Truth: A Quest Not a Journey

[coberst]

Truth: A Quest Not a Journey

Karl Popper is noted for having focused on the scientific ‘truth’ sought by induction; an inductive theory is submitted to empirical facts not to prove the theory’s truth, but for the purpose of eliminating those theories wherein a scientific fact proves the falsity of the theory on-the-spot.

Can such a model be applicable to social and political thought? Absolutely not! (I think)

Social and political thought is a quest and not a journey. Journey implies a destination whereas quest implies the process of searching. There is no destination, no end point, and no terminus for the search when seeking ‘a truth’ for social and political thought. Unlike inductive reasoning as applied to objects, social and political theories are either bad, good or better, they are never ‘truth’ in the sense of the methodology of ‘normal science’.

Social and political thought needs criticism plus dialogue/dialectic techniques as a functioning ‘forever’ process. Induction leads to social and political theories that face, not destruction on-the-spot but destruction by a ‘thousand cuts’. A fact that chips away at such a theory brings the theory’s legitimacy into question in certain areas encompassing the territory surveyed by the theory but no social and political theory can be complete, there are too many facets within the domain in question.

Obviously there are no certain truths, other than this statement, but there is a significant distance between truth for normal science and truth for social and political thought.

[qayak]

Obviously there are no certain truths, other than this statement, but there is a significant distance between truth for normal science and truth for social and political thought.

"Scientists tend to take a robust view truth and we are impatient of philosophical equivocation. . . My essay argues that we should at least be consistent. Truths about everyday life are just as much - or as little - open to philosophical doubt as scientific truths. Let us shun the double standard.. . .

His [Peter Singer] Great Ape Project aims toward granting the other great apes, as near as is practically possible, civil rights equivilent to those enjoyed by the human great ape. When you stop and ask yourself why this seems so immediately ridiculous, the harder you think, the less ridiculous it seems. Cheap tricks like 'I suppose you'll need reinforced ballot boxes for gorillas, then?' are soon dispatched: we give rights, but not the vote, to children, lumatics and Members of the House of Lords. . . . There is no law of nature that says boundaries have to be clear-cut."

(Richard Dawkins, A Devils Chaplain, pg.5)

Dawkins also makes a point that humans are the only species capable of understanding its own origins (evolution), of deploring the moral implications of that origin and fighting against them.

Perhaps, science cannot tell you what is right and wrong, as that is up to the individual, but it can go a long way to clarifying the situation for you.

Ethics, up until this point, has been based on the beliefs of religions from many small, agricultural societies. Today, with a more global society, and religion giving away to science, it should be expected that ethics will change to reflect the new order. There are many scientists wading in on the problem and it will be interesting to see where it stands in 20 years.

[coberst]

gayak

You make a number of interesting and, in my opinion, correct points.