this was the only reason why dinosaurs became extinct.
2. Tectonic movements caused global earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, floods, they poisoned water, and they caused volcanic eruptions. Air pollution was so overwhelming that a lot of animals died instantly, and other ones died from poisoned water. Those reptiles that survived by eating carrion also died, because the meat of their victims was poisoned by bacteria which carnivores were not immune to.
This version is still quite exciting, even though it doesn’t beat the invasion from the outer space. Volcanic eruptions are really impressive, although mass death due to bacteria is simply boring. Despite that I still think that many people would be willing to accept this version as the real one, and that’s why they would be ready to defend this ‘truth’, whilst recognizing the impact of meteorites to be false. At this point a conflict is being already created between the believers of option no. 1, and the believers of the option no. 2. Each of those groups wants to be right, what means that one of those groups is wrong, but is that really certain? Perhaps both groups are wrong? Perhaps both groups are right, or perhaps their arguments are only incomplete truths, what means that both groups are partly wrong, and thus they believe in a false theories?
I believe that this theory of the extinction of dinosaurs is true, and that it does not exclude the impact of meteorites.
3. Let’s forget for a moment about spectacular disasters and let’s move to requiring thinking but for most people causing a headache biology. I think we are on the right track but on the other hand I warn my readers to not believe me in anything, and decide about the ‘truth’ alone, in order to defend it as fiercely as it is only possible.
Dinosaurs were reptiles just like today’s crocodiles. The point is that crocodiles’ embryos do not have sex chromosomes, what means that sex of little crocodiles is not genetically determined and depends purely on temperature. According to research we know that during incubation of up to 30°C or less the absolute majority of hatchlings are females, and during incubation of 31°C hatched crocodiles are of both sexes. This means that we could take temperature as another reason for the extinction of dinosaurs. Let’s imagine that in one of the last seasons of dinosaurs there were more floods than usually, there was a lot of rain and it was very cloudy too, what naturally lowered temperature on one of the hemispheres.
As a result of less favourable weather conditions during the mating season and just after (not to be confused with climate change), in most species 99% of reptiles that hatched during that time were females. That small climatic imbalance caused that dinosaurs couldn’t procreate, even though certain specimens could have eventually evolved over time into males because of their dominance in the group. This one fact involving gender imbalance could determine the tragic fate of dinosaurs. Another result of bad weather was insufficient number of plants which needed a lot of sun to grow to feed herbivores, which then fed carnivores.
I realize that this theory is boring and completely disappoints especially that group, which believes in option no.1 and which as I presume is still in the majority. The group which believes in option number 2 is also not happy. Apart from that people change their minds by switching from one group to another, what raises even more conflicts. It creates uncertainty and the final question, which of those hypotheses is true. Maybe all of them to a certain degree, maybe none of them, maybe only one; and in the worst case scenario maybe two of them, what arouses huge disappointment in one of the groups holding tightly to their version. ‘Truth’ is a tough nut to crack.
At this point, let’s assume that the Earth was actually hit by only a few meteorites and asteroids (option 1), but they were not that devastating. Suppose this event caused several earthquakes, typhoons, floods and water poisoning, which caused many dinosaurs to die (option 2). As a result there was hunger, followed by warming in some parts of the Earth and cooling in others (option 3). At this point, do the adherents of only one of the theories still think that they know the whole truth, or that they partially base their beliefs on falsehood – what means that their ‘truth’ is the truth of a very poor quality?
4. Dinosaurs didn’t go extinct. They only transformed and live among us in another form.
Let’s complicate the whole case even more, and let’s assume that all of these theories are partly true but incomplete. As a result none of them can mean the ultimate truth, which we desire to know so badly. Therefore this time it was a meteorite that hit the earth after all. The impact caused tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, which further spread noxious gases poisoning a lot of dinosaurs. The few surviving reptiles couldn’t reproduce because of the sudden climatic imbalance, which cased incubation temperatures of their eggs to fall below 30°C, and as a result all hatchlings were females.
Then, most of young dinosaurs without the protection of their parents became prey to predators. As if that wasn’t enough, I should also mention that enormous size of dinosaurs was their advantage in the times of prosperity but after the cataclysm it became their disadvantage. Because of hunger there were simply no conditions anymore to sustain large animals, and that’s why the only ones which survived where only the smallest ones weighing no more than 25kg. Then, there was another selection involving adaptation of animals to new living conditions.
Because of the new conditions some animals remained reptiles (crocodiles, tuataras, the ancestors of today’s lizards), what means that in that respect dinosaurs didn’t died out completely. Other ones transformed into mammals and birds, which adapted to the new environment in a much better way, and were not as demanding as monstrous animals. Let’s also compare legs, claws and beaks of Tyrannosaurus Rex with the same body parts of today’s chickens. Apart from the size it is easy to notice that they are build in a very similar way, what means that dinosaurs are among us, but in a modified form.
For me, this hypothesis is just another stage of the truth. Dinosaur lovers can be happy that they are still with us today.
5. The Earth was invaded by aliens. They immediately caused huge explosions which resulted in extinction of all dinosaurs.
My last hypothesis may seem ridiculous but on the other hand in order to prove to me that it’s a lie first someone would have to find believable evidence that my theory is false. Until no-one is able to break my last theory by presenting his own believable evidence we should consider hypothesis no. 5 as a probable one, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. This means that the hypothesis no. 5 deserves the same status of potentially the same reason of the extinction of dinosaurs as the above 4.
I could give more examples, but I think it is enough to show how different can be theories concerning the same subject, and moreover none of them excludes any other, or all of them together. It is therefore a list of generally accepted truths believed to be true by separate groups of millions of people. From the above examples it also becomes certain, that people prefer the ‘truth’, which is more beneficial to them or the one which is more spectacular, and it adds certain meaning to their boring lives. Of course such approach has nothing to do with searching for truth, but people simply do not always care about the truth. ‘Truth’ can be tried on just like a suit in a shop, and then it can be fit to one’s size and taste, according to one’s expectations. That kind of ‘truth’ usually fits people perfectly. That kind of ‘truth’ is in their nature, but especially when lies pay off.
The final conclusion about truth and lies
At the end of this elaboration I shall once again raise questions: what is true and what is false? I think that it would be better to ask: what makes certain opinion to be classified as truth? How do we know that one or two, or even all of the above points are true, especially that none of them excludes the other? How do we know that certain theories are not only products of someone’s manipulation, which are aimed to enslave people by blurring the differences between truth, lies, believes, assumptions and emotions? If we reject any of the above theories because in our opinion it is false, are we able to prove that it is false? Unfortunately these questions remain unresolved; sometimes because of fear, sometimes because of laziness, and sometimes because it is more convenient that way.
You can close your eyes but when you open them the truth will be still waiting for you.
I suggest more ambitious readers, preferably from different cultures to divide into groups, and try to find a truthful answer to the question: ‘Who financed the war machine of bankrupt Hitler and for what purpose?’ The whole process remains exactly the same as it is in the case of dinosaurs.