Epistemological Relativism

I was having yet another interesting conversation about life’s most difficult or though-provoking questions. I won’t focus on those questions, but I did happen to use the phrase “It is a vexing question”. I’ve decided that I really like that word. I think it captures the essence of those types of questions. You know, the ones that you struggle to properly formulate and then seriously struggle with the possible answers. And I don’t just mean intellectually struggle either. I think “vexing” is one of those words that adds real depth and precision. I nominate it for my word of the week. You didn’t know I had a word of the week? Yeah, neither did I. As an aside, I would show you the etymology of vex, but I don’t have this yet.

EDIT: Here is the etymology of vex, although it is a bit incomplete.

It is quite a challenge to objectively assess information. Think about it (objectively) for a moment. What do we mean when we say that we’re being objective? Aren’t we saying, in essence, that we have this hope that our personal experiences and idealogies do not cast a glare upon the incoming information that may prevent an honest assessment and fair conclusions? However much hope we have, our personal experiences and idealogies do manage to creep into this process. Sometimes this is intentional and at other times it happens despite our best efforts. This is so, I believe, because these experiences and idealogies are what constitute or construct our presumptive framework or starting point. We don’t really have nor can we attain the ivory tower Baconian position that allows us to automagically and fairly assess information in a machine-like fashion. This is not to say that we cannot introduce methods that limit or curb the introduction of result-skewing presumptions, but it is by no means the silver bullet.

In the strictest sense can we really be objective? Our very existence is particular and not general. It is defined by experiences. These experiences, private and public, are particular and shape the way we view the world. When we make the being objective claim I think what we are aiming at is one of two things. The first is that we are attempting to suspend our personal way of organizing and processing information based on our personal experiences. The second is that we have some sort of methods that minimize the effects of experience that obscure objectivity. Which one are you?

I know this may sound a bit postmodern, but we all have a particular way of viewing the world. We all have a particular ways of handling and processing information. To presume that we can magically suspend all that we have been through, all that we hope for is sorely misguided. So how do we step outside ourselves when analyzing ideas, concepts and other forms of information? Well, we can’t. This is why being objective is a difficult task. Obviously we can have justifiable reasons for arriving at valid and consistent conclusions. Although it sounds almost impossible we can use reason and evidence to form propositional knowledge. But doubt still remains. This is okay and it is inescapable. Where it really causes problems, as always, is when we run to either pole. We either avoid the possibility of being objective altogether or falsely presume that we are being objective and certain when, in fact, we are neither objective nor certain. Obviously, this does not mean that there is no independent objective reality or that we can’t know it. Far from it. It is simply the case, as always that far too often we delude ourselves into thinking our conclusions are perfectly objective or, on the other side, we give up because there is apparently no hope for objectivity.

I have investigated, pondered and even recorded my thoughts on the meaning of faith. While I still have a great deal more to say, especially since I’ve said hardly anything, I think Emil Brunner captures best some of my current feelings on the subject. It is quite amusing or perhaps ironic that I purchased his book a month or two ago and tossed it aside because it seemingly didn’t address the issue and now it somehow manages to address my present situation.

Orthodox theologians never seem to notice that they were using the same word to describe two completely different ideas of “faith”; namely the personal act: the obedience of the trusting soul; the impersonal attitude to something abstract: a priori doctrinal conviction. But it is precisely the non-Biblical idea of faith which predominates in the popular mind. The average Protestant’s idea of faith is thoroughly “Catholic”; it is the one which is represented in the Epistle of James. In these few bare words we have indicated the greatest tragedy in Church history. This alteration in the understanding of faith, which turned the relation of trust in, and obedience to, the Lord of the Church into the authoritarian doctrinal belief in the Bible, is the ultimate reason for the perversion and weakness in Christianity and the Church, from the second century down to the present day.

- Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (The Westminster Press, 1946) 39.

If faith is anything less than real trust (not the blind, wishful thinking type and nevermind for the moment how we arrive at that moment of trust) it becomes a leap into a chasm. Sadly, it is this leap that is conjured up in the minds of people when we use the word faith. I know, we still have lots of work to do, but I think this is a good start.

“Christian tradition cannot be obeyed blindly, but it also can’t just be dismissed by the work of a few enlightened theologians working during the span of a few recent decades.”

Although not related to the real argument presented in a post here I think this quote is illustrative of a common problem many of us face. By many of us I really mean all of us, whether Christian or otherwise. We have this tendency to quickly discard old ways of thinking for new ones. We tend to think that we are more enlightened. While I think we have access to improved methods and artifacts, we are still humans within a temporal context. Within that context comes all of the same baggage (in different dress) that those of ages gone were faced with. Perhaps we are more “advanced” because we realize we have this sort of contextual baggage. This realization is by no means the definitive way of arriving at a more accurate view of world in which we live. I’m not saying new ideas should then be discarded in favor of the old. Instead, as always, we must be cautious of both.

I thought I’d share the glyphs that I use to markup the books that I read. Once you get over the initial reaction of writing in your books (which took me a while) it really is quite useful. If you create enough meaningful glyphs flipping through a previously read book gives you immediate access to quotes, important/interesting points and main arguments. Prior to this I had a little notebook that I’d jot down page numbers or other bits of information. This was quite cumbersome. Nevermind the fact that you had to make sure you didn’t lost your notebooks. I use a mechanical pencil or some other erasable medium. I’m sure some people out there want to start reading more books or something like that this year and this may help the process a bit. In order from top to bottom: good or interesting point, main argument, quote, emphasis, questionable or confused, funny and sad. You can use these in any combination to get the desired effect. I think these are lean enough that you don’t have to learn another language and yet meaningful enough to capture your reaction to the books you read. Enjoy.

This may not be anything particularly new and may be obvious to most people, but to me, it was new so I’m going to share it. Ideas are historical. There it is. It is that simple. The explanation and implications are the complex and challenging part. Really though, ideas are formed, altered, or superseded by newer ones within a historical context. This context has social, religious and economic forces that act upon these ideas. Intuitively we know this. We know that we are members of a temporal dimension where events happen in a particular order and have a series of causes. This is important because many presume that ideas, particularly the ideas that they are fond of, always were. This just isn’t the case. Yes, I’m sorry to break the news to you. They presume that, because *they* like them, that most people must like them. Maybe it is because these ideas stood some test of time and reflection. This doesn’t mean that all old ideas are terrible and only new ideas are worth anything of value. It is important to reflect on the notion that ideas were built around societal pressures. These pressures could have been responsible for the debunking of myths of the origins of the universe (Thales), creating political systems to protect people (Hobbes) and a host of other topics. Many of the ideas that we have were born from times which are far removed from us with motivations that no longer apply to us and yet their seeming utility forces us to adopt them as if they always were “proper” and “correct”. I’m painting with a broad brush with regards to ideas since they can be moral values, religious beliefs or natural observations, but I think this initial realization may challenge us to approach ideas we are confronted with care and caution. Unfortunately, this requires some “heavy lifting”.

I guess some religious groups (to remain nameless to protect the guilty) are a bit disturbed by a recently elected congressman’s desire to be sworn in using the Koran (yeah, I know it’s the anglicized name) instead of the Christian bible. A question offered by one subgroup that frames one argument “What book will America base it’s values on, the Bible or the Koran?” An argument by Dennis Prager states that “He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization”. I can understand why some people may have a negative view of the congressman’s disregard for a very old tradition, but this is not what the two quotes above are getting at. They attempt to argue that Judeo-Christian values are the only way towards reasonable ethical behavior. Without a country anchored in these values, in their view, a trend of moral degeneration follows and ultimately the demise of America. What they fail to acknowledge is that they belong to the same group that argues for a natural law or an objective moral standard that is intuitive to most people and civilizations across time. What’s more, they also argue that these moral standards are found in most religious texts. So, I guess I’m a bit confused by they’re assertions and prognostications. On one hand the Koran moral standards are so different that we cannot have an observant Muslim (if he is observant and not pulling a stunt) attempt to live by them and on the other a basic set of moral standards are common to all mankind. Which one is it?

Of course, my wife quickly observed that it would be silly for the congressman to be sworn in using a bible of a religious he does not follow. Do these religious groups simply want an outward demonstration? This sounds like everyone wants to live in the Matrix. Is it that these groups don’t want to acknowledge that most of the people that place their hand on that bible do not believe and have no intentions of following it? Is it really the end of civilization because a man wants, for once, to be honest about what he believes? Again, if it is an issue of tradition, I understand the position, but with words like “undermining civilization” and “which values” it doesn’t seem that is the case.

We also fail to realize the historical nature of the tradition itself. The congressman is being chastized for not doing what so many other have done before him including Jews, Christians, Muslims and Agnostics. But, in the beginning, isn’t this what Washington himself was saying by this act? Wasn’t he making a decision for himself? Was he *really* making a statement about Judeo-Christian ethics and foundations or was it about his personal beliefs? I think we know the answer and yet we pretend that Washington’s personal actions have some sort of prescriptive character to them. I understand the tradition, but these groups need to be clear on what precisely they are arguing.

Yesterday my wife asked me for a child-friendly definition of war at the request of my oldest daughter. I explained that there was no way to translate the wars of mankind into child-friendly language. The loss of life or forceful taking of life found in war cannot be couched in anything except what it is. Intuitively a child knows that in most cases (if not all from their point of view) that the taking of human life is somehow wrong. At best, I think, we attempt to explain our own formulations, contrived or otherwise, of just war theory. We explain to children that as human beings we have a responsibility to protect ourselves (others who cannot) when we are confronted by those that would try to take from us our lives. In general, this is somewhat sound if we assume for the moment we all have a common set of values and a common set of responses for the violations of these values. I know, it may be a stretch and in practice we find that it is. It is more difficult when we approach the bounds of this simple justification as is the case of the current war. How do you explain to a child the notion of preemption? Preemptive action is not a strictly defensive response. This is almost like (and my analogy and logic may be way off) walking up to the bully at school and knocking his block off because he has done it to others and may do it to you. When my daughter wonders out loud how the family’s manage during Christmas it causes me, at least, to reflect a bit longer. I appreciate the freedom that we have and I understand the price that was and is being paid to preserve it. However, I hope that when we go off to war we look at it through the eyes of a child. Sometimes their purity can be a source of clarity.

I’ve been pondering the idea of scientific proof. This post is due mostly because of an interesting discussion I had at work, but scientific proof, knowledge and method has been something I’ve been researching off and on for the past few months. Scientific proof, when in the heads of non-scientists, seems to mean something that most scientists would not entirely agree with.

When we are confronted with a requirement to offer scientific proof of a particular assertion this typically means we must provide some form of evidence (observation, prediction and experiments) that establishes with certitude our view of nature. Here is where, I think, we fall off the tracks. Certitude, unfortunately, is not what a scientist seeks to establish. He seeks to provide a possible and, through experimentation *and* interpretation, probable explanation for the objects in the natural world. Rarely, if ever, do scientists make the bold statements that they possess certainty with respect to their views about nature.

We as non-scientists, toss this back and forth between one another when we are confronted with ideas in nature that we find unappealing. What’s worse is when we attempt to require scientific proof for non-material objects or concepts. Most times we use this as kind of a “Ha! If you can’t demonstrate your ideas scientifically they must be rejected.” I must admit, it works quite well. But when we naively toss out this requirement we fail to realize that within the scientific reasoning process tools such as logic, deduction, induction and interpretation are a common staple. These are the very tools that allow us to reason about all sorts of metaphysical objects. For some reason, we silently (ignorantly or implicictly) allow these tools to be used by the scientist, but do not allow them to be used to establish the possibility of metaphysical truths. This may have something to do with the concept of certainty being so tightly coupled with the idea of scientific proof.

We cannot realistically make use of logic to reason about the natural world and at the same time restrict this class of reasoning when speaking about other objects. Science makes use of premises that lead to conclusions that must be true if the premises are true. So, we either have to reconsider what we mean by scientific proof or allow for the possibility that this reasoning process is available to non-scientists to derive non-certain, but possible and probable knowledge about the world. To this end, this is more or less an introduction to what will, hopefully, be my take on scientific epistemology. I think it is important to understand what scientific knowledge is, how this knowledge is obtained and how it relates to reality.

I can relate to Descartes’ quest to overcome his conceptual framework and the subsequent ideas (true and false) that flowed from such a framework.

Some years ago I was struck by the large number of falsehoods that I had accepted as true in my childhood, and by the highly doubtful nature of the whole ediface that I had subsequently based upon them.

I can appreciate his attempt to explore and possibly overcome those false ideas that had been handed down to him before he had the ability or the desire to question them. His journey led him to battle skepticism as he cast doubt upon virtually everything. While I have not journeyed quite that far (and am in general resistant to this form of radical skepticism) I am definitely on a similar quest. Following a path blazed by thinkers far more proficient than myself I want to discover, if possible, what is true and what is mere opinion. Those before and after Descartes wanted to find out those things that were really true. So it is with me. I’d like to think that as I discover things that don’t meet the criteria for justifiable belief I will, for the most part, toss them out. I can also admit that there are ideas that are as yet unjustified but that I hope will be at some point in the future.

What is curious to observe is how tightly people hold onto ideas that are not their own. By that I mean they uncritically accept what they have been taught or adopt some way of viewing the world that they have not truly investigated. Some would say this is the very epitome of unjustified belieft. What’s funny is these ideas are thought, despsite all this, to be correct or even true. These ideas are nothing more than preferences or hopeful expectations disguised as truth or justified by popularity. Of course there is nothing wrong with preferences or hopeful expecations, but elevating their status to beyond that is a mistake. Look around, listen and you will see yourself or others in a similar situation. You can decide if you want to be a Descartes or part of the mob. To avoid artificial duality I guess a better question is what percentage of you is the mob and Descartes. I’d like to think that the closer we are to Descartes (in the questioning/seeking sense, not pure skepticism) the better off we can be.