On The Ascertainment of Truth

On The Ascertainment of Truth

First of all, what is truth? How do we define truth? And is there an objective truth?
Truth is, in my conceptualization of it, equivalent to scientific fact. Truth is also absolutely objective, even if our perspectives limit our individual comprehension of the truth.

Allow me to elaborate so as to avoid confusion. It has been presented that since no two humans are alike, that no two humans experience the world in a perfectly identical manner, that objective reality itself must not exist.
This is easily refuted and falsified using multiple methods. Firstly one specific example given is that each individual has variation in the mechanisms of the eye which cause the visual data they take in to be different from other people. Yet we all are able to perceive the eye and the differences in structure across many people. And when you ask these people to identify objects or colors, unless they are thoroughly impaired they generally align with consensus on what the item they have been shown would be classified by almost anyone else alive.

Another specific that is commonly given is that because of innate biases within the human psyche, objective truth cannot be arrived at.
This is not only easily disproven, but is hazardous rhetoric.
This is akin to Christian argumentation during the (fringe) opposition to the scientific enlightenment of the 1600s, or the “just let us believe as we want” argument of the Christians during the fundamentalist revival of the early 2010s.
Human beings are capable of setting aside their own biases and beliefs in order to find empathy with other groupings of people, and with ideas they have not already found to be true or useful.
Furthermore this is a fundamental concept within science, that our personal biases are not to interfere with our observations and that we are to remove any interference with our observations as much as possible, of course using nearly-pure empiricism and peer review as primary methodologies to achieve this.

The issue seems to be with the average person being unable to fully grasp the concepts being laid down in front of them.
Yes we experience reality differently, but if you and I were to go for a ride in a car we would not expect you to call the car a spaceship (unless you were “far out” and were trying to make a point about something else). If we are both looking at the color red, unless you are colorblind or blind period you and I will be in agreement pf which color we are seeing.
Even if our perceptions are slightly different, we at least know that the color we see is the color all humans agree is red.
This does not mean the color red does not exist and in fact only shows a somewhat more platonic view of the world. There is, in fact, a pure red that humans are not able to properly perceive.

Science itself takes the limitations of the human sensory mechanisms into account as well, and does its best to reduce any flaws caused by these. I already mentioned that science also seeks to reduce and remove bias from observation.
For some reason, however, a large movement of people have taken to the rejection of science and the scientific method in favor of pure philosophy.

I cannot fully explain why this movement of backward thought has come about and I dare not speculate.
Yet, I can and will explain the difficulties and problems which have been created by this motion.
Through talking with philosophers of this regressive type, I have a few bits of reasoning which are non-speculative which explain somewhat why this ancient philosophical movement has been revived.

First, some of these people claim that they prefer more classical philosophy over science because science has gotten things wrong on occasion.
This is so blatantly absurd, of course science gets things wrong, everyone and everything does. However science also gets things right more often than not, and on the off chance that science gets things wrong it is always science that proves that science got it wrong.
Either way, this is not a sufficient reason to jump centuries backwards in time to a philosophy which has provided almost no practicality in the centuries since it has been abandoned.

Another point these people bring up is the notion that science is not the only way to attain truth.
While that is true, science is the most efficient method of finding the truth known to man so far. Other methods are not as adept at discerning what is and is not true and what is and no other method has caused as much real world change for the positive than science itself.

The last point these types bring up is that science itself is derived from philosophy, or is philosophical in nature. The weakest version of this argument came to me in the form of someone claiming the existence of the PhD system proves science is just another philosophy. Absolutely absurd.
Yes science is derived from philosophy, but not a specific philosophy, in fact it was the culmination and interaction of several philosophies that helped lead to modern science. In fact, it seems to have been the abstraction of philosophy that caused modern science to form.
The balance of rationalism, empiricism, and epistemology is what I consider to be as close to perfect as possible.

There are, of course, other problems with the archeo-revivalist philosophers of the modern era.
For starters, these people seem to legitimately believe that by playing games with words (that generally speaking they themselves can be observed to not understand) truly causes the real world to conform with the words they used. Which is delusional. Many times they will contradict themselves and claim they have not contradicted themselves and will refuse to continue to engage in discussion because you have pointed out the contradictions they have made.
Clearly this is not helpful to anyone or any situation.

Still more problems arise from neoclassical philosophical revival.
It appears as though modern philosophers either choose or are forced to choose an outdated paradigm in order to analyze the world with a “unique” take on things. They then stick to this paradigmatic view no matter what.
This is digging in heels against the flow of reality and will inevitably collapse in on itself, not at the individual level but at the level of the collective. This does not further any discussion or aid in any sort of advancement. It is literally just the giving in to innate bias and refusal to perceive reality in its entirety.

Discourse cannot take place with those who hold a narrow worldview. Advancement cannot take place with people who refuse to advance or who deliberately degenerate.
Peace cannot be attained by those who refuse honest discussion.

While truth may be possible to find without science, science is the best tool we have and provides the best information possible.
Anyone who rejects science should be scrutinized without relent, and never once trusted.

Comments (0)
Join the discussion
Read them all

Leave a Reply

Hide Comments

This is a unique website which will require a more modern browser to work!

Please upgrade today!

%d bloggers like this: