[metmom]

I'm always surprised when anti-evolutionists come up with arguments that boil down to, "We can't know anything."

I never said we can't know anything.

So how do you determine a lie with no truth to compare it to?

Even science has and uses standards to at least calibrate instruments to. You can't look at a yard stick and say it's a meter just because you know it's not a mile long or it looks about right. You compare it to the absolute standard to determine whether or not it's a meter.

In both the examples you give, you are comparing what you heard to some standard. You know that it's impossible that your son went to China during the school day because you know that it's physically impossible to get there in that few hours, not because you didn't know what else he did.

[Coyoteman]

So how do you determine a lie with no truth to compare it to?

And how do you determine truth?

Too many on this site of late have been defining truth as their particular religious belief. TRVTH, if you will.

They criticize science for its limited ability to deal with emotions, feelings, and the like. Well, at least those things are real and can be observed, and there is a potential for measuring them. Science will get a grasp on these kinds of things before long.

But those who are criticizing science for poor performance in those areas often choose themselves to define TRVTH on the basis of divine revelation and scripture for which there is absolutely no concrete evidence provided.

As I mentioned above, the hot new creationist "museum" has signs scattered about -- "Don't think -- believe." In other words, we have the TRVTH as long as you don't look behind the curtain. That doesn't impress me very much.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So how do you determine a lie with no truth to compare it to?...In both the examples you give, you are comparing what you heard to some standard.

When you originally said "Without any knowledge of the truth, there's simply no way to determine if something is a lie," I assumed you meant something more by "the truth" than simply "something not shown to be a lie." If all you're saying is "without any knowledge of what a lie is, there's no way to determine if something is a lie," then you're not saying very much.

But that's clearly not what you mean. In context, it's clear that you mean something along the lines of "how can you know something's a wrong answer if you don't know what the right answer is?" My examples were aimed at showing that it's actually pretty easy.

If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize, but then what did you mean by "the truth" in that first statement?