“...since there is only one truth concerning any matter, whoever discovers this truth knows as much about it as can be known.”
Knowledge depends on the method followed and its soundness or integrity (hence, discourse of the method of the title...).
“...the method which instructs us to follow the correct order, and to enumerate exactly all the relevant factors, contains everything that gives certainty to the rules of arithmetic.”
So the method is only as reliable as the reliability of the foundational assumptions: that of the ‘correctness’ of the order of ideas in an inquiry, and that of the ‘relevance’ of the factors considered in that inquiry; if those are sound, then the method ‘contains’ ‘certainty’—quotes around everything that needs explaining. It all seems impossible to me: correctness understood in the abstract, relevance understood over and above the factors at issue—both standards (again) about which a meta-judgment must be made.
How can any of this work?
But if you push the account out (as Peirce does) toward the practical, so that the standard is that which ‘makes a practical difference’ of some sort, isn’t that hopeless in a different way? What, after all, could anything practical do for sorting out standards like correctness? (Anthony Appiah in his new book on experimental ethics says as much, quoted in the New York Times Book Review yesterday (I think): even if the neuroscientists figure out which part of your brain lights up when you reason about moral dilemmas like the infamous trolley case, there’ll still be philosophical ethics to do—after all, we don’t decide what is correct by a show of hands.)
I’m less hopeful than I was when I started this part.
Posts
Timothy Chow on the NF consistency proof and Lean
18 hours ago
11 comments:
I thought Descartes based his method off of "I think there for I am", after all thats about as solid of a truth as one could get. He used his proposed method to get there and found it to be solid. I think i don't understand you completely but i am thinking this was all about how you can't know anything. If so starting off from i think there for i am seem like the best place to base everything off of and perhapes D's method is the best suited for meta-judging, since i guess everything is based off of such a judgment anyway.
“...since there is only one truth concerning any matter, whoever discovers this truth knows as much about it as can be known.”
But doesn't everyone think they find the truth behind the matter? How do we really know if that is the exact truth? I believe there can be more then one truth to a matter. Many different things can be right to different people.
I agree with Jen. I think it is possible that there is more than one truth. It all depends on each persons interpretation. The truth will change with each individual.
I believe there is definetly more than one truth on different aspects. But in some respects is it the difference in truth or difference in opinion or thought? We all believe in what we learn in class or wherever but is that truth or just opinion of thought written by someone? It's controversial.
I think that there needs to be a clarification here between value judgments and factual judgments. Of course it isn't true that the color red is better than the color blue, or that pizza is tastier than french fries, or that a snowy day is more beautiful than a rainy day. Those are all matters of opinion, and they differ based on the values that each individual applies to them. But it should be stressed that there are many things which can only admit of one truth. For instance, the proposition that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is equal to 180 degrees is not open to interpretation, it is simply fact. Simple mathematical truths all hold true no matter how anyone feels. Here is another example of a logical argument:
1. Peter is a man
2. All men are mortal
Therefore, Peter is mortal
If the two premises are true here, then the conclusion necessarily follows. I think that the kind of certainty that Descartes is looking for is the kind that can be demonstrated via mathematical and logical proofs. I don't think he's worried about value judgments which are basically opinions.
most of the people that commented this blog have similiar views on the subject. i agree with them. how do we know whats really true behind a matter? how do we know that's the only true
? the truth can be very controversal. different individuals have different points of view on what is true and what is not. how do we get to the truth? how do we not know that we are relying the truth on basic opinions or what we believe to be the truth?
Could it be that there is only one truth to any matter, but that everyone has an opinion that they believe to be true, but in turn is far from the truth of any matter. Lets face it, every time we find ourselves in a discussion with a group of people we forget that we all came from different walks of life and all have different experiences either with the same events and ones completely unrelated to one another, so when we contribute to a discussion we may all have the truth to the matter but it will be our own truth and for the most part the truth varies for everyone.
I like the idea of quantifying your decision making process. There should always be two or more factors with which to create a formula whose solution can only be determined by the external factors that must be plugged into the main equation.
“...since there is only one truth concerning any matter, whoever discovers this truth knows as much about it as can be known.” There is a truth to everyones matters. Meaning that everyone has different matters therefore different truths. Maybe this means that there is no universal truth, but in fact all truth that occurs to all individuals is just that , an individual truth.
I agree with everyone's question about Decartes, there can't be just one truth because we, as humans think differently. Our environments have raised us to think differently about a things.
"......since there is only one truth concerning any matter, whoever discovers this truth knows as much about it as can be known."
i totally don't agree with that, how can one person be the finder of a truth? and how can one know all about it. Even in the medical part of view, if someone find the cure for AIDS, that person might not know everything about it.
I believe that tenure has something to do with the truth. The more time you spend on uncovering say a truth to a fallacy the more familiar you are with the matter therefore considering that others may be in search of the same truth and may have spent equally as much time on it as you have your opinions are bound to compare and contrast because you are two different people, but the truth is the truth and the only difference is between the two people.
Post a Comment