Clutch

Keith, if that's the point then I agree. But then, so what? "Too much" is by definition too much; nobody ever disputed that. The question is whether there is some general requirement to personally verify claims rather than relying on sources. Since you said, and ... and moreover said without qualification that having sources is insufficient, I took you to be saying that personal checking was what you meant -- especially given the reminder that
But if this now just amounts to the view that one should not trust too much, it seems to have followed the trajectory of most of Rand's insights: manifest falsehood rescued by reinterpretation as triviality.

Keith Russell

Clutch said:
"But if this now just amounts to the view that one should not trust too much, it seems to have followed the trajectory of most of Rand's insights: manifest falsehood rescued by reinterpretation as triviality."

LOL.

Often, in on-line debates, one ends up arguing in favour not of one's own views, but in favour of the ideas presented in whatever books one has read, arguing against the ideas advocated by everyone else, based on the books they have read.

Those aren't facts, they aren't evidence. They're just other people's opinions.

I don't think it's about 'not trusting too much', but knowing what the claims are, where the claims came from, and what real evidence--if any--those claims are based upon.

(I think Rand had in mind something a bit more rigorous than blink skepticism.)

Keith.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Mickey

Keith

The reason why I think we cannot have absolute knowledge of true facts is because I remain uncertain of the level of objectivity it is possible for us to reach.
In order to investigate the material universe we have to maintain the position that we can be an observer, the subject which observes the objective reality. Science has, for some time acknowledged that the objective is actually altered by observation. My position is that the subject may also be altered by observation, and that the subject, being inseparable from the objective is also the object of its own subjective exploration. As an example of our inseparability from the rest of the material universe I suggest the visual process. The traditional view is that we see objects because the reflected light enables us to do so. My way of thinking is to see our visual process as involuntary. Light uses our retinas and neural pathways to produce in our brains what can be called a visual impression. From our earliest moments these visual impressions lay down hardwired patterning in our neurons which may, in later years, prevent us from seeing certain types of phenomena. (Hubel and Weisel "Cat" experiments, cats raised unable to see objects with rectilinear form)What we believe is dependent upon our sensory input which may determine what we can perceive, and what we observe may not be as we perceive it. The problem is exacerbated by virtue of the fact that this evidence that the observational process is flawed, has all been produced through the possibly fatally flawed observational process.

Mickey

Hugo Holbling

Clutch said:

Not to worry. I just thought bd's comments under "I believe that..." might be of interest.

Sorry it took me so long to notice your post, btw.

aniam

I know that I am getting into this thread a little late and I did not fully read every reply (I skimmed a few when I thought I had the general idea). In case anyone is interested in continuing this discussion I thought I might throw something out there to think about. I apologize if it is redundant to previous posts.

As pointed out we learn about the size of the city by authority or revelation as some would like to call it. When we evaluate all the knowledge we have accumulated in life we discover that we have learned almost everything by authority. Even scientists only directly experiment with a narrow field. Most scientific principles they take on authority.

What is important is the method we use to determine which revelations are worthy of our allegiance and which ones are simply too suspicious to accept. The tools we have to test revelations are: our five senses, by logic, by demonstration and by scientific method.

Of course it is impossible to gain 100% proof that the claims of the encyclopedia are true but if we have evaluated the claim enough to make us 99% certain then we appropriately take the last 1% on faith (don't be scared of that word. I'm not getting all religious). The difference between an appropriate faith and blind faith lies in how much evidence I require before I will add a revealed piece of information to the list of things I believe.

John Galt, Jr.

aniam,

You say, first,
No quarrel with this, now. However, you go on to say (the emphasis is mine) Do you mean to say that it is not 100% certain that there was a president of the United States named 'Abraham Lincoln'? If this is what you mean will you explain why you think this is so. Is there some small bit of data (that I have never heard about) somewhere that suggests that this bit of information might be mistaken?

I think I am inclined to agree with the general thrust of your remarks. Most of what we know about history, for example, we have accepted on the basis of authority. We have not and we cannot check most of the history against the 'facts themselves' because they are, as it were, gone. That is why they are history. But the very possibility of checking some historical facts, presupposes that some historical facts, some other things that we have accepted on authority are certain, doesn't it.

John Galt, Jr.

Keith Russell

Mickey:

If our senses are flawed, how would you know?

The cats you mentioned can see the rectanges, but their brain does not process the data. But, the cats have to be trained to do this. (And, we can spot the flaws, recognize it as flaws, and create--or, I assume, alleviate) those flaws.

If the senses were utterly flawed, this would not be possible. We would not be able to observe whether or not the cats could perceive the rectangles, because our own flawed senses might not be perceiving them, either.

The examples of 'flawed' senses I've heard actually involve not flawed senses, but either errors in memory or errors in how sensory data is evaluated.

People don't really 'see' what they want to see, but they often 'think' they see what they expect to see, or remember seeing what they believe was the most likely thing to see.

That there are ways to train people how to be better observers, how to learn to counter expectations, means that we are able to perceive reality accurately. If we couldn't, there would be no way to measure progress, when one improves one's ability to evaluate what is really there, as opposed to what one was 'told' to expect.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Can innocent until proven guilty be the number which plays with the most accuracy?

The accuracy of the information seems to be the kick in the butt that sends us flying towards independent analysis.

Let me propose that if accurate information is acceptable as the basis of rational behaviour, then accurate information must be one of the necessities for rational thought.

Do we need to consider over how many boundaries did the information transcend before we made our own representations of the information inside our heads? Something akin to passing an apple from person to person by hand, 100,000 times, then finally submitting the apple to a taste test. The apple may be a bit mangled.

* * *

Outside of our rational selves MUST LIE our irrational being. In the irrational being lies all our doubts and all our inaccurate information. We are mostly irrational when we use rational methods on irrational(inaccurate) information. We are rational when we use irrational methods on irrational information and label the results as irrational - The first rational step in experimentation.

So we are destined to spend most of our time as irrational beings. Soime days good sense prevails - we all understand the same thing.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi:

I may have been an 'irrational being' before I was three or four, but not since.

Speak for yourself only, please.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Russell, try to read what I write a bit stronger, it may help your ideas. I cannot believe you write what you do, they you reply to what I write, the way you do.

You speak firmly about being rational, your promise of information. When this promise of information becomes irrational by your own terms, it becomes unacceptable to you. Is it true that you are the only one who can speak OR write? You are starting to communicate like an uneducated person OR an immature being.


Sammi Na Boodie ()