Terms Which Have Disappeared

[Zombie_61]

I am amazed, encouraged and, then, discouraged (slightly) as these new details emerge and the story changes. I'm amazed at what we can piece to together, encouraged that with enough technology we'll get to the truth and, then, as one "proven" truth after another falls to a newer "proven" truth I begin to question if we'll ever have a definitive answer or, instead, just an ever evolving skien of answers based on the newest science / discoveries...

This is how I feel when I read a new book or watch a new documentary about a particular historical event or person, and the revelations are that someone somewhere has uncovered new "evidence" that refutes what was previously "known" and that the "facts" that many of us learned in school were either not quite the truth or outright fiction. Sometimes it can make you question everything you think you "know".

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't know who first said "any two people can keep a secret, provided one of them is dead."

We've all conspired in one way or another, so we know that conspiracies are certainly real. But the more elaborate the alleged conspiracy, and the more people it involves, the less likely it is to have any foundation in fact.

But those with an emotional investment in even the most far-fetched and potentially earthshaking conspiracy theories aren't subject to reason. It's a religion with them.

Most such devotees of the outrageously implausible are harmless enough. But I have nothing but abject disdain for some, such as those who claim the murder of all those little kids in Newtown was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by people who wish to seize everyone's firearms. It's a sort of mental illness, I suppose, so it might be big of me to find some forgiveness in my heart for the poor deluded souls. But no, you just can't wash your hands of it. Not if you have any decency at all.

It's said that the ability to keep a conspiracy from the public is inversely proportional to the number of people involved and the time that passes. The Titanic conspiracy would require the silencing of thousands of people who had nothing to gain for over 100 years. By that logic alone, it's practically impossible to keep that secret. Couple that with the fact that the single worst thing that could have happened to White Star, orders of magnitude more damaging and costly than revealing the damage to the Olympic and the gain of insurance, is for the Titanic, the unsinkable ship, to sink on its maiden voyage.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is how I feel when I read a new book or watch a new documentary about a particular historical event or person, and the revelations are that someone somewhere has uncovered new "evidence" that refutes what was previously "known" and that the "facts" that many of us learned in school were either not quite the truth or outright fiction. Sometimes it can make you question everything you think you "know".

I think the thing that it makes me question is the nature of "truth" itself. What, really, do we *know* about *any* "truth?" What makes "truth" true? Is it what we, ourselves, did with our own hand and saw with our own eyes? Or is it, instead, simply the digested opinions of many people viewing an event from different perspectives and coming to agreement as to what actually happened? What if the only real "truth" left is the Wikipedia idea of "truth by consensus," and we've been deluding ourselves all along into believing that there are immutable and absolute truths that can be factually known? Or, what if "truth," like any other commodity in our modern age, is in reality just another manufactured product produced not for understanding but for consumption?

The mind doesn't boggle. The mind lies down on the ground in a fetal position and whimpers in desperate resignation.

 

[vitanola]

Very true. As a child my favorite account read, "... her huge stern rose high into the air, then disappeared beneath the waves."

Cameron's film had the advantage of ocean floor research, and the breakup of the hull and superstructure was displayed quite graphically. The technical detail in the film made all of the aforementioned teenage girl silliness in the film bearable.

Titanic, as a story, has all of the romantic bells and whistles that people love, but I wish that other maritime disasters where portrayed in adequately budgeted features as well. The Eastland. The Empress of Ireland. The Cap Arcona (as mentioned) and the Wilhelm Gustloff. And yes, the Lusitania. I doubt that all would star DiCaprio and Winslet... but perhaps they'd be acted, directed, and distributed well done enough to inspire kids to hit the library and read some really fascinating history. And that angle of doing things on the cheap costing human lives: they all share that aspect to some degree.

 

[Trenchfriend]

"Never awake sleeping dogs!"

I think, this term is not more around at todays (german) kids.

 

[vitanola]

I think the thing that it makes me question is the nature of "truth" itself. What, really, do we *know* about *any* "truth?" What makes "truth" true? Is it what we, ourselves, did with our own hand and saw with our own eyes? Or is it, instead, simply the digested opinions of many people viewing an event from different perspectives and coming to agreement as to what actually happened? What if the only real "truth" left is the Wikipedia idea of "truth by consensus," and we've been deluding ourselves all along into believing that there are immutable and absolute truths that can be factually known? Or, what if "truth," like any other commodity in our modern age, is in reality just another manufactured product produced not for understanding but for consumption?

The mind doesn't boggle. The mind lies down on the ground in a fetal position and whimpers in desperate resignation.

And so we enter the land of "Alternative Facts™"!

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

I think the thing that it makes me question is the nature of "truth" itself. What, really, do we *know* about *any* "truth?" What makes "truth" true? Is it what we, ourselves, did with our own hand and saw with our own eyes? Or is it, instead, simply the digested opinions of many people viewing an event from different perspectives and coming to agreement as to what actually happened? What if the only real "truth" left is the Wikipedia idea of "truth by consensus," and we've been deluding ourselves all along into believing that there are immutable and absolute truths that can be factually known? Or, what if "truth," like any other commodity in our modern age, is in reality just another manufactured product produced not for understanding but for consumption?

The mind doesn't boggle. The mind lies down on the ground in a fetal position and whimpers in desperate resignation.

I've given this a great deal of thought over the years. I have concluded that "truth" is a belief composed of facts, beliefs, biases, falsehoods, etc. I distinguish between "facts" and "truth" by defining the former as being narrowly-defined and evidence based.

So, for example, if I say that the current temperature outside my front door is 87 degrees Fahrenheit, anyone interested in checking the factuality of that statement can take several thermometers out there and average their readings to determine whether or not my statement is a "fact" or fiction. Going much beyond that sort of statement veers over the blurry edge between "fact" and "truth".

The problem is that "facts" aren't usually very interesting in themselves. It's only when they have been blended into "truths" do people get worked up.

By selecting the "facts" you use to construct your "truth", and ignoring or minimizing others, you and another person, presented with the same set of "facts" will easily construct wildly opposing "truths".

Like most of us ( who are American and old enough, I suspect), I followed the OJ trial. The facts I saw presented lead me to believe that the truth is the he murdered Nicole and Ron. The jury saw the same facts (and lots of theater besides) and decided that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. Which proposition is "the truth", Guilty or Not Guilty?

This all leads into the branch of philosophy called "epistemology", an excellent pastime, but out of scope for "Terms Which Have Disappeared".

 

[2jakes]

Like most of us ( who are American and old enough, I suspect), I followed the OJ trial. The facts I saw presented lead me to believe that the truth is the he murdered Nicole and Ron. The jury saw the same facts (and lots of theater besides) and decided that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. Which proposition is "the truth", Guilty or Not Guilty?

The prosecution "failed to meet its burden of proof" to the jurors.

 

[Zombie_61]

The prosecution "failed to meet its burden of proof" to the jurors.

That's the problem with the legal system here in the U.S.--"law" often supersedes "justice". That entire jury could have been convinced that O.J. was guilty, but the law wouldn't allow them to deliver that verdict.

 

[Stearmen]

Getting back on subject. The ending of this commercial will sound familiar to a lot of you, when you use an old expression, and the people around you don't get it!

 

[BlueTrain]

The Liberty ships built in WWII had some problems with metal cracking that sounded an awfully lot like some of the details of the Titanic as far as metal failure. In fact, twelve Liberty ships simply broke in half and sank (out of about 2,700 Liberty ships) because of metal fatigue. Of course, something like 300 ships were lost due to enemy action, so they may not have worried as much as they might have about little details like metal fatigue. There were lots of possible reasons for the failures but one thing common with the Titanic was that they were operating in the cold waters of the North Atlantic that apparently caused metal to become brittle. But there were basic design issues, too.

 

[2jakes]

On a very smaller scale.
I have an old push lawn mower that I rely on when the fuel-power
modern lawn mower breaks down.

 

[BlueTrain]

If a term has really disappeared, then I've probably never heard of it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Liberty ships built in WWII had some problems with metal cracking that sounded an awfully lot like some of the details of the Titanic as far as metal failure. In fact, twelve Liberty ships simply broke in half and sank (out of about 2,700 Liberty ships) because of metal fatigue. Of course, something like 300 ships were lost due to enemy action, so they may not have worried as much as they might have about little details like metal fatigue. There were lots of possible reasons for the failures but one thing common with the Titanic was that they were operating in the cold waters of the North Atlantic that apparently caused metal to become brittle. But there were basic design issues, too.

Metallurgical studies of steel recovered from the Titanic wreck showed that the metal was far more brittle than the average shipbuilding steel of 1912 due to an unusually high sulphur content -- in a word, it was cheap, poorly-made steel. White Star was so busy spending money on luxurious furnishings and appointments that it chose, intentionally, to skimp on the foundation structures of the ship.

Cheap steel was also used on Liberty ships -- but these vessels were never meant or intended to be anything more than quick and dirty wartime expedients, the maritime equivalent of Quonset huts, to be used during the emergency and then discarded. The Titanic was, supposedly, the last word in up-to-the-minute luxury shipbuilding -- but unfortunately, that word was "pinchpenny." A lot of luxury goods are made the same way today, but the Titanic shows that this sleazy practice goes way back.

 

[BlueTrain]

There's some story from Ancient Rome about cheaply built apartment houses falling down. But I can't remember the names.

 

[Fading Fast]

There's some story from Ancient Rome about cheaply built apartment houses falling down. But I can't remember the names.

I was going to respond to Lizzie's last post with a "I'm sure shoddy work on some luxury goods dates back well before 1912."

What's stupid about scrimping on the Titanic's construction is that the company suffered financial from the shoddy work (of course, it pales in comparison to the human tragedy, but even if we assume the worst morality about the owners and say they didn't care about the loss of life, it was still a bad business decision).

Make an luxury sweater cheaply and the thing falls apart on the customer (and you might have to deal with returns, complaints, loss of reputation, etc.), but White Star still owned the ship - wouldn't it have been in its interest to build it for longevity so that it could have maximized its initial capital investment with many, many crossing for many, many years.

I am not naive and, having worked in Corporate America for nearly three decades, know stupid, short-term, idiotic and financially backward decisions get made all the time - but the Titanic was a colossally stupid (one could say, titanically stupid) decision that had to be made at the highest of levels. Even if insured (I'm sure it was), that all comes around in investigations, future insurance premiums /rates, insurance contracts, etc.

As to luxury goods - many are cheap and trade on flash or name or "story," and, as noted, I'm sure that has always been the case, but many are well made and build and maintain their reputation that way. I'm pretty frugal and my dad was mega-frugal, but he would and I will occasionally pay up for quality if I think the long-term payoff is there.

But once the company cheats on that quality even just one time, the game is over. Sony, IMHO, is a company that blew it. For years, I was willing to pay the "Sony Premium" of 20% or so above the other similar brands because the quality, service, etc. was there. But that fell apart years ago and now I don't even want to own a Sony. Ditto, Coach, Cole Haan and Johnson and Murphy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The interesting thing to me is that the Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic, which *did* last for years and years was still ready for the scrappers by the mid-1930s. I wouldn't think a lifespan of twenty-odd years for such a phantasmagorica of a ship would be particularly reasonable or cost-effective even in the best of cases.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't think high quality necessarily means something is going to last longer. It depends what you're talking about. Even so, will a Mercedes last longer than a Ford? Will one even go faster, if that's important? Will a pair of shoes with a real leather sole that costs $500, assuming there are any that cost that much, last any longer than a pair of ordinary Rockport shoes at, say, $100.00? There are differences, to be sure, but does quality necessarily mean something will last a long time, all other things being equal?

 

[Trenchfriend]

The Olympics convertion to modern oil-firing after WW I probably saved her life?

 

[2jakes]

There are differences, to be sure, but does quality necessarily mean something will last a long time, all other things being equal?

Depends.
My custom horsehide leather jacket made from a reputable jacket maker which I bought in ’87 is still in great shape
and actually more comfortable now than when new.