|
SpanishMatMaster -> A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 9:58:29 AM)
|
About "to know" and "facts" and such.
1. Let us call to sentences describing things about the world, "assertions". For example, "I have a thoudand bucks". This assertions can be true or false.
2. When we assert something, we do it with, or without, a basis. The basis would be the justification of this assertion - how do I come to it.
3. Let us call the assertions without a basis, axioms.
4. The basis of assertions are other assertions, which using rules, bring to the stated assertion.
5. Therefore, at the end of all our assertions, there is a system of axioms, upon which we use a set of rules.
6. Let us call the rules "knowledge system" of the person.
7. When many people share a part of their knowledge system, we can call it their common knowledge system, even if they do not use only this one, or do not use it always consistently, or (very important) they start from different axioms and therefore, even following the same rules, they arrive to different assertions.
8. A philosophy, and a religion, are such knowledge systems (there may be some exception here, but few). They establish some axioms and some rules. And are shared by many people.
9. There is at least one knowledge system called "reason". Actually, different people call "reason" to different things. Some of them are not even knowledge systems, and some of them are different ones. But many of them are actually the same knowledge system, formulated in different perspectives or with very little changes.
10. I allow myself to call "reason" to any knowledge system which is compatible, with the knowledge system which arises, when I use six specific rules (which I will not post here to avoid distraction). Please take care when reading this sentence. I am not saying that I have "the" reason, but that I have a formulation of "reason" which I can use to try to check if somebody else is using reason or not.
11. I allow myself to call "derivation" to the act of using the rules of any knowledge system, to reach a new assert (= justify an assert).
12. I call "demostration", to the act of using reason, to reach a new assert. It is a kind of derivation. The rational one. I also call it "rational proof" or "proof" for short (but I try to avoid ambigüity when I see that somebody else "prooves" with a differetn knowledge system).
13. A rational fact is a demostrated assert.
14. A (rational) fact does not have to be an "absolute truth". Maybe it is, maybe not, but it was proven so it is a fact... until we proove otherwise.
20. As axioms are, per definition, not derived - they are per definition, not demostrable. You have to take them or leave them, following different rules as the rules of reason, or following no rule at all.
21. I allow myself to call them also "dogmas", and speak about "faith" when somebody makes the free decision to beleive an axiom.
22. I have a strong faith in reason. I do not think, for example, that "a or not-a" can be demostrated using a system which does not include already this principle. It is an axiom, a dogma, and I simply believe it.
23. Faith in reason and faith in religion have therefore its similarities for me. But also, huge differences.
24. Reason tells me that I can be, always, wrong. Even when I say that 2+2=4 I could be possibly wrong.
25. Therefore, I tend not to use the expression "I can be wrong, but I think that..." Yes, it sounds good. But it is for me, logically suprefluous most of the time. I can always be wrong, no need to say it on every sentence.
30. Science is based on reason.
31. Science can also be wrong. All of it or any part of it.
32. Still, both science and reaons have proven to be excellent ways to understand the universe, from a rational point of view (note that this would be a circular proof, completely invalid, if I would be trying to proove reason with it - but I am not).
33. Both science and reasons allow us to gather more data, change our minds, increase the complexity of our vision of the universe, and... well, they keep my computer working. So - I trust them.
34. But I must be open to new data, which would help me to demostrate, that what I considered a fact is actually (or better: now must be considered actually as) false.
40. Reason tells me that the absolute truth exists.
41. It also tells me that it is possible to reach it. If one person says A and the other says no-A, one of the must be right, and have the absolute truth.
42. But reason tells me also that we cannot be know, in an absolute safe and completely guaranteed way, who of them is right.
43. Still, if I can prove that one of them is right, then I must consider his/her assert true. My subjective truth.
44. If I reach my truth using reason, it is also a rational truth. If I used science, it is a scientific truth.
45. Still, different people using reason or science, can arrive to different conclusions... it depends on the data (verification), and on how correct do they derive (validation). I call valid proof with verified premises "complete" or "solid" (again, I am not alone on this, but ok).
I think this is enough for now. If you have any questions, please quote the sentence or the number you are refering to. Thank you very much and have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
