The truth is in the hands of a few, so how can we judge that the few are in the hands of the truth?

To judge that the truth is in the hands of a small number of people, it is necessary to see whether there is a strong reason to support their viewpoints, that is, whether they can be reasonable, and after they are reasonable, they need to be verified by practice, and practice is the only criterion for testing the truth.

From the perspective of political science, judging whether the truth is in the hands of a small number of people is often tested through practice and time, because practice is the only criterion for testing the truth.

Practice is the only criterion for testing truth, and if we want to know whether it is the truth or not, we must practice it.

Truth is neither in the hands of the majority nor in the hands of a few, but exists in objective laws, is formed in social practice, and can only be called truth when it is accepted by the vast majority of people and can be effectively fought for. Truth is not eternal and unchanging, it is like the law in the process of continuous revision, constantly improving, in line with the will of the people can be called the truth, not who holds it, who owns it, who has the final say.

Truth is the law, the guide that people believe, and the essence that has been explored in the existence and development of society. Truth is not arbitrary, let alone imposed. Truth is sometimes not recognized, and sometimes it is replaced by fallacies, but it cannot withstand the blowing of time and the tempering of practice, and all ugliness and fallacies will be spurned and discarded if they violate objective laws, the will of the people, and the test of practice.

Rights are mastered, and truth is always believed and exalted.

A perfect set of knowledge has been done to the simplicity of the avenue, if there is no simplicity of the avenue, it means that he is not mature enough, and he changes a trick every day, which is the work of the miscellaneous faction....

Lenin said that truth is often in the hands of a few. Plato (Greek) said that truth may be on the side of the few.

Truth is often in the hands of a few, and this proposition comes from Marx (whether this sentence is not quite certain whether he said it, but he proposed).

It cannot be said that it is always in the hands of a few, but that it is sometimes in the hands of a few, and in most cases the opinion of the majority is often correct, and only in some special case, when the majority is blinded, when the minority is aware, that the truth is in the hands of the few. For example, the scientists who first discovered that the earth revolves around the sun are in the minority, and the people are blinded by religious teachings and believe that the earth is the center and the sun revolves around the earth.

Truth is only powerful when it is grasped by the majority. The truth is often in the hands of a few, and it is possible for a few to be right, which means that the truth has little to do with the number of people. However, the principle of minority subordination to majority in democratic decision-making is generally reliable, but it does not mean that mistakes are not made.

Mankind has not yet discovered a better way to make the right decision, and the minority obeys the majority as the way to make the least mistakes. It's just a vote. There was still a need for debate, and at this time, it was not possible to deny the right to speak because it was a minority.

The lesson of this incident is that democracy is not just about voting, but about proposing debates and voting. In China, there is often a lack of debate stages, where a minority or the opposing side is not given the right to speak, and decisions are made before the trial is made. This has been a habit for a long time, and vigilance is essential.

It depends on the situation. In general, there are two kinds of situational truths that are generally in the hands of a few.

First, the phenomenon of "truth in the hands of a few" is the most common in social activities. Since social activity is more of a competition between people and judgment. Faced with the same situation, most people's views tend to be the same because human intelligence is basically the same.

Social activity is an idealistic activity, and everyone has the same point of view, which leads to a very low success rate. At this time, those independent ideas are often the right ideas.

The second is complex things. It takes a high level of wisdom to judge complex things. The wisdom of most people is basically the same, that is, if something is more complex than most people can discriminate, only a few people's opinion is the truth.

Outside of these two situations, the truth is in the hands of the majority, and the people are right. For example, jumping from a 20-story building can kill someone, which is a simple matter, and the truth must be in the hands of most people. This kind of thing must not be believed in some unique point of view.

Another example is social activities, where everyone thinks that a certain business can make a lot of money. This kind of complex social activity must not listen to the majority of people, and the truth is in the hands of a few. Everyone thinks that a profitable business is certainly not profitable.

Another example is the idea that you should smile when you meet someone. This is a simple social activity, this kind of activity is sure that most people are right, this kind of thing cannot be done independently, and you cannot cry when you see someone.

The acquisition of truth needs to follow the laws of practice and thinking, and it needs to be completed many times from practice to understanding and then to practical synovial fluid practice, and only a few people with strong practitioners and thinking ability can do it.

Lenin said that truth is often in the hands of a few. Truth is often in the hands of a few, this proposition comes from Marx (whether this sentence is not what he said is not very sure, but he proposed), and it is also widely known, according to our current and common understanding, it seems that the truth is often only in the hands of a few, but Marx did not deny that the masses of people can also have a correct understanding of things (to use his original words), these two propositions often form conflicts in daily life, and the results often affect the development and even stability of society, So I think we have to understand these two sentences dialectically. The meaning of this phrase is:

It cannot be said that the truth is always in the hands of a few, but that it is sometimes in the hands of a few, and in most cases, the opinion of the majority is often correct, and only in some special circumstances, when the majority is blinded, when the minority is aware, is the truth in the hands of the few.