| Subject: What's realilty? |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/15/02 3:40pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Very good." on 12/14/02 10:39pm
>
>2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition, and for this reason
>one need not look to the outside world to confirm this
>truth, though adducing examples is often useful for
>elucidating such concepts.
If one defines it to be true definitionally, it really becomes then a matter of a circular proof. Why is it true? Well, because I defined it to be true. I'm afraid this isn't my idea of "objective" anymore than your notion of justifying our memory with memory is "objective". That's the reason I involved something other than definitionality into the problem, which I then showed also to have problems with being "objective".
>
>I could see this going into a long philosophical
>debate about the a priori epistemological
>nature of mathematics, so I’ll use a different
>example. How about this objective truth: hairless men
>have no hair.
Well again, the same criticisms I used formerly are still applicable. We perceive with our senses someone to be without hair, or with hair, and then in order to apply these concepts, formulate categories. In "true reality" (e.g. reality as it is without our senses invovled) it may be the case that hairless men do indeed have hair, or the other way around. The only thing we have as evidence as what constitutes "reality" are what our senses let us rope in in conjuction with our memories. Are our senses then right about reality? My view is that no they aren't. Just as a camera can't take sound bites, I think our senses are not equipped to take in all that is "reality". I think this can be demonstrated by the fact that different people will describe certain things differently, and sometimes disagree on the nature of the thing itself. Now and then they agree, but this to me is only evidence that their senses are in harmony on the issue, not that they have suddenly glimpsed at reality as it is.
Hence, I don't see your example as "objective truth" as I don't think it is possible to attain "objective truth" about reality. There is truth in the world of experience, and here our scientific laws function and here hairless men have no hair inasmuch as our senses tell us this is true, but it may not be "reality" and by that token isn't really "objective".
>
>Well, I’m not saying that our senses dictate
>truisms for morality, though I do claim that one can
>perceive moral truths through mental
>perceptions.
Mental perceptions? From where? Everything that I'm aware of, or that I can theoretically construct is based upon experience and memory. You seem to be saying that we can "get at" reality that I don't think is attainable through some mental process. I'm interested to here more about exactly what this mental process is, and how it allows us to transcend experience and the limitations imposed on us by our senses and memory.
>
>It may be that one’s mental perceptions seem to
>conflict, but that doesn’t negate the existence of
>objective truth. I find it rather interesting that a
>creationist and evolutionist can look at the exact
>same set of data, with the evolutionist honestly
>thinking that the data overwhelmingly support his
>theory, and the creationist also honestly believing
>that the data overwhelmingly support his
>theory. Should we forgo the notion of objective truth
>on this matter? Should we just throw up our arms and
>say, “You’re both right,”? I don’t think so, and I
>think the same sort of thing is true for moral truths.
> Disagreement doesn’t entail the nonexistence of
>objective truths. This is a classical fallacy that
>many cultural relativists made.
I agree, it doesn't negate the existance of objective truth in and of itself. What I should have said is that it negates the notion that senses should be the measuring stick of objective truth for the very reason that two people can disagree on the nature of an objective truth. (which you'll recall I don't think is attainable). The truth of the matter is that the world of experience is ultimately going to lean in one direction or the other, be it towards creationism, or evolution, but when one makes the next step and says "this is the reality of the issue creationism/evolution is how it happened for sure" then that person is in a serious predicament as far as I'm concerned. Fortunately, evolution has the mechanism of falsification working in its favor. It can be hypothetically falsified. I believe as Popper did, that falsification is one of the prime ways that we can get closer approximations of what our experience dictates, and perhaps get closer to reality itself. Creationism conversely, does not have the mechanism of falsification working in its favor. Churches seldom if ever have members who try to show in some way how their beliefs could be wrong, or if they do, they are usually not long for that church.
In summation, falsification allows us I think to get truer results in regard to experience, and possibily reality (although it isn't likely that it does get at reality) and creationism lacks this mechanism.
>
>As for what to do, sometimes the best solution is to
>discuss the issue using logical arguments and see if
>the conflict can be reduced to disputable points.
I would go as far as to say to criticize or make the subject susceptable to falsification.
>>>
>>I believe your argument to be that ultimately beliefs
>>are justified according to the mechanisms of memory
>>and sensory input.
>
>Nope, though I do believe that many beliefs should be
>based on those sorts of things. What justification,
>for instance, would one have for memory and sensory
>input?
okay, fist you said this:
"Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be further reduced into other axioms to support it. A possible example: can you prove the law of noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless objectively true, however. Another possible example, can you prove that homicide is morally wrong? Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless objectively true. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the case that all irreducible truths are so easily perceived or agreed upon. Perhaps it lies also with the value of a human life, though that can understandably be disputable."
Which begs the question how does one arrive and some sort of irreducible truth at least in your view. The answer lies fairly clearly in an exhange between you and Ben:
Wade: "We have to be careful on what we call “biases.” True,
it may not be proven. But it is possible to
rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence."
Ben: "Again, it's becoming more clear how you are able to
maintain your beliefs in an invisible, untestable
being."
Wade: "Not untestable, any more than atheism is untestable.
Believe it or not Ben, we both rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence. We both base our beliefs on what we intuitively “feel” to be true.
A quick example. How do we know that memory is ever reliable? One could try to justify belief in memory by saying something like, “I remember many times when I recall where I parked my car. When I went to the place where my memory told me I parked my car, it was there.” One could also say, “I remember people telling me my memory is sometimes reliable.” Yet, since those responses would be using memory to justify the reliability of memory, there is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning (assuming the truth of something that the argument is supposed to establish). Consequently, we have yet to provide any real evidence to support the reliability of memory. We can go and do the same for testimony and sense experience. No proof. Not one shred. I suggest you go to this brief web page of mine for further elucidation on this matter. Feel free to comment on it if you wish. I’d like to hear your input."
This certianly seems to indicate to me that irreducable truths in your view are arrived at by things that aren't testable; that are simply believed by experience--"felt", gathered by the senses and stored by the memory. If this isn't the case, then how are irreducable truths arrived at and what exactly was the purpose of this passage?
>
>>You have used this to suggest that
>>perhaps human life being sacred is a moral truism
>>because you happen to think it is true based on these
>>things.
>
>Well, that’s not quite true. I gave the reason why I
>believe it. I’m aware that there’s a logical
>possibility that I could be wrong, but this is the
>best and most rational way to go.
I certainly don't see it. This is the closest thing I see to anything of the sort:
Ben:"In light of this, I think it's healthy to step back
and look at our decisions about life in general. When
do we perform animal abortions? Well, for various
reasons, but often just for convenience. Why is it
okay to euthanize little kittens but not humans? Why
is human life intrinsically worth more than feline
life?"
Wade: "Various philosophical reasons could be given, some you would flatly reject. Being made in God's image, for example, and having some argument flow from there.
Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be further reduced into other axioms to support it. A possible example: can you prove the law of noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless objectively true, however. Another possible example, can you prove that homicide is morally wrong? Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless objectively true. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the case that all irreducible truths are so easily perceived or agreed upon. Perhaps it lies also with the value of a human life, though that can understandably be disputable."
The closest you come to giving the reason you believe it is "various philosphical reasons could be given" and then on to the simpler example of irreducable truth.
>
>That argument doesn’t logically follow (there is no
>logical inconsistency with having both irreducible
>truths and people in disagreement on what these truths
>are), but I’ll agree with the notion that what many
>people believe is disagreed upon.
Again, I should have worded this as the senses of people are unreliable to arrive at anything objective. (e.g. the lack of being able to get at reality through the senses alone).
>
>>Something has to give. Either there is no objective
>>reality, or sensory input and memory aren't the only
>>ways of gathering information about "reality".
>
>Methinks this is a false dichotomy. Another
>possibility is that there is an objective truth, but
>that not every fallible mortal perfectly perceives
>them all, just as there is an objective reality in
>science but we scientists don’t always get it right.
It was oversimplified, but the point is this: our senses cannot convey reality to us in whatever it truly is for reality is outside the nature of our senses. Unless there is something else outside our senses that allows us to see reality as it is, then every person's perception of reality is just as good as anyone elses in terms of justifiability. However, within the world of experience, not every person's perception of reality is valid, because everyone has differing experience and some very similar experience that lends weight to some explanations more readily due to falsification than others. This makes some explanations of reality more plasuable, more "rational" but not necessarily the way reality is, for we can only assess reality according to the tools we are using to measure it, namely our senses and memory.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 