From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 22:45:26 GMT
Hi Jonathan and All,
Jonathan
> Hi everyone who has been involved in the "Solidarity Truth" thread and
> related discussions.
>
> It will come as no surprise to Platt to hear me state my opinion that
truth
> is largely something arrived at by agreement rather than an absolute. My
> position is embodied by the one-liner TRUE IS AN ADJECTIVE - which reminds
> one to always ask "true to what?"
joe: I feel I reintroduced 'absolutes' in describing a theory of knowledge,
so I hope you'll pardon my butting in by responding to a post you addressed
to Platt. TRUTH is also a noun. I can ask the question: is truth an
agreement about something and on these terms? I am talking about knowing,
and I can ask the question How do I know?
Jonathan
> My main reason for chiming in here is to tackle this philosophical
edificice
> called objectivity. It is oft said that truth is objective, and that
> objectivity is the basis of science and other academic pursuits.
> Objectivity is a sacred, Platonistic ideal, but how do you prove it? My
own
> experience of academia is that you don't.
>
joe: 'objectivity', 'truth is objective', 'objectivity is sacred' are all
statements derived from SOM based on the theory of knowledge called
abstraction which divides existence into subjective (only in the mind) and
objective (outside the mind as well as in the mind). I agree that a
'philosophical edifice' based on such a division of existence in a
non-existent mind will be false.
Jonathan
> The first benchmark test of scientific "truth" is reproducibility.
> Hypotheses rise and fall on this simple pragmatic test. The reporting of
> data and the conditions under which they were obtained is a major
component
> of most scientific papers - we can call this the pragmatic, Arisotelian
> part.
>
joe: 'Yesterday is not today' is not an hypothesis. I know it is true and I
can ask: How do I know that yesterday is not today? I am worried that with
a starting point of universal individuality that all the stories I like will
have to be retold to become reproducibly politically correct.
Jonathan
> The second major component of a scientific paper is the attempt to
> "understand" how the data fit in with current and/or proposed theories -
> this is the Platonic part. In this, one has to argue that the observations
> concur with (are "true to") the proposed hypotheses. Anyone engaged in
> research quickly learns that while inconsistent proposals must deemed
> "invalid" (untrue) , there remain an unlimited number of valid proposals
> that may be made. This was mentioned in ZAMM, and given as the motivation
> for young Phaedrus to leave science.
joe: I have not engaged a lot in scientific research. I was a plumber. I
had to put thing together and make them work. "Shit runs downhill" was one
to the premises I used, but I always had to test it. I understand I have to
start at the beginning, and I can do it over and over, and be wrong over and
over.
Jonathan
> The main mechanism I know of by which academia "judges" the above issues
is
> the peer review process. Matt's term "solidarity truth" seems to be
> consistent with this process. My only proviso is to add that while one
> particular theory may be the most popular (the current dogma), academia is
> rather democratic and "valid" alternative theories are respected. Often, a
> minority view eventually becomes the new dogma.
>
joe: "dogma' does not presume a theory of knowledge, but rather it is a
matter of faith. Faith is not defined as non-absolute. "Solidarity truth"
is about how well a story is told.
Jonathan
> Thus, I find the idea of "Objective, Absolute, Truth" unrelated to real
> world concerns . I know I have said most of what is in this post before,
and
> apologise to everyone who remembers and doesn't need reminding.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jonathan
joe: I agree faith is not an objective absolute truth. The sun coming up
tomorrow is related to the real world and I can ask How do I know that?
I think 'existence', 'quality', 'purpose' are absolutes when describing a
theory of knowledge through which we communicate with each other as they are
instinctively sensed or experienced. I do not think I am so 'individual'
that I have to rewrite all the world's stories.
Thanks for your attention,
Joe
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 22:39:08 GMT