Moral and Epistemic Relativism

[Kobi]

Being an operationalist rather than a theorist...

I believe there are universal truths.

I believe there is human effort to find ways to actualize these universal truths in and through our human existence.

I believe the human effort to do so is an evolution which is guided by every day life, the decisions we make, the consequences or implications, expected and unexpected, which spur us to think and act and new and different ways.

I believe this process can only occur within a cultural context for to deny this would negate the existence of differing levels of evolutions and opportunity within different societies, and rob them of the opportunity for self development and identity.

Using the example above.....when the agricultural society of our country grew in unprecidented ways, we discovered the concept of a labor shortage. Needing a labor force in a different way meant looking at options, if any, and deciding on what basis an option was chosen. For a number of reasons we resorted to human trafficing to meet a need. This decision may have met a labor need but also resulted in new, never before encountered challenges i.e. who is this new labor force, how is the labor force to be viewed and treated etc.

In time, the arrival of these new peoples evolved into new trends in thought i.e. does one group of humans have the right to buy and sell another group of humans, and what other options are available to fill the need for labor etc.

During the industrial revolution, we again needed an influx of labor. And legalized immigration became the new way to solve labor needs.

It is a process in the development of the human concept of itself and the challenges it faces in living.

If one looks at the rapid development of the economic system in China, the effects on such on its population, and the effects on its culture, the parallels of its growing pains so resemble the American experience it is frightening. It is frightening because rather than evolving into changes and taking its people with it, it is taking western concepts and actions and imposing them on an unsuspecting people resulting in a totally different experience than was intended. It is both fascinating and disturbing to watch.

As Jane Wagner once said....reality is nothing more than a collective hunch.....to which I would add......at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

As Jane Wagner once said....reality is nothing more than a collective hunch.....to which I would add......at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

I'm curious, do you think this applies to the physical world? In other words do you believe that there are any places, any people on this Earth for whom water did *not* freeze at 32 degrees F (0 C)? Do you think that there are any people or any place or any time at which a rock of some throwable weight wasn't subject to force which is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration? Now, I will admit that F=ma (Newton's second law) is an approximation but it is a close *enough* approximation that for most applications we can use it (for example, all space shots are calculated using Newton instead of Einstein because the math is more tractable). However, that equation describes an approximation of a physical reality that was true before Newton came along to explain it. All Newton did was quantify what is happening.

This is the problem I have with statements along the lines of the Wagner quote: it ignores the physical world. There have been cultures (including Western) that *believed* that the Sun orbited the Earth but every single one of them (including this one) was absolutely and completely wrong about that. The belief that the Sun orbited the Earth didn't change the physical reality. The same can be said about, for instance, the cause of thunder and lightning--people have, until fairly recently, believed that this was caused by the thunder god, or the sky god, or what-have-you but at no point was any of that *true* and to say it was 'true for them' really misses the point. Would one accept that the paramedic who is about to give you CPR believes that your heart is in your feet? Would one accept that this is 'true for them' while you die because they are giving you a foot massage? Should one accept that?

The other thing, the contradictory thing, is that the idea that reality is just a hunch is, itself, an epistemic statement. I'm only being half-cheeky here when I say that if the strong epistemic relativists are correct then their argument negates itself. If all of reality is just a collective hunch and not based upon some objective, empirical reality that would hold true even if this universe never contained a single sentient being, then that statement itself is the baseline reality and thus it negates the idea that there is no truth 'outside' our ability to construct it socially.

[little man]

is it just me or did the conversation just shift from philosophical theory to physical science?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by little man

is it just me or did the conversation just shift from philosophical theory to physical science?

no, it didn't. I'm merely asking questions about epistemology using the physical world. I could just as easily asked if there are any *valid* worlds in which Barack Obama is the current President of the United States and that he succeeded George W. Bush who succeeded Bill Clinton. The question I'm driving at is do people believe that there is no objective world 'out there' that is at all amenable to empirical investigation. That's a non-trivial question when talking about epistemology and because (most) people will concede that the physical sciences can actually *demonstrate* their knowledge in an empirically valid fashion, I used those examples.

[little man]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

no, it didn't. I'm merely asking questions about epistemology using the physical world. I could just as easily asked if there are any *valid* worlds in which Barack Obama is the current President of the United States and that he succeeded George W. Bush who succeeded Bill Clinton. The question I'm driving at is do people believe that there is no objective world 'out there' that is at all amenable to empirical investigation. That's a non-trivial question when talking about epistemology and because (most) people will concede that the physical sciences can actually *demonstrate* their knowledge in an empirically valid fashion, I used those examples.

thank you, i see where this came into play now.

i'm interested in both the topic and the discussion, but will admit i'm having some difficulty following. i am lacking in formal education and the types of discussion that come with higher education.

i apologize for the interruption, and will likely do it again when i'm lost.


thanks!

[Kobi]

Hi little man,

These discussions can be very confusing and hard to follow. Sometimes I like to call them word physics i.e. sounds impressive and important with big words and all but whats the bottom line. Can be tricky to say the least.

Jump in, we are all learning together.

Originally Posted by little man

thank you, i see where this came into play now.

i'm interested in both the topic and the discussion, but will admit i'm having some difficulty following. i am lacking in formal education and the types of discussion that come with higher education.

i apologize for the interruption, and will likely do it again when i'm lost.


thanks!

[Kobi]

I believe I said there are universal truths. Humans interpret or describe universal truths based on their perception of reality at a given time. These perceptions change over time as we gather more and more knowledge. Hence we are saying, it appears, the same thing.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, do you think this applies to the physical world? In other words do you believe that there are any places, any people on this Earth for whom water did *not* freeze at 32 degrees F (0 C)? Do you think that there are any people or any place or any time at which a rock of some throwable weight wasn't subject to force which is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration? Now, I will admit that F=ma (Newton's second law) is an approximation but it is a close *enough* approximation that for most applications we can use it (for example, all space shots are calculated using Newton instead of Einstein because the math is more tractable). However, that equation describes an approximation of a physical reality that was true before Newton came along to explain it. All Newton did was quantify what is happening.

This is the problem I have with statements along the lines of the Wagner quote: it ignores the physical world. There have been cultures (including Western) that *believed* that the Sun orbited the Earth but every single one of them (including this one) was absolutely and completely wrong about that. The belief that the Sun orbited the Earth didn't change the physical reality. The same can be said about, for instance, the cause of thunder and lightning--people have, until fairly recently, believed that this was caused by the thunder god, or the sky god, or what-have-you but at no point was any of that *true* and to say it was 'true for them' really misses the point. Would one accept that the paramedic who is about to give you CPR believes that your heart is in your feet? Would one accept that this is 'true for them' while you die because they are giving you a foot massage? Should one accept that?

The other thing, the contradictory thing, is that the idea that reality is just a hunch is, itself, an epistemic statement. I'm only being half-cheeky here when I say that if the strong epistemic relativists are correct then their argument negates itself. If all of reality is just a collective hunch and not based upon some objective, empirical reality that would hold true even if this universe never contained a single sentient being, then that statement itself is the baseline reality and thus it negates the idea that there is no truth 'outside' our ability to construct it socially.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I believe I said there are universal truths. Humans interpret or describe universal truths based on their perception of reality at a given time. These perceptions change over time as we gather more and more knowledge. Hence we are saying, it appears, the same thing.

I must have misread you then. I thought that you were agreeing with the Wagner quotation. My apologies.

Cheers
Aj

[Kobi]

I was agreeing with Wagner.

At one time, people thought the world was flat. It was their truth, at that time. Then, we discovered the world was round. A new truth appeared.

It would be presumptuous for me as a mere human to think everything I take for granted as truth at this point in time is the end all and be all of the truth. At some point, someone may indeed be able to prove a new truth.

Hence, a collective hunch is an agreed upon reality which is subject to change as our knowledge expands.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I must have misread you then. I thought that you were agreeing with the Wagner quotation. My apologies.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I was agreeing with Wagner.

At one time, people thought the world was flat. It was their truth, at that time. Then, we discovered the world was round. A new truth appeared.

It would be presumptuous for me as a mere human to think everything I take for granted as truth at this point in time is the end all and be all of the truth. At some point, someone may indeed be able to prove a new truth.

Hence, a collective hunch is an agreed upon reality which is subject to change as our knowledge expands.

I'm curious, why call it their truth and not their belief? It wasn't true, they believed it to be true but that didn't make it any less a false belief for all that. I understand that people do not old beliefs they *know* to be false but it seems that calling something 'their truth' gives a false belief a pride of place it does not merit. Did a 'new' truth appear or did humans finally get it correct? I would argue the latter. Certainly, all our knowledge (well, very large swaths of it) should come with the proviso of "to the best of our knowledge, at this time, subject to modification without prior notice". However, when that day comes in some knowledge domain or another what would be so wrong about stating "in 2010, humans believed this to be true. They were, of course, wrong about that because...".

[Kobi]

Had to think about this but again, I believe we are saying the same thing using different words.

Call it truth or belief or hamburger, it is still the prevailing agreed upon thought/perception at a given time which is based on our understanding of a certain body of knowledge which is intrepreted in a certain way using certain words and concepts which are agreed upon to reflect the situation.

Simplistic interpretation of above....reality is a collective hunch at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people using a certain criteria by which to evaluate a certain thing.

Our knowledge and the ways we are able to apply it are growing at a tremendous rate. So, all in all, maybe the question should be is there an ultimate truth, an end all be all truth, at which point humans would say yes we are done searching because this is it. Or, is the potential for knowledge so great that our search for truth(s) is an infinite project.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, why call it their truth and not their belief? It wasn't true, they believed it to be true but that didn't make it any less a false belief for all that. I understand that people do not old beliefs they *know* to be false but it seems that calling something 'their truth' gives a false belief a pride of place it does not merit. Did a 'new' truth appear or did humans finally get it correct? I would argue the latter. Certainly, all our knowledge (well, very large swaths of it) should come with the proviso of "to the best of our knowledge, at this time, subject to modification without prior notice". However, when that day comes in some knowledge domain or another what would be so wrong about stating "in 2010, humans believed this to be true. They were, of course, wrong about that because...".

[Nat]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, why call it their truth and not their belief? It wasn't true, they believed it to be true but that didn't make it any less a false belief for all that. I understand that people do not old beliefs they *know* to be false but it seems that calling something 'their truth' gives a false belief a pride of place it does not merit. Did a 'new' truth appear or did humans finally get it correct? I would argue the latter. Certainly, all our knowledge (well, very large swaths of it) should come with the proviso of "to the best of our knowledge, at this time, subject to modification without prior notice". However, when that day comes in some knowledge domain or another what would be so wrong about stating "in 2010, humans believed this to be true. They were, of course, wrong about that because...".

I think this is an interesting question.

I know that my own tendency toward using the word "truth" or even "fact" about beliefs from the past which have been proven untrue has to do with imagining myself in the world of the past while speaking of it.

If I imagine myself in that world, the common "knowledge", the perceived "truth" and accepted "facts" seem to make up the skeletal structure of that world. The "beliefs" of that world would be something I might imagine as soft tissue.

The way you state things there at the end bridges the gap for me - "believed to be true" makes perfect sense to me - though I don't know if I would spontaneously come to these words on my own, nor would I mind referring to those past false understandings as "truths".

I think the word "truth" is also murkier because it is used so much in a spiritual context. If religions are always seeking the "Truth", if people are always looking for their inner "truth" - it's already understood that this definition of truth has nothing to do with physical reality and facts. So in some ways, "truth" might even be its own antonym.