Maybe I have too much time on my hands, or maybe I'm just wasting a lot of time. The reason I write that is that I'm watching a lot of videos these days, and some of them are from suggestions from YouTube. One of these suggestions seems to be from a gal called 'Feli' from Germany . She has lived in the USA for five years or more, and she puts up a lot of videos.
One of those videos said a few things that she still cannot get used to in America. Of these things, she mentioned the lack of belief in facts. I found that a bit of an odd thing to say. It did cause me to give some thought on what a fact actually is. In other words, I looked up the dictionary definition of what a fact is supposed to be. Basically, the definition given boils down to what's true or not true.
It would be strange for someone to accuse someone like me of this. Yet that is kinda the direction she is going. The definition mentioned did not go far enough of the philosophy of knowledge, ie. epistemology. Epistemology of the study of knowledge. After all, what IS knowledge? It may well to give it some thought.
Not everyone agrees on what is true and not true. Even in science, the "facts" can change. So, when someone says that you don't believe in facts, you are really saying is that people disagree with what you believe the facts to be. If someone powerful says something that is obviously false, they can punish you if you contradict it. The point being that the thing that is regarded as true is often colored with the effects of authority. A high profile example from history is when Galileo contradicted the Church, and was punished for it. History has confirmed what Galileo said, not what the Church said at the time.
I've written many times on this blog that the truth is a slippery thing. You may not have a grasp of it even if you think you do. The point is don't be so 100% sure about everything. There is the possiblity of error.
I do not find the arguments in favor of authority to be persuasive. So the appeal to authority of some finding of such a number of scientists who claim something like AGW to be true must not the final say on a matter. If they say it, it is also subject to error. Even the best minds have been wrong in the past. That's why we should have the right to disagree. Most would agree NOW that the punishment of Galileo to have been in error. That wouldn't have been the case THEN.
It may well be the case that AGW skepticism is in error. It may well also be the case that AGW is bunk. My approach is from the skepticism side. I'm not going to allow others to do my thinking for me.
It is ironic that she talks about science and such, and that it isn't a belief. Yet, what is the source of her belief in AGW? Is it not also in the way of religion? Or even more so?
What is the most reliable way to truth? Probably not the way it is done today. What is likely today is a lot like what was likely in Galileo's time. In that time, which is considered primitive, authority was being used to suppress free discussion of what was being set forth as truth. For his trouble, Galileo was punished. He was punished for being right.
There would be those who would respond saying that Galileo shouldn't have been punished because he was the true authority. Nope. He shouldn't have been punished because his was the less accepted view at the time, which is what argument from authority did to him.
NOBODY should be punished on that basis. In other words, freedom should be honored. This is the best way that we have at getting at truth, in my opinion. Compulsion has the least place in the quest to arrive at the truth, not the preferred place.
UPDATE:
Germany's recovery from COVID the weakest of any advanced country.
She also included her assertion about COVID, as if it were gospel truth.
Skepticism of what the authority says is essential to a free society. When that is shut down, you can get some really bad outcomes. Like an Adolf Hitler.
That may be playing it rough, but there's that pesky truth thingie again.
No comments:
Post a Comment