5/24/25:
Ah, back again with more thoughts on this subject of knowledge. I was thinking about trusting what you hear from someone. If someone tells you something, and you trust that person to be reliable, then you believe that person. However, if that person lies to you, you will remember it the next time, and you will be on guard about what this person says. You will not so readily believe someone who has fooled you before.
A society can be built on trust, or it will not be built on trust. If it isn't built on trust, it cannot be much of a society. Think about that for a moment. Commerce depends upon trust. You have to trust so many things to go right when you do transactions with people. A used car salesman may have some trust issues. If you've been burned before by a bad deal on a car, especially when you dealt with a certain individual, would you go back to that individual again when you want to buy a car? Most likely not, unless you enjoy the contest. Some folks might like the contest, but generally you avoid people who cheat you do you not?
I was thinking about this with regard to the news media. Indeed, all of this society depends upon institutions that deal with us fairly, or unfairly. When trust breaks down, the perception is that we are not being dealt with fairly. In such a scenario, a society could find itself in a lot of trouble. Trust is necessary for a society to operate smoothly or in good order.
A criminal can take advantage of your trust. That's why crime needs to be punished. If crime isn't punished, overall trust in our system of justice will be harmed. So what am I getting at? Just that the truth is needed for trust, and that trust is needed for harmony in society. If you want that, then you need to hold the truth as important. Why then is that not obvious? Why does it need to be said?
Just because somebody in authority says something doesn't make it so. That happens too often for me to believe what I hear. That's why it needs to be said. It isn't just me saying it, you know.
Just saw another documentary on Tubi, and this post came to mind. On a search for it on my own blog, there's another one that has gotten a lot of pageviews. Even more than this one. It is here.
10/29/22: Epistemology
Epistemology: The study of knowledge
Or another way of saying it is "how you know what you know".
I come from a place where we can argue about anything, and often do. The arguments could get downright contentious, and so I have done my best to try to avoid them. But people really can argue about ANYTHING. Even the study of knowledge itself. If you cannot agree upon something, it is hard to get anywhere at all in an argument. The arguments can often get emotional because one's ego gets attached. That's a mistake. If one truly loves knowledge, then one does not fall in love with one's own pet theories. A theory is just a theory. Hopefully, that statement wouldn't start an argument somewhere, but where I came from, it COULD.
Even in a fight, there has to be rules. Even if the rules are the rules of the jungle. The jungle has it own rules. He who is biggest, strongest, and toughest will likely win. But, if there is to be a civilization, then the rules can be set up in advance, and everybody is expected to follow them. What happens when somebody doesn't follow the rules? That person is likely to be punished. The same can be true for epistemology. It is a rules-based system of determining what is knowledge, and what isn't. If you get into an argument, there has to be a rules-based system to determines who is right, and who is wrong.
However, if you cannot agree on the rules, then you've got a problem.
What happens when you cannot decide on issues, and not even the rules that determine who is right and who is wrong? You get anarchy. You get the law of the jungle. If you are right, and you are weak, then you might as well be wrong for all the good it will do you. Nobody has any rights in the jungle. There is no law and order in the jungle. It is a matter of who is the smartest, strongest, and maybe the meanest --- who will win any controversy.
There has to be a set of rules. There has to be laws. People have to be willing to follow these. If not, then there can be no order. Starting with this, you have to have some type of agreement on what the rules are, and the willingness to follow them.
The reason I wrote this is that this society cannot agree upon the most basic things. Like the meanings of words. The meaning of anything. Everything is in contention. If we cannot agree upon the most basic things, then how can we go forward? I used this word because it can be a start in trying to end arguments that lead nowhere because the rules cannot be agreed upon, and the very meaning of words themselves cannot be agreed upon. You can start with the theory of knowledge. How do you know what you know? If you cannot agree upon that much, then what's the point?
