The truth of the matter-- Part II
Part I
The problem is that each of these programs (or points of view) replaced a program that itself was the once-and-for-all truth of the matter. This should give us pause. Each of the programs that are now in use replaced some other program that was considered to be the truth before but now is not. So why do we believe that the new program is now the truth? There are cultural reasons for why, some of it having to do with recency--what is newer is better, an unconscious analogy to evolution and to its child, progress. But there is no more reason to accept uncritically the new than there was to accept the old the same way. In science the new might address more data and that is a good thing, but to accept what is promoted now as the once-and-for-all-, everywhere-and-everyplace-in-the-universe-, kind-of-truth isn't sufficiently skeptical to be of any long-term use. And for those who do accept it uncritically and apply it to every circumstance and to every scenario, there is little critical thinking going on to do this. Someone else supplies the thinking; you just apply it. No heavy lifting.
That your eyes may be blue is a truth but it is a truth itself that is provisional. To say that your eyes are blue under any and all circumstances, everywhere and anywhere in the universe, you of course could not do. That makes it an assumption if there is an attempt to extend it to other circumstances. But in the context in which you assert it, it is the truth of the matter.
I once went the rounds with a student, about whether the sun comes up. He said that it is in fact stationary, that the earth revolves around it, so it doesn't "come up" at all. My point was that it does but only from a specific point of view, not from all possible points of view. In fact, from a galactic point of view, the sun is not stationary but moves along with the other solar systems in the fringe along with us at a certain speed and direction. And from a universe perspective, the sun doesn't move in that same direction and with that same speed. In other words, it is perfectly true to say that the sun does something from a particular point of view and that is the reason why saying it rises is perfectly legitimate, from our point of view.
Part III
The problem is that each of these programs (or points of view) replaced a program that itself was the once-and-for-all truth of the matter. This should give us pause. Each of the programs that are now in use replaced some other program that was considered to be the truth before but now is not. So why do we believe that the new program is now the truth? There are cultural reasons for why, some of it having to do with recency--what is newer is better, an unconscious analogy to evolution and to its child, progress. But there is no more reason to accept uncritically the new than there was to accept the old the same way. In science the new might address more data and that is a good thing, but to accept what is promoted now as the once-and-for-all-, everywhere-and-everyplace-in-the-universe-, kind-of-truth isn't sufficiently skeptical to be of any long-term use. And for those who do accept it uncritically and apply it to every circumstance and to every scenario, there is little critical thinking going on to do this. Someone else supplies the thinking; you just apply it. No heavy lifting.
That your eyes may be blue is a truth but it is a truth itself that is provisional. To say that your eyes are blue under any and all circumstances, everywhere and anywhere in the universe, you of course could not do. That makes it an assumption if there is an attempt to extend it to other circumstances. But in the context in which you assert it, it is the truth of the matter.
I once went the rounds with a student, about whether the sun comes up. He said that it is in fact stationary, that the earth revolves around it, so it doesn't "come up" at all. My point was that it does but only from a specific point of view, not from all possible points of view. In fact, from a galactic point of view, the sun is not stationary but moves along with the other solar systems in the fringe along with us at a certain speed and direction. And from a universe perspective, the sun doesn't move in that same direction and with that same speed. In other words, it is perfectly true to say that the sun does something from a particular point of view and that is the reason why saying it rises is perfectly legitimate, from our point of view.
Part III
posted by Scott W. Clark at 10:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home