My response to this question will be less quantitative and more philosophical. This being a discussion on the accuracy of theoretical reasoning, my answer may seem ironic; it is, however, the only manner in which I feel I can address this question.
Dating back to the time of Socrates, the idea of there being any objective knowledge was the subject of intense debate. A group of teachers, called the Sophists, opposed any such notion, claiming that knowledge differed from person to person, as every individual was prejudiced by his or her own subjectivity. The Sophists prided themselves in their gift of rhetoric, which could possibly explain their motive for embracing subjectivity (if they could make an effective argument for either side, they could convince anyone to see their perspective, changing others’ conception of reality).
Along came Socrates, who rejected their assertions. Socrates agreed with the Sophists to the extent that an individual did not have an objective view of the universe, but he believed that there did exist some form of knowledge to which all beings could know and understand. For example, in a purely mathematical sense, 2+2=4. This equation holds true for everyone (in a mathematical context), and it cannot be argued that 2+2 is not equal to 4. To give another example, Socrates turned to geometry. A four sided figure with equilateral sides and angles is, by definition, a square. That this shape is a square is known to everyone; no one, including the Sophists, could argue that it is not a square.
Socrates referred to these examples as “forms.” I am not able to completely explain that which constitutes a form, but in a modern context it could be likened to “essence,” “concept,” or “idea.” A form, therefore, is that which presents a quality or essence to an object, and by such participation by the object, the form is deficiently resembled.
Socrates’ beliefs have formed (no pun intended) a basis by which human knowledge is possible. He did so through the use of dialectical reasoning, as was later recorded and conveyed through his most famous student, Plato (and so on through his most famous student, Aristotle).
This lesson in philosophy has a purpose; though I have not mentioned Bretton Woods, I feel that the answer to the question has been reached. The same question presented to our class this week was a question that captivated the minds of the ancient Greek philosophers. Through their own logic, they produced the position that certain knowledge can be realized, regardless of one’s subjectivity. And if certain knowledge can be realized, there must inherently exist that which is wrong. If a belief or claim can be held to be correct, there must be claims that can be held to be incorrect.
Now, given empirical data, my man Aristotle has something to say. Aristotle, taught by Plato who in turn was taught by Socrates, held similar belief to his predecessors. He departed their line of reasoning, however, when it came to the natural world. Plato saw the natural world (and pretty much everything physical) as invalid, as sensory observations were subject to the perception of the body, which was limited. Aristotle, conversely, saw the natural world as a source on which all human knowledge was possible. The natural world, though not the basis of knowledge itself, was a potential source of knowledge. This included human interaction. Though humans could change, human interaction, as well as changes in human behavior, follow a pattern that can be measured. Generalizations can be made, but they hold true only to a certain extent; it is not wholly accurate.
From Aristotle’s systematic categorical approach, it is evident that any empirical practice will always have a marginal error. The same is true in any science experiment, all of which not only acknowledge but anticipate probable errors in their evaluations. Just by looking at the technology in the daily life of an American, it is clear that science has not been discarded; it is essential to societal progress and the progress of humanity. Products that are used and, more importantly, are depended on daily. These products (i.e. cars, planes, kitchen appliances) all have malfunctioned or failed at some point. But since that occurs so rarely, it is beneficial to use them until they break, and then to simply replace them.
With statistically proven opinions it is the same. They may not always hold true for every individual, but that they encompass such a vast majority of the collective subject validates their being “right.” While there certainly exists a degree of subjectivity (and probably always will) to any argument, a perspective can be said to be “right” if it represents the majority view to the extent that either the opposition amounts to so little in comparison that it is insignificant, or if an aspect of the dissident has been rendered invalid by established regulations of the exercise in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment