So the blog topic is as thus: If facts themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the proof of a statement? OKAY. So let's rewind a bit here. Facts. What are they, how do we see them, how are they used?
What is a fact? One edition of Webster's Dictionary defines fact as "thing known to be true; deed; reality." Dictionary.com defines fact as: 1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Now I particularly want to look at number 3. "A truth known by actual experience or observation." As we've discussed in class, experience is based entirely on perspective of the individual. Therefore, facts themselves must be subjective to the experience of the observer. For example, a man looking from one side of a two-way mirror is going to see nothing but his reflection. This leads the man to take as fact that it is a mirror. The person on the other side, however, is subject to a different facet of reality. She sees the man on the other side, leading her to assume that the "mirror" is in fact transparent and is more of a window. The perspectives of the two individuals in this case dictates what they view as fact. Fact is not just based on perception. Facts change as time changes. Take for instance a recent occurrence in my own life. On December 18, my sister-in-law was pregnant. As of ten o'clock that night, however, her pregnancy was no longer a fact. She had delivered the baby, and the facts changed. She went from being pregnant to having been pregnant. Facts are not the concrete, immovable things they are so commonly believed to be. Facts are as subject to the perceptions and whims of the observer as anything else.
So we return to the question of what else is involved in the proof of a statement? Well this begs the question: proof of what? Are you attempting to convince someone that what you believe to be true should be true in their eyes as well? Our class has already discussed the ramifications of "truth" and its associated deceptiveness and slyness. In the most basic of descriptions, truth itself is subject to the experience and perception of its observer. So this almost equates to a run-around statement. How can we prove something that is subject to perception using our very sense of perception itself? The answer is simple: there is no spoon. The answer does not lie within the actual proving of the statement. Success is achieved when both participants of the proof are aware of the statement and its implied associations. Each participant is then left with the choice of making his or her own belief of the statement and what it means to them. Their perceptions dictate its meaning and it is therefore unlikely that they will come to a complete agreement on the matter.
Perception is the very tool of the human mind. Truth, fact, belief, all are dependent on the perception of the viewer. So what is perception?
Definition according to one edition of Webster's Dictionary: SEE PERCEIVE. Of course, it does. Okay, over to perceive then. Definition: obtain knowledge of through senses; observe; understand.
According to Dictionary.com: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
The common thread? The senses. Observation. All of these factors are linked to the observer and their experiences on the matter. While my mother may see her curtains as fuscha (as what?), I only see them as being pink, given my color blind status (and complete lack of understanding as to what in the world fuscha even is).
In essence, all that can be accomplished by trying to "prove" something to someone else is the confusion associated with wondering why your compatriot, who you thought to be so sane and knowledgeable just moments before, is completely and utterly off their rocker. :D
This blog is cross-posted on http://doorstoknowledgeibblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/facts-are-usless-prove-ithuh.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Search for Moral Laws and Norms
This week's blog topic is as follows: “Our technologies establish the truth of many of our scientific laws.” Is there any comparable means of establishing moral rules and norms?
So of course the first task at hand is to make sure we understand the topic itself. The way I see it, the first quote states that the technologies we use on a daily basis (such as computers, cranes, even elevators) demonstrate the truth in many of the proposed scientific laws (such as gravity and Newton's laws of motion). These technologies show us each time they are in operation that we do know enough about the natural laws of the physical universe to construct tools in it that follow our rules and do what they are intended.
So the next part is the question itself. Just as technology demonstrates our understanding and operation of our scientific laws, do we have a comparable means for the finding/demonstrating moral rules and norms? Just as we can prove by dropping an apple that gravity exists (albeit the part about how it exists, i.e. as either a force of attraction, a result of curved space-time, or some other function is irrelevant in this case), can we provide a solid 'fact' that morals exist by a predetermined set of rules and guidelines? What are morals anyhow? After much discussion in class, we have come to the conclusion that morals are a person's personal sense of how to determine right and wrong. If that is so, then how can there be moral norms? Norms are things that we do during an 'ordinary' day that tends to be more routine than anything else. For example, my dad always wears pants. If he decided to wear shorts one day, no matter what the weather, it would be outside his norm. But as you can see by this example, norms are very specific and particular to the individual. What may be a norm for me, may be completely abnormal for someone else. It's all circumstantial.
Moral rules are another area that is difficult to say has an established set of boundaries. What can be considered a 'rule'? These are, once again, a personal phenomenon generated by personal values and beliefs. In essence, morals are our personal values and beliefs. So we can't really have an established set of moral rules and norms. That would be similar to comparing the rules of a corporate business whose intent and purpose is to construct buildings to the rules of a business whose intent and purpose is to restore nature reserves. The rules and norms are going to be vastly different. Even in the same field of profession, these rules vary. JC Penny's and Macy's are both department stores, but they have different selection process for merchandise and probably for different rules for their employees as well. The core of the business is the same, but that doesn't make them the same. The same concept can be applied to the establishment of moral laws and norms. Everyone has some set of moral laws and norms. The cores of these laws and norms are same in the essence that they are all their to govern our actions and beliefs. That does not, however, mean they are the same from individual to individual.
This blog is cross-posted from http://doorstoknowledgeibblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/search-for-moral-laws-and-norms.html
So of course the first task at hand is to make sure we understand the topic itself. The way I see it, the first quote states that the technologies we use on a daily basis (such as computers, cranes, even elevators) demonstrate the truth in many of the proposed scientific laws (such as gravity and Newton's laws of motion). These technologies show us each time they are in operation that we do know enough about the natural laws of the physical universe to construct tools in it that follow our rules and do what they are intended.
So the next part is the question itself. Just as technology demonstrates our understanding and operation of our scientific laws, do we have a comparable means for the finding/demonstrating moral rules and norms? Just as we can prove by dropping an apple that gravity exists (albeit the part about how it exists, i.e. as either a force of attraction, a result of curved space-time, or some other function is irrelevant in this case), can we provide a solid 'fact' that morals exist by a predetermined set of rules and guidelines? What are morals anyhow? After much discussion in class, we have come to the conclusion that morals are a person's personal sense of how to determine right and wrong. If that is so, then how can there be moral norms? Norms are things that we do during an 'ordinary' day that tends to be more routine than anything else. For example, my dad always wears pants. If he decided to wear shorts one day, no matter what the weather, it would be outside his norm. But as you can see by this example, norms are very specific and particular to the individual. What may be a norm for me, may be completely abnormal for someone else. It's all circumstantial.
Moral rules are another area that is difficult to say has an established set of boundaries. What can be considered a 'rule'? These are, once again, a personal phenomenon generated by personal values and beliefs. In essence, morals are our personal values and beliefs. So we can't really have an established set of moral rules and norms. That would be similar to comparing the rules of a corporate business whose intent and purpose is to construct buildings to the rules of a business whose intent and purpose is to restore nature reserves. The rules and norms are going to be vastly different. Even in the same field of profession, these rules vary. JC Penny's and Macy's are both department stores, but they have different selection process for merchandise and probably for different rules for their employees as well. The core of the business is the same, but that doesn't make them the same. The same concept can be applied to the establishment of moral laws and norms. Everyone has some set of moral laws and norms. The cores of these laws and norms are same in the essence that they are all their to govern our actions and beliefs. That does not, however, mean they are the same from individual to individual.
This blog is cross-posted from http://doorstoknowledgeibblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/search-for-moral-laws-and-norms.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
