How do we know what is fact and what is fiction? Is there always a "right" answer, especially when we consider that much of what we know may be constantly changing? Is there more room to question the liberal arts than there is to question the maths and sciences? Is everything we know subject to discretion?
After reading the section "How Do You Know?" in our course packet and discussing questions similar to the above within our groups, we came up with a couple of observations.
First off, we all believe that while it is hard to define universal truths, all of us have personal truths that we develop overtime through our experiences. In this context, truth becomes something we can see, feel, hear, taste, or anything that deals with our senses. It is hard to dissuade someone from their personal truths because they have "proof" of its existence.
Second, although to a lesser extent now, we are still studying, absorbing, and utilizing the knowledge and truths of other learned persons before us. From my personal experience, I know I would be unable to last a day in my engineering classes without having previously learned Newton's calculus.
Third, although this might sound somewhat indecisive, we all agreed that some topics such as economics, religion, politics, et cetera have a lot of gray areas. Therefore, things that deal exclusively with these topics should not be labeled as either right or wrong, seeing that there may be many possible solutions and truths.
Finally, one of the remarks I made that we all seemed to have an understanding for was that facts change with evidence and evidence changes with time. Nothing these days seems set in stone. We've learned that we can't live forever on fossil fuel energy and that the burning of these fuels is destroying our environment. We've learned that there are such things as black holes, extra dimensions, and time travel. And we've even learned that Saddam wasn't housing any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as we previously "thought". In my belief though, this uncertainty to truth is actually a good thing. It encourages us to to be inquisitive, to be creative, to never think something complete, and, more than ever, it pushes us to be lifelong learners.
Seeing that I am conducting a research project this semester on the Virginia Tech community, the purpose of reading this article was because it stresses the need to keep an open mind. Any notions, stereotypes, or prejudices I might have coming into this project I should be open to changing as I get to know more about the members of my community and the community as a whole.
Portfolio Draft
16 years ago
2 comments:
Can truth be personal? Isn't truth universal? I can't say, "well I personally don't think that gravity exists because I can't see it". Doesn't everything have a factual base, and it is our knowledge of the truth that changes?
I must have to disagree with you when you say that Truth comes from the senses. I cannot see, smell, taste, feel or hear magnetism, but you know as well as I that it exists and that it is true that opposite magnets attract. This truth has not been known for all most of history, but does that make it any less true?
And for your third point, all those places have truths, but we get hung up on the application of the truths. We do not fully know every aspect of every truth in those areas, but that does not degrade or annihilate the truth, but rather speaks to our lack of knowledge.
So in conclusion I must have to say that there most certainly is truth, absolute truth, but our knowledge of the truths are incomplete, which complicates the applications of the truth in real life. Oh, I think that "personal truths" are a complete and utter oximoron. "Personal knowledge" is far more accurate and isn't inherently self-contradictory. Rebuttal?
First off, I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your original comment.
Secondly, if it pleases you I will concede to your point that the words "personal" and "truth" used together are self-contradictory, and that it might have been more wise of me to use "personal knowledge" or some other phrase to that affect.
However, I don't believe it is far fetched to say that truth depends on ours senses. To take your example of magnetism, sure we cannot "see" a magnetic field, but you can see paperclips and other metal materials as they "magically" jump and attach themselves to a bar magnet, and you can feel a force as you try and join two similar magnetic poles. Frankly, without our senses we would have no clue of magnetism's existence, and without that knowledge, it is no truth to us.
I would also like to reiterate my point that there is no such thing as a universal truth. The main reason for this is that we will never learn all their is to learn. Again, take magnetism as an example. It has been part of scientific discussion since the time of Aristotle. Yet, it wasn't until the 20th Century that we learned it was the electron's spin which was the cause of the magnetic effect. Surely, as we learn more about sub-atomic particles in the years to come, we'll uncover even more behind the mystery of magnetism. Where knowledge is concerned, there will always be mistakes to correct and gaps to fill. Therefore, nothing we can contrive will ever be perfect and likewise will never be universal.
Post a Comment