This Thursday a question was raised during the class. That question being, What do we do when we have discovered the truth? This caused me to have a few thoughts in response.
How do we know that what we have discovered is, in fact, the truth? If what we discover is the ultimate truth, how can we possibly know that it is the end all be all of existence? Then, even if we do know that this is the case, how can one really accept this as the truth? I find it far more likely that even if this discovery were to be believe true, the skeptical side of humanity would desire to discover an even greater truth.
As such, to me it seems inevitable that we would fall into a situation much like Plato's cave in mentality. Even if we have somehow managed to turn around and see that undeniable truth, we will inherently desire to find the truth behind that truth. This would then continue on and on, purely due to the nature of human curiosity.
So as an answer to the question raised in class, I feel that no matter how blatantly we may stare the truth in the face, human nature itself will prevent us from being completely accepting. Thus, what we will do if we manage to discover the truth is simply aim for the NEXT, or even greater, truth.
I am interested in seeing other people's opinions and thoughts on this question, so please respond.
~ Brandon
I agree with what you are saying about discovery of the ultimate truth. Let me explain a bit. How do we know the answers to the questions we pose are correct? The answers seem to be based on what the current scientific or philosophical progression is at the time in question. What is right one day, could be disproved the next day. For example, over the summer, a neutrino in the Hadron Collider was found to be traveling faster than the speed of light. If this data was analyzed and found to be true, it would have shaken the theory of relativity discovered by Einstein and the theories of modern science built on relativity. However, as science goes, the results must be repeatable. When looking at the Hadron Collider again, a loose cable was found, which accounted for the discrepancy in the speed of the neutrino. So, Einstein’s theory is safe for now. There may come a time where a new discovery is made that vastly changes the views of science. However, will we accept it when it comes? Will we be like the characters of Flatland which only accept the current world they live in, but are too scared, or blind to see what would be the ‘new truth.’ I am uncertain if the truth can actually be discovered. What would that truth look like? Would it be a short statement that could be summarized, or would it be a complex math equation? Would it link chemistry, biology, philosophy into one? I often wonder if we can discover what the truth is if we don’t know what form it will come in, or if we will accept the truth when we find it.
ReplyDeleteThe point about asking the right questions is really perceptive. The idea of our methods being nets that catch what we think we will find is tied into the questions we ask.
DeleteI agree too. A friend linked me to a cool Ridley Scott interview the other day, where the dude was asked about the creative process. He responded with something about the nature of modern science, and how he was inspired with how we are constantly updating our model of reality to break past the brick walls that human understanding comes up against. At this intellectual level, science becomes really philosophical in nature. I think this is the reason why scifi movies like Alien & Blade Runner have so much allure - despite their futuristic settings, they tread on philosophical themes that resonate with all of us, or derivatives of questions that we really do ask ourselves from day to day.
ReplyDeleteAs far as big truths, I am increasingly leaning towards some Hume-esque skepticism. I mean, how can we even KNOW that there is something absolute out there? All we experience are the brick walls, and we break past them one at a time using our sense data + an abstract model. There's no telling what walls we're going to hit 10 years from now, or if we will ever reach a state where we know everything. So it seems counterintuitive on some level to care about it too much - might as well just focus on the issues in the here and now, you know? To go after one goal just seems to be like putting a limit on what would be infinite potential for learning. I think there will always be people that don't accept the "big truth" even if it is found - so it might just be impossible to find it. But why should we care, as long as our understanding is evolving?
The progression you mention here is interesting, Vin. This entire thread is very rich in good questions and ideas that go to the continual questioning of how we know what we know.
DeleteHume was a skeptic and contends that minds are “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions.” We have no sensory perception of cause. Hume uses the example of the pool ball and cue. When you see a cue ball about to hit another ball, all that you really see is that “a movement of the cue is followed by the movement of the ball.” There is a “succession” of events. This information is “all that appears to the outward senses.” So as far as discerning big truth, Hume doubts it.
Plato, on the other hand, as Brandon suggests, believed that we come into the world with an a priori notion of truth. Plato's argument rests on metaphysics. We can't prove that there is a realm of forms that are the prototype of all the forms we encounter.
What that truth might be like is very hard to conceive because even if it does exist, our perception would have to be truly shifted.
How we know that world was a concern of Kant also. He believed that our perception is organized by two a priori or prior categories--time and space--all of our experiences and perceptions depend on our conceptual understanding of time and space.
I feel that the workings of our environment fall under the black box analogy. No matter how hard we try to understand our environment all we can do is give the black box a set of inputs and observe the outputs. In our attempt to understand the black box we might come up with models that completely describe the output as a function of the input, but we will still never know the true inner workings of the black box. Yes, I believe there is a global truth, but without being the creator of the box or having a manual written by the creator there is no way to truly know the inner-workings of the box because the set of all inputs is unaccountably infinite. While our model might be accurate for the set inputs we have tried, there is always a chance it fails on an input we have not tried.
ReplyDeletethe black box is a great analogy.
ReplyDelete