Lubna wrote:
> The only truths we can claim to exist are scientific ones, such as "the
> world is round", and not flat. I'm not an empericist, nor a die-hard
> rationalist, however, I think truths exist between these categories, such
> that if you want something to be true for you, you can believe it as
> such, but then ... it is only a belief and not a truth. The world is full
> of belief systems, so to agonise over whether any of them are truer than
> the next, is futile, because that is not an issue. Ideological beliefs
> are not truths, merely claims to truth.
But is the statement "the only truths we can claim to exist are scientific
ones" not also an ideological belief? And what is a "scientific truth"?
The system of things accepted by scientists as "scientific truths" changes
throughout the history of science. And what is it that convinces _you_ that
the world is round? Is it not because you've been taught that it is
a "scientific truth" by sources that you accept as "authoritative"?
I am not making these remarks in order to question the validity of empirical
or scientific truths. Rather, I disagree with the claim about the easy
distinguishablitlity of truths we can in some obvious way "claim to exist"
and others that it is supposedly futile to "agonize about". I would say that
the only kind of truth probably not subject to much agonizing about is whether
or not one's cat sleeps for 14 hours. Everything else is profoundly subject
to agony, and I would perhaps argue that these agonies are the cornerstone
of all culture, society and meaningful activity.
-m
> The only truths we can claim to exist are scientific ones, such as "the
> world is round", and not flat. I'm not an empericist, nor a die-hard
> rationalist, however, I think truths exist between these categories, such
> that if you want something to be true for you, you can believe it as
> such, but then ... it is only a belief and not a truth. The world is full
> of belief systems, so to agonise over whether any of them are truer than
> the next, is futile, because that is not an issue. Ideological beliefs
> are not truths, merely claims to truth.
But is the statement "the only truths we can claim to exist are scientific
ones" not also an ideological belief? And what is a "scientific truth"?
The system of things accepted by scientists as "scientific truths" changes
throughout the history of science. And what is it that convinces _you_ that
the world is round? Is it not because you've been taught that it is
a "scientific truth" by sources that you accept as "authoritative"?
I am not making these remarks in order to question the validity of empirical
or scientific truths. Rather, I disagree with the claim about the easy
distinguishablitlity of truths we can in some obvious way "claim to exist"
and others that it is supposedly futile to "agonize about". I would say that
the only kind of truth probably not subject to much agonizing about is whether
or not one's cat sleeps for 14 hours. Everything else is profoundly subject
to agony, and I would perhaps argue that these agonies are the cornerstone
of all culture, society and meaningful activity.
-m