chazwin wrote:
> On 8 May, 22:30, TruthSlave
home.com> wrote:
> >>How do you know? - Dialogue with a Puppet.
>>
>>"How do you know?"
>>
>> "Well isn't it obvious,..."
>>
>>"No it isn't obvious, there is no such thing as
>>the obvious. As an answer, the obvious isn't good
>>enough." "Again, how do you know?"
>>
>> "well I was taught that..."
>>
>>"By whom and for what reason?"
>>"How do you know, they knew what they were talking
>>about?" "How do you know what they taught you was
>>honest, truthful or accurate?"
>>
>>"Note their sincerity, their believe in what they
>>taught you, doesn't count as truth"
>>
>> "Well how can it not be, everybody knows that..."
>>
>>"Everybody else may believe that, or think they know
>>that, but how do you know its not a missed truth, or
>>a misunderstanding, or a misrepresentation, or some
>>other false conjecture arrived at for lack of any
>>other answer. A negative truth"
>>
>>"How do you know it is not another acceptable lie.
>>A lie lost in the annals of time, with any number
>>of motives for its inception?" "How do you know?"
>>
>> "Well I believe it to be true, i can't see why
>> i would be lied to, i trust the source of my
>> information to have no other motive but the
>> truth." "why would they lie to me?"
>>
>>"Now there is the question".
>>"Why would they lie? Do they know that they lie?
>>"Why would they not lie to you?"
>>
>>"why would they place you at this disadvantage?"
>>"Why would they control you in this way? "
>>
>>"Why indeed?"
>>
>>"Again the question, how do you know?"
>
>
> I know because with sufficient grounding in the way things really are,
> a scientific approach can make its own answers. Once you know the
> general position, a billion particulars lie at your feet.
> In your text the first mistake you make is "well I was taught
> that...". The argument from authority has held back intellectual
> progress for thousands of years. Aristotle said that women had fewer
> teeth than men. We were all taught that this was so, but no one
> thought to check so for 2000years a falsehood based on argument from
> authority was accepted. The worst case of this scenario is the entire
> edifice of religion as it contains the uncheckable. Uncheckable
> phenomena are in effect unknowable phenomena and thus are likely to be
> false, as they can only be based on guess work at best and fantasy at
> worst.
>
> It could be that Aristotle chose to examine his wife's teeth. As it
> was common practice for men to marry girl 15 years their junior he
> may well have seen her mouth before her wisdom teeth erupted. What we
> have here is a contingent fact which was not verified by further
> examination. Science thrives on re-affirmation, re-examination,
> testing, re-testing, verification, falsification and demonstration.
> That is how we know what we know and that is how we know we know what
> we know is valid.
>
> However science is not reliable for most of the phenomena we like to
> call "social". For such phenomena to be predictable we would have to
> know the state of charge and contents of every neurone of every human
> in each case - impossible. That makes human "behaviour" almost
> impossible to predict. Such is the joy of the madness of civilisation
> and social theory.
[There is room here for an answer.. local interruptions not withstanding.]
The scientific principle for all its virtues is still determined by
man. With enough invested in that knowledge, its accepted principles
can be used to control by misrepresenting knowledge, as easily it
makes known the new frontiers for knowledge.
The scientific principle as you've outlined 'testing, re-testing,
verification' is fine where what it test for, is not in doubt. The
laws of nature, the principle forces of physics can not be changed
to entertain the whims of man, and so against that, science could
be thought of as sound.
Where science meets society and its social Melee, other questions
are raised. You've done well to note those limitations. Founded on
statistics or the idealized model, science in this area struggles
to explain those cases which deviate from the predicted/desired
course. Having also to accommodate the traditional answers which
society still functions by, further limits its claims to investigate.
Bias, which seems inevitable with statistics further conspires to
create its own truths. One only has to use the idea of science to
curtail any further answers in this area. Interpretation of data
is also at the heart of the scientific principle.
So how can we know? Away from the truly empirical how can we tell?
As one poster to the group stated, "Experience is the only teacher",
our best guide to interpreting the motives of knowledge.
Experience of life, of the many failings of man, should allows
us to see where knowledge might fail us. Take nothing for granted,
certainly not the investment made in knowledge, our dependency on
such knowledge, or the many other uses made of knowledge. The truths
we take to be self evident, aren't always unequivocal truths. More
often than not, out truths exist to satisfy the function of truth.
