Talk:Truth by consensus

Examples not illustrative
Astrology, the example with citations in the article, is a good example of truth by consensus, because a case based on experiment can be made that astrology has no basis in fact, and yet millions of people believe in it.

The examples recently added, which I removed, of "Trial by jury" and "Wikipedia", are not close to the point of concept, which is that some people assume something is true, contrary to evidence, simply because other people say so. That's not what's going on in a trial by jury -- jurors are weighing evidence according to strict rules. (That some people disregard the rules, and make decisions for other reasons is incidental, those reasons may be race, creed, nationality, etc., and may have nothing to do with what other jurors say). Wikipedia is perhaps a better example, but again, truth by consensus is more a failure of the process, than the process, itself. The very preference for verifiable information is opposite to what truth by consensus promotes.

Hence, the examples of Trial by jury and Wikipedia are removed, and the ones that make the article's point quite sufficiently by themselves are maintained.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think descriptive vs prescriptive languages ( Linguistic description ) could be a good example. In a prescriptive language, like Spanish, a designated committee or other "legal body" decides upon standards - what is correct and what isn't, defining the rules of grammar, orthography, punctuation, etc. In descriptive languages, like English, "correct" is what the majority uses. By definition, a given grammar form is correct, because a sufficiently large number of users of the language think so - truth by consensus works, as in this domain it was (by consensus) decided to be the way to determine truth.


 * Of course this doesn't work nearly as well with objective truths of facts of the universe independent from the human - but in an abstract constructs, like a language, where you can define your own rules, this is a common approach. Sharpfang (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Opinion looks as if stated as fact
Fifth paragraph, on Warburton " . . .in decision making.Democracy is preferable to other processes not because it results in truth, but because it provides for equal participation by multiple special-interest groups, and the avoidance of tyranny.[2]"

Looks like a statement of fact.

I feel it would be better put:

"He is of the opinion that Democracy is preferable . . . ."

or

"He writes that Democracy is preferable . . .tyranny."

but I am reluctant to alter it because I haven't read Warburton.

(Of course, if it was meant to be taken as fact, or truth by consensus, I could find references to contend.) Memethuzla (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)