Indeed, just as light defines itself and darkness,
so truth sets the standard for itself and falsity.
Spinoza
How can we be confident that we know the truth about any topic? I doubt we can discover absolute truth, because what we see or read or experience flows to us in the form of fragments. If we want to understand an insect we study its organs, one at a time. Then we watch its behavior in its natural setting. To more fully grasp its behavior we need to study its ecology, its relationship with other animals and plants, as well as its natural cycle of development from egg to death. We can imagine that there is much more that we would have to know, such as its physiology, biochemistry, neurology, social setting, foraging for food -- an apparently endless chain of relevant disciplines and questions. And, the more we know the more it opens a new awareness of our ignorance, and then new questions.
Ultimately it becomes apparent that absolute knowledge about any single entity encompasses all disciplines, all knowledge, a holism that has no boundaries, thus exceeding the capacity of the human mind.
Fortunately, despite this humbling and impossible task our typical goal, as to truth, is not ultimate truth, but to ascertain much simpler fragments of truth that have some practical value, and it is sufficient that it may be only probabilistic. For example, we may simply want to know the U.S. GNP for 2007. To achieve a high probability of truth or accuracy on this question we need to apply a number of tests:
As to source: legitimacy, authoritativeness, and reliability. The U.S. Bureau of Statistics should pass these criteria. That source, however, will not provide opinion as to the meaning, or implications of the statistic, though it will provide comparative data on other years, and data on a related set of statistics, such as the U.S. Cost Price Index. The U.S. Bureau is non-partisan, has been long established as the one responsible source for compiling such statistics, have qualified people, and have demonstrated reliability over many years by those who review such data.
so truth sets the standard for itself and falsity.
Spinoza
How can we be confident that we know the truth about any topic? I doubt we can discover absolute truth, because what we see or read or experience flows to us in the form of fragments. If we want to understand an insect we study its organs, one at a time. Then we watch its behavior in its natural setting. To more fully grasp its behavior we need to study its ecology, its relationship with other animals and plants, as well as its natural cycle of development from egg to death. We can imagine that there is much more that we would have to know, such as its physiology, biochemistry, neurology, social setting, foraging for food -- an apparently endless chain of relevant disciplines and questions. And, the more we know the more it opens a new awareness of our ignorance, and then new questions.
Ultimately it becomes apparent that absolute knowledge about any single entity encompasses all disciplines, all knowledge, a holism that has no boundaries, thus exceeding the capacity of the human mind.
Fortunately, despite this humbling and impossible task our typical goal, as to truth, is not ultimate truth, but to ascertain much simpler fragments of truth that have some practical value, and it is sufficient that it may be only probabilistic. For example, we may simply want to know the U.S. GNP for 2007. To achieve a high probability of truth or accuracy on this question we need to apply a number of tests:
As to source: legitimacy, authoritativeness, and reliability. The U.S. Bureau of Statistics should pass these criteria. That source, however, will not provide opinion as to the meaning, or implications of the statistic, though it will provide comparative data on other years, and data on a related set of statistics, such as the U.S. Cost Price Index. The U.S. Bureau is non-partisan, has been long established as the one responsible source for compiling such statistics, have qualified people, and have demonstrated reliability over many years by those who review such data.
As to judgment: The Iraq war has been described as a “terrible loss of life,” and rarely does this go unchallenged. Such a statement shows an incredible lack of perspective and ignorance about past wars. In the Iraq war the U.S. suffered roughly 6000 casualties by 2009. Even in the little known Boer war ending in 1900 the English suffered 45,000 casualties.
No comments:
Post a Comment