Second Hand Info And Certainty

[eric von kruse]

I recall Rand saying that no one should accept second hand information alone as true. I feel that I'm missing something. Here's some scenerios to illustrate my delima:

FYI - I have never been to Chad.

1. If I view a map with the country of Chad, I shouldn't recognize this as fact?

2. If another person explains that he spent a summer in Chad, I shouldn't accept his assertion as fact of Chad's existence?

3. If I travel to Chad, I can accept that Chad exists.

I'm looking for the Objectist view of certainty, specifically in regard to second hand knowledge. It seems that Rand was proposing that all second hand knowledge is contengent, even if it does not contradict the rest of your knowledge.

[gags]

Do you remember the context in which that statement was made? Better yet, how about a reference to where this was said/written?

[eric von kruse]

I'm at a loss to find the quote. I'm fairly new to Objectivism and in the past 7 months have read: VOS, The Return of the Primative, Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Objectivist Newsletter '66-'71 (I've read about half), and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

For the discussions purposes, let me refrase the first part of my statement - What Objectivist criterion should be applied to second hand knowledge with regard to certainty?

Shooting from the hip, I would say that accepting second hand knowledge with %100 certainty would not be acceptable.

[Groovenstein]

First of all, Eric, it would be helpful to know if you think that certainty is possible.

Speaking of certainty, I'm certain I'm going to watch the Super Bowl now.

[dondigitalia]

For the discussions purposes, let me refrase the first part of my statement - What Objectivist criterion should be applied to second hand knowledge with regard to certainty?

Honestly, that's a subject for an entire book.

Offhand, though, I would say that it depends a great deal on context. What is the source and what do you know of their trustworthiness in this area? What do you know of their character? How does this integrate into the rest of your knowledge? Does anything contradict it? Does anything else that you know support it? Does the alternative contradict anything?

There are a ton of questions that go into this, and you aren't always going to be able to achieve knowledge without validating certain facts for yourself, which is fine. You don't need to know or validate everything you hear when you live in a division of labor society; that's why we have professions. Before you worry about validating whether or not Chad exists based on what other people say, you first need to ask: How much do I really care if I know this?

[eric von kruse]

I do think it is possible to be certain within an empirical basis. But when it is not my experience, is it ever rational to rely on others spoken or written word to attain %100 certainty. Let me illustrate.

-I own a house, I am %100 percent sure that it exists, it's made of brick, and resides in a city in the US, among countless other things. I know this because I have experienced it.

-I have read about a country in Africa named Chad. I have seen published maps the visually define the country of Chad. But I have never been there.

Is it fair to say that after integrating the idea of Chad with all my other knowledge, if there are no contradictions, I can be %100 percent certain that Chad exists?

Furthermore, what if we weren't talking about a country that map publishers stake their reputation on the accuracy of it's maps. What if my friend fighting in Afghanistan tells me that 3 people died in his unit? I wouldn't think he would purposely lie about that, so would I be justified in saying to someone else "3 people died in Xs unit"? Or would I only be justified I saying "My friend, fighting in Afghanistan told me 3 people died in Xs unit".

[DavidOdden]

For the discussions purposes, let me refrase the first part of my statement - What Objectivist criterion should be applied to second hand knowledge with regard to certainty?

The number of hands isn't relevant per se: what matters is what defeats certainty. The simple answer is that if all of your knowledge supports the claim and none detracts from the claim, then it is certain. I have never been to Chad, but I've seen lots of sattelite pictures and astronaut pictures of Chad, and I know a number of people who have been to Chad or were born there. I've read very many books and scholarly articles that pertain to properties of Chad. I also directly know various of these people well enough to know that they are honest, truthful people. In addition, I know that the claim of the existence of Chad is well-known, and that if it were a fabrication, by this point in history someone would have cast doubt on the claim that there is such a place as Chad.

One thing I can do to cast (unreasoned) doubt on Chad is to conjecture "Maybe it's all a massive hoax". But there is not one single thing in my knowledge that suggests that it is a hoax -- it's just an arbitrary idea that I came up with. If you preclude arbitrary claims of the type "Maybe it's not true", and only allow claims of the type "Maybe it's not true because of fact X", then it is possible to attain certainty. Testimony is problematic, because (1) it usually represents a conceptualized conclusion rather than a direct playback of perception and (2) volition can interfere with the reliability of that conclusion -- perhaps the speaker is just lying, perhaps the speaker is jumping to a conclusion.

[softwareNerd]

So, the criteria would seem to be:

• a whole lot of otherwise reliable independent source present the fact (not opinion, but observed fact); and,
  
• it integrates with other known facts
  

[eric von kruse]

First, "a whole lot" is abiguous and should be rejected. Secondly, "not opinion, but observed fact" opens the question - how do you know what is observed fact, and what is opinion?

Is it possible that the principle goes along these lines:

If the source is rationally concluded to be credible and the information does not contradict your knowledge, you can conclude that the information is true.

Note: this does not address what to do if it does contradict your knowledge.

[DavidOdden]

Speaking of certainty, I'm certain I'm going to watch the Super Bowl now.

Man, it's enough to make a grown man cry. It seems I can't get no satisfaction (and they can't get no decent sound system). I guess theft was the topic of a different thread (stare decisis, in a pig's eye).

[Hal]

Most of our knowledge is 'secondhand', but to say it isnt certain on these grounds seems to be a strange use of the word 'certain'. I'm at least as certain that Mars exists than I am that Belgium exists, even though I couldnt even begin to prove the former statement without an appeal to authority (such as an encyclopaedia). The certainty of my knowledge about Mars is derived from my understanding of our social institutions function as a whole (eg the scientific process, how textbooks are written, etc), not from any specific sets of experience which I could cite.

3. If I travel to Chad, I can accept that Chad exists.

Without accepting second-hand knowledge, how could you even know that you'd travelled to Chad? All you know is that you got on a plane that said 'Chad' on the front. Perhaps the country you ended up in isnt the same place that other people are referring to when they talk about Chad?!

I'm certain that Chad exists because I can look up facts about Chad in sources which I consider to be reliable. Personal verification of these facts couldnt increase the level of certainty I have - it doesnt make sense to say that (for instance) someone who goes to Spain on vacation comes back more certain that Spain exists. There was never any rational doubt about its existence, and 'seeing it for yourself' is insufficient to remove the potential for irrational doubt (maybe you just dreamed that you went there!).

Edited February 6, 2006 by Hal

[eric von kruse]

Here's a perfect example. (true story, ironic huh) I met an old German woman who says she was in Germany during WWII. She claimed that the Americans were just as bad as the Russians and the Germans with regard to rape and looting. She said that stories of German citizens wanting to be in American control, not Russian, is propoganda by the US media.

Now I happen to be a novice war history and this contradicts everything I've learned about the US liberating Germany. I can see how the media would not want to upset the "Greatest Generation" with airing stories of these rapes, I can see how this lady wants to discredit the liberators to bring everyone down to the same moral level, on the other hand I also know that war does horrible things to everyone involved.

Finally I concluded to dismiss this lady's account because in my opinion there are too many reasons why she would lie, or fudge the truth about this. Nontheless, the question still remains, what is a rational basis for believing or not believing second hand information?

Would it ever be rational to believe her story on her testimony alone, knowing that I will never amass enough German WWII survivors to validate or dispute her testimony?

[DavidOdden]

Would it ever be rational to believe her story on her testimony alone, knowing that I will never amass enough German WWII survivors to validate or dispute her testimony?

Given the facts which you mentioned, you have rational reasons to doubt the claim, and without better independent evidence. I find it hard to imagine ever having the clarity of evidence that would definitively answer the question, and the proper conclusion to reach, without strong evidence, is "I don't know". It is wrong to take that to the extreme and deny certainty, in cases where the evidence is clear, but when it is unclear, it's wrong to manufacture certainty. There are only two possibilities, in reality: it is a fact, or it is not a fact. There are many conclusions, which express the relationship between the evidence and a description of the fact -- "possible", "probable" "certain", and other adjectives that you can come up with.