#Truth is intended to be a forum like no other, a melding of minds. The truth is among us, the possible answers are delineated. But with the hodgepodge of opinions and mind frames due to different experiences, different personalities, and so on, how is one to extract the actual truth?
This forum will focus on and aim to resolve questions that cannot be answered by the lone power of math, logic, science, and empiricism, and are significant in life as we know it. It may sound like I am simply describing another philosophy forum, but there are two distinguishing aspects.

We are not skeptics.
Cool-mindedly evaluating possible truth situations does not require that one start off with a bias, a prejudice, a predisposition toward disbelieving anything that sits outside of one's base of understanding and knowledge of reality. It does not require that one reject anything that can't be seen, smelled, or scientifically repeated. Human sense is obviously limited in scope, and science is limited in both scope of applicability and level of advancement. Science cannot encompass anything that is not deliberately repeatable. It cannot encompass anything that is not measurable with state-of-the-art equipment. It allows us to sense things outside of our natural sensory ranges, but it is still, to the core, founded on the human sensory modality and what reality looks like from our perspective and what basic aspects of reality we have incontrovertible perception of. It is a castle built from there. It does not have Truth cornered.
If you type to me that you are wearing a red shirt, I will naturally believe you unless I have a specific reason not to, science having little to do with this kind of truth discerning. Matters more significant than the color of one's shirt should be treated just as lightly, if one is to remain objective. Why should one in daily life accept truths on all kinds of basis not directly related to science, and then in matters of actual significance claim that science is the sole proprietor of Truth?
Re evaluation, it does not require that one disbelieve something on the basis that it seems extraordinary. If 500 people told you they saw a ghost, each time you could disbelieve it because you had never known a ghost to exist, but understand that using that excuse the 500th time hinges on having used the excuse the 499th time, which hinges on having used it the 498th time, etc. In the end, all of the theories that you had to assume must be true of why each story is invalid (the person is lying, the person hallucinated, the person exaggerated events in his head, etc., or the assumption that one of these had to be the case) add up to a lot more assumptions and going out on a limb, than if you had simply accepted that ghosts exist to begin with. Occam's razor cuts both ways. The paranormal is not typically observed (including under scientifically controlled conditions), for the very reason that it is para-normal. It is by definition the category of those phenomena that are elusive or unlikely. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. There exists in reality a spectrum of phenomena in all dimensions, including those of human familiarity and understanding.

We do not debate just for the sake of Being Right, of arguing.
We understand that whatever we believe is true, there are reasons that we believe it, and if another dissents, there are reasons for that too.
In a typical philosophical debate, one starts with an affirmative statement of some kind and another retaliates, and the first retalitates that retaliation, and so on, and each side will take specific positions as the thread goes on just because they are or appear to be (per the adversary's coaxing) the only positions self-consistent with the original statement. Or, more accurately, with the previous statement, as usually the original statement has been completely lost by the time the argument settles down into oblivion (with nothing resolved). The thread is forgotten, the loose branches are ignored in favor of a one-dimensional flow, and the the cascade implications of various wins and losses in sub-battles are not traversed. And most of the conversation is not a true reflection of the actual reasons why one side believes one thing or another, it is a creative process, each side taking turns trying to find (invent) flaws in the other side's threats.
In #Truth the goal is that each side knows exactly and honestly why the other believes what s/he does. The reasons do not have to bear the pretense of being absolutely infallible. Ascertaining truth is not a perfect science! But it can be a much more effective process when honesty is the policy, as two minds are better than one (or two bent on sophistically subverting one another).
And three minds are better than two. It is encouraged that ALL present (sense 2) opinions are laid out on the table. Wins and losses aren't the ends; The Truth is, and the more input the better. Ideally, we should resolve specific truths (answers to questions, evaluations of oracular websites, plausibility of users' opinions) as a group, and discuss and discuss until we come upon an agreed answer/judgment, or at least an agreement to disagree for reasons that are completely and mutually understood.
 

Founders:

Ayiel ()
LuxLucis
 

Rules of the channel:

No flooding.
This doesn't mean you can't say a lot at once or paste something that is relevant and/or interesting, but if you flood for the sole purpose of attention/disruption, you will be banned until the seas run dry.

Please regard the intent of the forum and respect others.  Insulting other members of the channel will get you warned, slapped on the wrist, etc.

Live, learn, and have fun.  =)