tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8190325705234726468.post1935454782183712109..comments2008-11-07T09:35:55.898-08:00Comments on Every Week Essay: A ResponseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8190325705234726468.post-18093890155991670662008-06-03T22:27:00.000-07:002008-06-03T22:27:00.000-07:00Well, its too bad that I haven't been able to hit ...Well, its too bad that I haven't been able to hit the once-a-week goal, but I am thoroughly enjoying the blog so far. Just going to have to keep on pushing to get material written. <BR/><BR/>Creating a more complete delineation of the truth/Truth distinction would be a fun project. However, I'm not exactly sure where to begin because my conception of Truth is admittedly based on an ideological faith, and I don't know how to delineate that in a philosophically valuable way.<BR/><BR/>Dan you said that, "I fear your reliance on a communal doubt in distinguishing a theory from fact. My worry rests in part on the fact that doubt often results from ignorance." First, within the context of my statement, I don't think that the status of scientific ideas as "theories" is something that results from ignorance, at least not malignant ignorance or ignorance that is equivalent to that which I think you are referring to - the "blatant ignorance" of general populations. In the case of There are just some things we don't know. Even things we thought were certain (or near certain), such as Einstein's theory of gravity, seem to be falling apart. Not that anyone has come up with something better than what he offered to deal with the cosmic (as opposed to the quantum) side of physics, but his theory is still inadequate to deal with our observation of the expanding universe. <BR/><BR/>Second, as a political, social, and practical manner, I whole-heartily agree with your distrust of widespread ignorance. Ignorance's habit of spawning doubt is tough to deal with. However, just because I don't like it when media portrays things as theories (usually with the language such as "many people say that") that that is not the truth as it exists. If a man is convicted by a jury for a murder he did not commit and the public accepts the verdict, it is true for most people that he murdered, at least according to my theory of truth and Truth. The Truth of the matter does not matter, no matter how distressed this example makes me. <BR/><BR/>While I'm on the subject of things I hate but can't control when it comes to the media and collective ignorance, I really hate it when the media reflexively try to portray two sides to every argument as if each side has a valid say. The "debate" with regards to whether waterboarding is torture is a good example. But this is a tangent and should not be confused with what I see occurring, philosophically, in the media's behavior. <BR/><BR/>You also said that, "I am not sure if he had any statement in mind, but I think of something like: The Earth is only a few thousand years old. I don’t think that a speaker could believe this to be true in church and false in a laboratory within some degree of self-deception or contradiction within his system of beliefs." Again, it frightens me as well, but I would not rule out the possibility of this thing happening. I try never to doubt how many seemingly contradictory ideas a person can hold without it mattering to them. <BR/><BR/>Also, I've been doing a a lot of thinking about this 1000 year example (one reason why this response is so delayed). While in the end I agree that the discipline of science as it stands would find these ideas self-contradictory, I can see how someone could work in a lab but not accept what is normally considered science's explanation of Earth's origins. Lab scientists perform experiments, and experiments can only be performed in the present. We cannot perform experiments on past events. The reason why I didn't post this week is because I spent several hours furiously trying to explain how a paleontologist is in many ways not a scientist, but I couldn't decide on what I thought science was. Either way, my opinion is that someone could legitimately consider themselves a scientist and still be a creationist (though admittedly, I've never heard of such a creature).Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565266565590778100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8190325705234726468.post-11872719466421965682008-05-26T18:59:00.000-07:002008-05-26T18:59:00.000-07:00Just a few thoughts:First, I am intrigued by this ...Just a few thoughts:<BR/>First, I am intrigued by this model of blogging; I find it refreshing and am glad to recognize that this is what you are doing, as it may affect the way that I respond. At least, I will be far less concerned with accessibility. <BR/>I apologize if I gave the impression that I found your previous post insufficient because of the brevity of its gloss on the truth/Truth distinction. I realize that that was not the focus of your post and I think that you did a fine job in addressing Keen and truth on the internet. However, as I am sure that we can all agree, these issues cannot fully be resolved or understood without a more complete delineation of this distinction. <BR/>I also found Landon’s comments illuminating and interesting, having brought a lot to the table for discussion. <BR/>I agree that Wikipedia, by its very nature is an encyclopedia and could not become the self-proclaimed source of truth. However, there is something complex to be addressed here as well. As the global community and people in general are increasingly members of the internet community and as Wikipedia gains strength and readership, Wikipedians could very well come to be the dominant community of information-providers of an encyclopedic nature. So, while, Wikipedia would not become the ultimate determinant of truth, it would certainly be elevated to a level where it would be highly truth-conferring. In fact, it has already grown substantially and achieved a dramatic increase in acceptability as a source of accurate information. <BR/>As for presenting facts and theories without passing judgment on those theories, I think that that is largely the goal of such institutions, but that, in actuality, nothing so clear cut exists or can exist. Also, I fear your reliance on a communal doubt in distinguishing a theory from fact. My worry rests in part on the fact that doubt often results from ignorance. This fact again relates to my concern about trusting the general public to compile information and select what information is of value. While I am suspicious about the information provided to me by professionals and experts, that distrust growing from an understanding of their ability to manipulate information to perpetuate an agenda, I am also extremely suspicious of the general public because not only do I need to worry about hidden agendas, but I need to be concerned with blatant ignorance. I’m not sure who to trust less…<BR/>On another subject, while you seem to be largely in agreement with Landon’s statement about truth being relative to the community in which it is spoken, I find such a thesis tenuous and, while recognizing some truth to it, I am extremely skeptical. While I can recognize the accuracy of his statement with regards to sentences that employ terms whose referent is context-dependent and relative terms, like hot or flat, Landon’s example of a statement spoken in church and the same statement spoken in a laboratory disturbs me. I am not sure if he had any statement in mind, but I think of something like: The Earth is only a few thousand years old. I don’t think that a speaker could believe this to be true in church and false in a laboratory within some degree of self-deception or contradiction within his system of beliefs. <BR/>I do, in true Nietzschean fashion, believe that words have a tendency to falsify the world and hence complicate matters of truth determination. Of course, truth may be inherently linked to some form of human understanding (like language), making certain difficulties inescapable, but I maintain that this would not eliminate the possibility of a truly objective physical world, only the possibility of the human mind grasping it. So, yes, the nature of truth is pretty difficult to consider and discuss, especially using language. <BR/>I’m intrigued by the idea of a perspective “from everywhere.” I assume that what is meant by that is something that is not merely all possible human perspectives, or the perspectives of all sentient beings, or even all possible sentient perspectives. I’m not really sure what such a perspective would be and so am, again, skeptical. <BR/><BR/>Linguistic concerns and recognizing the ways in which established forms of language perpetuate world views is extremely interesting and I find it horrifying, both for ontological and epistemological issues like the division of the world into discrete objects and for cultural and sociological issues like the masculine/feminine distinction. However, such issues are another entire can of worms…<BR/>Two final notes:<BR/>Memory and collective memory and their roles in narrative creation have interesting implications for individual and cultural/national identity and visions of personal and cultural/national destiny. They also have interesting implications in controlling the public with relation to identity and destiny. History and its constant creation and recreation have an enormous, if ultimately unquantifiable, effect. My mind wanders to thoughts of 1984 and doublethink…<BR/>Finally, while I am relatively confident that you are correct about the continued existence of professional journalism (and perhaps professional literature, art, and music), I am still enormously concerned about this form of media creation and dissemination and its implications for journalistic (and aesthetic) values. However, it can probably not do much more in terms of a destructive force than capitalism has already done. Or perhaps its contribution along with the negative effects of capitalism upon these values will spell the death-blow for respectable journalism (and high art). Or, more likely, I am just being overly dramatic. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad that you gave this topic a second glance right away, and I look forward to the possibility of the proposed post concerning a more detailed discussion of narrative, as well as other posts dealing with issues raised in these posts. However, I am even more intrigued to see what other topics you've got squirreled away and look forward to another good one next week.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11427937207982606712noreply@blogger.com