gregormendelblog.com

issue:

In fact, the question raised by Nagel is a very old question. It accounts for the so-called Socratic turn. The Athenian Socrates began his philosophical career as a would-be scientist. But somewhere along the way he realized that the process physics of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and their successors could not make sense of the greatest mystery of all: the existence of the scientist. Put in simple terms, the reductionist science of the materialists is self-refuting — for it eventuates in the reduction of the scientist himself to mere matter in motion. It eventuates in a theory that explains in materialist terms why the theory itself is being proposed and thereby subverts any claim it has to be true. Reduce the scientist to a biochemical reaction and you destroy the science.

I think that often the self-proclaimed “scientists” ignore just how internally inconsistent some of their proclamations are. It’s sad, really. It undermines the truth-claims of science itself. No amount of instrumental or practical value can make up for bad thinking.

The question is never asked, “upon what grounds are YOU standing?” It is a very trenchant question–why should I believe you as opposed to a pig or a dog-face baboon or some stranger creature, still?” ( from the Theatetus; “I don’t see why he does not say in the beginning of his Truth that a pig or a dog-faced baboon or some still stranger creature of those that have sensations is the measure of all things.”) The real question is where you get YOUR authority.

thinking about epistemology. Yes, I know. You were too.

But this goes to thinking about what real knowledge is. The fact that one strongly holds an opinion is not evidence that that opinion is actually true. That is very much related to the recent gun-control laws arguments. No, there has to be an actual basis in fact for the opinion. That is a mistake that many on the left make. The fact that I really believe a certain thing does not make it true. My own feelings do not have a bearing on the truth-value of the proposition in question.

My mind immediately went to the Theatetus dialogue. In it, Socrates does a masterful job of taking apart his opponent for this very reason (well, according to Plato, who wrote it). It is an indictment of relativism, the sickness of our time. But there is a huge weakness in the Sophism of such a relativistic position. If there are no grounds by which one can root truth truth, upon what grounds are you standing? Why should I believe you rather than a dog-faced baboon or some stranger’s creature still? I mean, they have sensation, too. In this case, everyone has built up their own idea of what is true (usually in their own image). Yet to paraphrase a famous and rather recent movie, “if everything is true, nothing is true.” This process destroys the possibility of truth at all.

We have seen the same thing in the global warming “scientists.” They have shown themselves to be not interested in truth at all; they are merely Sophists, and their arguments deserve to be dismissed as you would any sophistry.

So don’t just tell me what you think is true, tell me why you think it’s true. Upon what epistemological grounds are you standing? Why should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon or some stranger creature yet? Why is my opinion not just as valid as yours?

No answer? Thanks for playing, now put your head down on your desk.