What is Truth?

A couple of months ago, I wrote a fairly long post on truth and clarity in the context of the lack of truth and clarity by elements of the MSM and the respect of it by Donald Rumsfeld:

If Brookes has his head firmly wrapped around what the WIF is about, then Shields has a tinfoil hat glued to his head. He ends by rationalising his incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory babble with the following:

And now they say, "Well, what do we got? We've tried terrorism. We've tried -- the only thing we have to offer is fear itself."

Perhaps Shields was upset by the following piece of total non-nuance and political incorrectness from Donald Rumsfeld:

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world.

I'm sure Shields response has the same philosophical backbone as that worn by Pontus Pilate when he replied rather condescendingly to Jesus, the bearer of Truth:

What is truth?

According to Ravi Zacharias, there are three tests of truth:

1. Logical consistency;
2. Empirical adequacy; and
3. Existential relevance.

Much of what is wrong with today's society is a result of people's rejection of one or all of these tests. For example, with regards to Shield's babble in the aforementioned Shields and Brookes session, Mark Shields has jettisoned the first and second tests and therefore made a mess of trying to test the third criteria.

So, if the West's agenda setters are unable to discern fact from fiction, what does this say about the existential survival of the West?

What is Truth?

A couple of months ago, I wrote a fairly long post on truth and clarity in the context of the lack of truth and clarity by elements of the MSM and the respect of it by Donald Rumsfeld:

If Brookes has his head firmly wrapped around what the WIF is about, then Shields has a tinfoil hat glued to his head. He ends by rationalising his incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory babble with the following:

And now they say, "Well, what do we got? We've tried terrorism. We've tried -- the only thing we have to offer is fear itself."

Perhaps Shields was upset by the following piece of total non-nuance and political incorrectness from Donald Rumsfeld:

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world.

I'm sure Shields response has the same philosophical backbone as that worn by Pontus Pilate when he replied rather condescendingly to Jesus, the bearer of Truth:

What is truth?

According to Ravi Zacharias, there are three tests of truth:

1. Logical consistency;
2. Empirical adequacy; and
3. Existential relevance.

Much of what is wrong with today's society is a result of people's rejection of one or all of these tests. For example, with regards to Shield's babble in the aforementioned Shields and Brookes session, Mark Shields has jettisoned the first and second tests and therefore made a mess of trying to test the third criteria.

So, if the West's agenda setters are unable to discern fact from fiction, what does this say about the existential survival of the West?