Proof, Truth, and the Truthfully Aloof
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reality.html
For a while, I've wanted to do a post on truth/reality, how we know or think we know things, and how we share this knowledge. The link I found above inspired me to finally start this.
Basically, if you can't convince people of something, then of course they won't think it's true. But people can't be convinced of something being true unless they want to. So if people don't want to think something is true, then they can't be convinced, and if they can't be convinced, then you have no "objective" standard for saying it is true. I mean, of course you have certain objective-type measurements or methods, like the scientific method, logic, et cetera. But if other people don't believe in the validity of your methodology either, then it doesn't matter -- not convincing them is not convincing them, and all the, shall we say, objective objectivity in the world isn't going to change their minds, and thus, nobody thinks it's objective except you (hypothetically).
This can lead to problems -- at least, I believe it can. You may not be convinced.
For a while, I've wanted to do a post on truth/reality, how we know or think we know things, and how we share this knowledge. The link I found above inspired me to finally start this.
Basically, if you can't convince people of something, then of course they won't think it's true. But people can't be convinced of something being true unless they want to. So if people don't want to think something is true, then they can't be convinced, and if they can't be convinced, then you have no "objective" standard for saying it is true. I mean, of course you have certain objective-type measurements or methods, like the scientific method, logic, et cetera. But if other people don't believe in the validity of your methodology either, then it doesn't matter -- not convincing them is not convincing them, and all the, shall we say, objective objectivity in the world isn't going to change their minds, and thus, nobody thinks it's objective except you (hypothetically).
This can lead to problems -- at least, I believe it can. You may not be convinced.
posted by jlhart7 at 4:45 PM
1 Comments:
There are various reasons for the scientific community to be on the defensive. Much of the world's problems appear to be caused or exacerbated by science-enabled technology. Science these days is expensive and depends on funds from governments and corporations whose motives are biased, sometimes against the well-being of humanity as a whole. Many scientists pursue their profession with religious zeal, as if they have the only truth.
On the other hand, scientists feel a duty to expose quackery. There is certainly plenty of that, though not everyone agrees where the boundaries lie.
I'm personally clear where truth lies in my life. The evidence of my external senses and inner feelings is true, up to the point where I start interpreting it. When I say I have seen a ghost, that is a culturally-influenced interpretation of some unusual feelings.
Scientific method does not cover all experience for it intentionally restricts the objects of study to phenomena which can be reproduced at will. In aiming at objective truth, it therefore excludes the personal, subjective and evanescent. These must be experienced first-hand, or if they are shared, it can only be via metaphor, art or myth.
Post a Comment
<< Home