Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Well spoken, . You outline the reason why some of us remain skeptical about global warming, evolution, and other things we are all " supposed " to believe. The other week on NPR (or one of those) I heard some fellow debunk the explanation we were all taught in school of how an airplane flies. Knowledge of ignorance is Socratic wisdom. regards, Dan > > , all, > > You write, > > > You can be pretty sure that much of what you believe about reality > > is based on half-truths or facts out of context, and that some of what > > you believe is simply false. Not fun to think about, but that's reality > > for you. > > This sense is, perhaps, unintentionally ironic. > > Yes, it seems we peeps aren't wired efficiently for objectivity. Were we > so, the crucial admission would be just what you suggest, that to the > extent we know anything, we know it partially. > > There is a longstanding position, available even as a 'yogic' practice, > which has fallen on hard times. It's to know one's knowledge is partial, > inflected by non-objective features, and, driven by unconscious factors. > Of course those latter factors are by definition unknown. Thus the > position, as it were, is to be as objective as is possible. This could be > termed Critical Consciousness. > > Short of the rigor implicate in that approach, one can also be fairly > adept at the whole evidence-premise-argument structure and how one > correctly operationalizes it. Needless to say, it's easy enough to mark up > any editorial or do the same with most news stories in discovering how > badly argued are their resolutions. > > But, almost nobody does this even if they're in the tiny cognitive > minority able to do this. At the same time, as Glaswell and others have > noted, intuitive slices can resolve correct hunches about whether > something makes sense or is, in the main, true. > > *** > > Wiped away in this hyper-rational take are dodgy concepts such as eros and > faith. But these are among the alternative means to apprehend the truth of > most matters. > > *** > > , your riff is over-generalized but points out clearly problems. > Highly cogent cases made by so-called academics are superior where they > are so. > > There's also retrospective verification. I would guess it is very rarely > the case that when a politician states he or she will do A, and B will > result, when A is implemented, B does in fact result. So, all the punditry > and commentary seems guileless and naive; because nobody says, in advance, > " B isn't bloody likely to be the outcome. It never is. " > > Uncertainty is the only certainty? ...one reason I am so sensitive to > other people globalizing their own certainty and then blanketing me with > it. > > regards, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Dan says: >>'Tis true. I started to suspect that the Iraq war was botched when I saw first The National Review, and then Will, say so. But waddaya gonna do? One can't be everywhere, or an expert on everything, and yet, as a citizen, one must choose.<< --Time is a limitation, yes. But one can artificially narrow down one's attention, by listening selectively to people one already agrees with, or one can have a wider filter and select among ideas from many sources. Otherwise, you have to wait for "your guy" to say something in order to regard it as relevant or true. Good thing Will was willing to think somewhat independently, or you'd still be in the dark. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 says: >>Needless to say, it's easy enough to mark up any editorial or do the same with most news stories in discovering how badly argued are their resolutions.<< --Some arguments are transparently irrational, but even with perfect logic, one must verify facts. And worse, one never knows for sure if context is fully exposed or hidden -- it's impossible to make meaning out of facts without some kind of expressed or implied context, and context is generally somewhat hidden, often implied and not explicitly given. >>Uncertainty is the only certainty?<< --I think the best way to get out of the "nobody knows anything" trap is to make room for intellectual humility, to say, "I tend to believe what sources X and Y are saying, and for now, this is what I'm using to draw conclusions." In order to act, one can adopt a working theory about the world and be willing to change it if it stops working. That can be done without certainty or completeness, and it's probably better than nihilism. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.