Sakari Jukarainen
Itäkeskuksen lukio
Opettaja Liisa Franssila-Ylinen
4.
Human
beings have a natural thirst for knowledge and understanding to some
extent. At first this may have been just for survival and comfort, but
these days some even say that knowledge has an absolute value. The
question is: How should we approach truth and certainty? Through what is
possible for a human I would say. As Hume has shown us, we cannot be
absolutely certain of things. Truth should be defined fallibilistically,
for it is the only way we can define it fruitfully as I see it.
Knowing is justified belief.
Justification comes from the coherence of beliefs and the correspondence
between reality and them. Though to test a propositions correspondence
with the world, we need a coherent system of propositions. Just like in
the Neurath's ship analogy. If we are to rebuild our boat at sea, we can’t
take off too many parts or we will drown. In the same way we can’t test a
propositions truth without the support of other propositions.
One
could say that in modern sciences we are closer to truth than ever. I can
agree on that if we take a somewhat pragmatic viewpoint. A physicist like
Einstein sees that there is something wrong with the current theory. Then
he makes a new hypothesis that he tests to the best of his knowledge,
according to the falsification thesis. As far as no one in the science
community can’t falsify the hypothesis, it can be considered as true for
now. The ultimate virtue for a model of the world, say Newtonian physics,
is how good it works or how accurate predictions it produces. Newtonian
physics predicts things accurately in some conditions, not in other. The
theory of relativity on the other hand produces more accurate predictions
in more conditions, thus it’s more closer to truth than Newtonian physics.
This applies not only to physics but to every aspect of human life.
Thinking is predicting, as a pragmatist would say. We want for our models
of the world to be as accurate as possible.
When
talking of an amoeba we could describe its spiritual life simply as
reacting to certain stimulus with a certain reaction, if p then q. However
Humans have the great ability to make models, test them and abandon the
bad ones. We are so persistent and adaptive because of this. And it can be
seen as the inception of our spiritual life, not working merely on the
principle if p then q like an amoeba. The human quest for truth may never
be complete, but by making new theories and hypotheses, and ruling out
false ones, we sure are getting closer.
