"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the "esprit de divination"). What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
Questions & issues to consider:
A) Keeping in mind our readings and discussions from the first part of the school year, what do you make of this question? Analyze it in terms of the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief. Is the Edge question a valid question?
B) As you think about it and analyze it, what thoughts and ideas does it spark about the relationships between those concepts (i.e. knowledge, justification, truth, and belief), as well as the concept of proof?
C) What does it mean to "prove" something? What is "proof," as it seems to be used here? What constitutes proof (and not just in a strictly mathematical sense)? How is the concept of proof related to the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief?
D) What does the question seem to imply about the nature of belief? the nature of truth? Why isn't the word "knowledge" used in the question?
[Please note that you are NOT being asked to answer Edge's question. Appropriate comments should focus on analyzing and commenting on the nature of the question and on the concepts that comprise it.]
6 comments:
The prescribed title I wrote on fist semester was "Belief is what we accept as truth." This was what I immediately thought of when I heard the Edge's question of the year.
Often, belief is something we cannot prove. If we could always prove it, it wouldn't even be called belief; it would be called fact. Knowledge (as I know by now) is defined as justified, true belief. The problem with this definition, though, is that one's justification can make "a fact" true in their eyes while a completely opposite justification can make the opposite "fact" true for them as well. In this way, how are we supposed to know when a justification is actually true, and to whom? The question reads "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" The question doesn't ask 'What do you know is true." This particular phrasing of the question could lead some to think that truth must be proven in order to be true, it can't just be believed. (I remember in class someone saying that having belief in something doesn't make it true, which I'm sure we can all agree on.) I want to know who came up with the definition of knowledge. Whoever did has a lot of explaining to do.
There are several things that we believe, but are unable to prove. Such as the list that we were going through in class. One thing on the list was something about not being able to expose a new born child for however many months. How do we know that exposing a new born baby in the sunlight for the first couple of months will harm the baby? We can say that we have scientific proof, however such proof is a mere probalitiy game. If a majority of babies are harmed when exposed to sun during the first couple months of birth, does that necessaraly make the statement "true?" What justifies or determines a truth? Does belief have a strong enough hold in order to determine what is true? However, belief can be subjective, which would make truth, an objective concept, subjective. Perhaps "truth" incoporates belief, and more importantly justification- solid evidence. But what constitutes justification or solid evidence?
This is an interesting one. According to the definition of knowledge, it must be justified, it must be ture, and it must be believed. However, something can be true even though we don't know it. For example, there are plenty of facts out there that we don't know. I'm discovering new ones every day...
However, I find the part about "great minds can guess things before they have evidence..." especially interesting. A classic example of this is Fermat's Last Theorem. Mathemeticians are trying to prove it, however, in doing so, they are at least temporarily assuming that FLT is actually correct.
Also, most mathematical proofs came about because someone first noticed a pattern, and then set out to prove that it is correct based on logic and reasoning. However, they have the initial idea of what they are trying to prove long before they actually prove it.
I believe that I have had dreams as well as nightmares but I have no way of proving it. None of my senses function to perceive my dreams, and there is no reasonable way to explain how and why they occur or even that they do occur. The only evidence of my dreams are a vague memory of them when I wake up. So vague that in only a few moments after I wake from the dreams, almost all of the details of the dream are lost. The only proof I have of my dreams being real is everyone else reports the same experience of dreams. But the whole flat earth theory shows that just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true.
D) In this question, the nature of belief and truth are closely related and are things that people search for. The question implies that belief can lead to truth. Belief can drive a person to seek the truth that supports their belief. Possibly, if a person were to search long enough and hard enough they may eventually find the information or truth which proves their belief true. Knowledge is not used in this question because knowledge consists of facts or truths that have not been proven false and have been substantiated over time.
I think alot of things are true that cannot be proven many of them being faith related. Faith cant be proven, you just have to have it and i think thats what makes i so powerful. Sometimes its hard though because theres alot of things to question and alot of things that dont make sense but in the end its what you believe that determins weather or not you have faith or believe in something.
I think those that follow beliefs are more interesting then those who stick with straight facts. theres no abstractness or imagination. I think its boring to always anylyze everything ecspecially things like religion. i think we should be more focused on the cultural and uniqueness of beliefs instead of trying to determine which is more accurate.
Post a Comment