read a report on papers today. very interesting report as it talks about the definition of TRUTH.

ACCURACY vs TRUTH

here are some definitions the writer got from his friends..

" truth is whatever the world serves on a plate to you. "

" the reason we can conclude that there are no truths in this world is because we are looking for them in the accuracy of facts. "

" in order to tell the truth, we need accuracy. but it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. "

" accuracy is not without merit, but it may be the style of modern journalism or the contemporary i-want-it-now mindset that we have learnt to place too great an emphasis on details. and in getting them right, thus foregoing taking time to fully experience, understand and comprehend matters. "

" accuracy in facts are like shards of truth. but piecing shards together hardly gives you a window pane, much less a window of truth. "



basically, this report pits accuracy against truth. its trying to argue whether truth needs accuracy to be the truth. whether it is a must to be accurate in truth. its kinda mind-boggling when i started reading. but then after awhile, it makes sense. i tink to me, truth is very subjective. it doesnt really need to be very accurate. just like the scientists who predict the global warming effect. they just give an estimate, nobody in the world can give a fixed date that the earth will die out rite. nothing is accurate in the world. even the weather guy makes mistakes.

im not trying to sound smart or anything. just find that this article is interesting..

its in today's NEWPAPER. under the forum page.