Determining the truth without specialist knowledge

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

With the exception of the exceptionally intelligent, few of us are so inclined as to be able to specialise in more than a few central fields. These usually consist of our career. A pilot studies aeronautics, and might also be knowledgeable in the history of flight, as well as certain scientific theories pertaining to weather and flight. Or more classically, a scholar will know about his specific field, such as philosophy, or economics, or history, but rarely does he have the knowledge to make a substantiated and definitive statement about anything significant outside his field.

To bring this now to what concerns me: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Climate Change; Medicine; the History of various nations (and why some triumph and others fall behind); the various, seemingly valid Capitalist models for Monetary theory and how important it is; the nature of Art; and so on, and so on. There are many, many things which are quite important to any normal person wishing to survive today’s intellectual climate, which seem to require a specialist understanding of all of these fields. But how does one find the time for all of them?

The best answer I have come up with is that one just chooses the ones that are most important to one’s life and find the time to study them. But how does one know when one has got to the point where one has a sufficient knowledge of the subject? The whole point is that one is ignorant of the subject. How, without knowing, for example, the full history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can one know that one has an unbiased, fair, objective understanding of the issue, one sufficient enough to start making any moral and political claims about the issue?

This troubles me greatly, as one can enter any one of these arguments, with both sides of the argument holding the same thought: “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If only he’d read the books I’ve read on this subject, and knew the history I knew, he’d know why he’s wrong”.

2

I was thinking about this yesterday. Like you, I have a huge hunger for knowledge, but am confronted constantly with the reality that my time is limited and I am not likely to acquire all the knowledge necessary to understand and debate these topics. If you think about this in market terms, in the same way that we pay others to do work for us so that we have time for our work (e.g., preparing food, providing power, etc), the best option is to pay others to do the research for us and summarize it in the best way possible… so all I’ve really said is to read books. Rating systems like that on Amazon help you pick out and verify the quality of books, but it still doesn’t help you verify your knowledge. One possibility is to check out an online lesson plan, like MIT’s OpenCourseWare. You could pick out a course on a topic of interest, and attempt to answer their homework/exam questions. Then at least you’re using a pre-existing gauge for knowledge, although there’s a potential for bias.

Wikipedia and their other projects (e.g. Wikibooks, Wikiversity) have this exact goal in mind, but it’s a goal for the distant (undefined) future. It’s more of a guide for writing than a planned goal.

3

The best answer I have come up with is that one just chooses the ones that are most important to one’s life and find the time to study them. But how does one know when one has got to the point where one has a sufficient knowledge of the subject?

Sufficient for what purpose? I do not believe that I have sufficient knowledge of the nature of the human computational apparatus regarding morphophonemic transformations, for my purpose of understanding the nature of human language sound systems. I do believe that I have enough knowledge of the nature of lasagna noodles to make the correct choice among 4, given my value system. Barilla.

The whole point is that one is ignorant of the subject.

Wait, what??! How the F did that happen? I mean, you’re not equating “not omniscient” with “ignorant”, are you?

How, without knowing, for example, the full history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can one know that one has an unbiased, fair, objective understanding of the issue, one sufficient enough to start making any moral and political claims about the issue?

But Shirley you have some knowledge of the matter; can you say what you know for sure and what you really don’t know? (Example, do you know whether Hamas has been bombarding Israel with rockets for at least a week? If not, stop reading the Guardian).

This troubles me greatly, as one can enter any one of these arguments, with both sides of the argument holding the same thought: “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If only he’d read the books I’ve read on this subject, and knew the history I knew, he’d know why he’s wrong”.

You’re assuming a rational discussion. Good. You should ask your discussion partner for the justification for his conclusion. Some part of this justification is likely to be posture, and some will be fact or putative fact. Although it is easy to go after the posture parts of an argument, it’s not all that difficult to go after the empirical underpinnings. Especially if you have a long-term written-form debate as opposed to nattering over a beer, you can reasonably make intellectual demands.

Case in point, there are many, many people who have nutty ideas about animal language, which cannot be substantiated by consultation of anything resembling primary published data. Typically, a non-specialist will defend their position by appealing to the authority of a specialist (like Roger, who happens to support their position). The specialist has to justify their position in terms of some perceptible fact – what is that fact? Very often, people not in the know cannot distinguish between a plain report of fact, and a conclusion. Even people in the know have that problem.

I abjure rating systems, especially “anyone can vote” systems. My general metric for judging credibility outside of my area is the palpable presence of evidence, and this entails checking up on sources. Of course, you do have to ask “Do I really care?” Is it important enough that you will go to the local university library and scrounge up Information and Control vol. 1? Is the author reporting a fact presented in a source (good stuff), or presenting their own conclusion about an article without supplying the necessary evidence that the conclusion is supported in the paper.

4

But how does one find the time for all of them?

In my experience, it isn’t so much the quantity of material read, so much as the method by which one acquires knowledge; that is to say, the way in which one goes about integrating newly acquired knowledge into the totality of his already existing knowledge. I have found, for instance, that it is somewhat futile to attempt to memorize concretes. For instance, I could spend time memorizing the fact that the German mark was worth 2.38 US dollars in 1913, 7 cents in 1918, and 1/100 of a cent in 1922. Or I could just remember that the German financial authorities were reckless and irresponsible in the post-WWI years, allowing the money supply to expand while blaming Germany’s problems on the Treaty of Versailles. I could spend time understanding Utilitarianism by breaking it down into the four different schools that argue what ‘utility’ is: Welfare Hedonistic Utilitarians, Non-Hedonistic Mental State Utilitarians, Preference Satisfaction Utilitarians, and Informed Preference Satisfaction Utilitarians; or I could just remember that Utilitarianism is essentially the altruistic doctrine that subordinates the individual to the collective.

I have found that an organized, rational, and methodical approach to acquiring knowledge consists of the integration of abstraction with fact. When reading (anything, from fiction to non-fiction to newspapers) I first try to understand what is being said concretely, then I try to understand the principles behind the concretes. Only then do I feel like I have learned something useful. I’m sure everyone here has read some newspaper editorial and said something like, “Heh, this writer must be a pragmatic collectivist operating on altruistic principles” or something to that effect.

Certainly there are obviously fields way beyond the scope of anybody except a specialist, such as how to construct a particle accelerator. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand, in principle, the purpose of the Large Hadron Collidor, and its function in theoretical physics. Perhaps the answer to your question lay in knowing when a particular piece of knowledge is specialized in nature, and when it is accessible in a more general form. Focusing on the latter in most areas of study is preferable.

Lastly (not to drive a point home that I’ve made elsewhere): I think fiction has a really large role in this. Non-fiction tends to be specialized. For instance, I have been skimming Bernard Lewis’ book What Went Wrong, which deals with many concretes. At the same time, I have been working through Hugo’s Toilers of the Sea. The latter has taught me an inestimable amount more than the former, it is more complete knowledge, more fulfilling. Art tends to express universals, which are more helpful in the acquisition of new knowledge. For instance, go to an art museum and pick a painting that you like. Sit down in front of it with a notepad for a half-hour, and write all your observations about the painting. Afterwards you can compare to some art critics comments on the same work. Typically, artists have a reason for everything that they do. Deconstructing the technique, style, and iconography in a painting can be a rewarding experience (it feels great to figure out what was so great and innovative about the Mona Lisa). Philosophy performs a similar function, that’s why I like to read philosophy texts also. By nature, such texts are not really specialized, they just require the capacity for thought (unless you’re reading some garbage linguistic philosopher).

5

To bring this now to what concerns me: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Climate Change; Medicine; the History of various nations (and why some triumph and others fall behind); the various, seemingly valid Capitalist models for Monetary theory and how important it is; the nature of Art; and so on, and so on. There are many, many things which are quite important to any normal person wishing to survive today’s intellectual climate, which seem to require a specialist understanding of all of these fields. But how does one find the time for all of them?

The best answer I have come up with is that one just chooses the ones that are most important to one’s life and find the time to study them. But how does one know when one has got to the point where one has a sufficient knowledge of the subject? The whole point is that one is ignorant of the subject. How, without knowing, for example, the full history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can one know that one has an unbiased, fair, objective understanding of the issue, one sufficient enough to start making any moral and political claims about the issue?

There is no shortcut. My approach has been to ask those who are more knowledgable in a field of my interest for good reading recommendations, if necessary, from each side. Then I read the selections trying to integrate this new knowledge with what I already know is true (when possible). Is it reasonable what they are concluding from the data they present as evidence? Knowledge of correct epistemology and familiarity with the rules of logic is very helpful in judging other’s arguments (their application of reason) no matter what the subject - so I would invest in study of those (I am still working on this myself).

Whether you know enough to make a conclusion is something that you have to judge for yourself. If you are still unsure ask more questions/discuss your thoughts on the subject with a more knowledgable person. You will be surprised how many authors/experts will respond to you (often the subject is their passion!). Also we have much easier nowdays with the internet and various forums.

No short cut, sorry :smiley:

6

(…If not, stop reading the Guardian).

Hah! I thought that was funny.

7

I’m sure everyone here has read some newspaper editorial and said something like, “Heh, this writer must be a pragmatic collectivist operating on altruistic principles” or something to that effect.

Daily! :smiley:

8

Sufficient for what purpose?

I suppose, sufficient to the point where you can say, “Yes, I understand this and, taking as a given that I can correctly apply philosophy to this situation, any valid philosophical point I make here will be perfectly sound” without fear of contradiction.

Wait, what??! How the F did that happen? I mean, you’re not equating “not omniscient” with “ignorant”, are you?

Excuse me, I didn’t mean to equate the two. As far as ignorant, it could mean literally ignorant (for instance, I don’t know the first thing about how to perform neuro-surgery) or ignorant enough as to be considered unable of forming a valid opinion on the subject (for instance, I kind of vaguely know what Godel’s Theorem is supposed to be, but such a vague amount about it and the field of Maths in general that anything I say about it would be not worth considering).

But Shirley you have some knowledge of the matter; can you say what you know for sure and what you really don’t know? (Example, do you know whether Hamas has been bombarding Israel with rockets for at least a week? If not, stop reading the Guardian).

Ha ha, I wouldn’t touch that rag. It’s good for one thing: photos. Yes, I know that the bombing has been going on. And I can make a bunch of statements about whether it’s right or wrong, but they’re almost always prefixed with an “if my understanding of this is ‘X’ then it would be immoral of Israel not to retaliate”. I guess, I understand it enough to certainly know that Israel has the right to defend itself, but not in anything more specific than that.

To take the ongoing topic on the issue in another section of the forum: I’ve lurked along with that thread, following it, and I think both sides make valid points. However, I can’t post in the topic either way, because I don’t really know what I think of the subject, because I just don’t understand it. It’s so complex, all the political ties, the history of them, the actions, the responses to those actions, the responses to those actions, on and on. All the different parties involved, and the history behind them, and the people that fund them. Of course, you read some books which have compiled this for you, but how can you say that your books are better than those books (assuming a basic level of shared respect for things like Logic and evidence amongst all the authors)?

I abjure rating systems, especially “anyone can vote” systems. My general metric for judging credibility outside of my area is the palpable presence of evidence, and this entails checking up on sources. Of course, you do have to ask “Do I really care?” Is it important enough that you will go to the local university library and scrounge up Information and Control vol. 1? Is the author reporting a fact presented in a source (good stuff), or presenting their own conclusion about an article without supplying the necessary evidence that the conclusion is supported in the paper.

So the evidence is the thing, eh? That’s a novel idea you have there. :smiley: Well, I’ll try to be more pro-active on the ‘show me your sources’ front in future, but as you say, it’s very difficult in oral discussion. Maybe I need to be more strict with myself, in making sure that I am really in touch with the evidence, and not, as you say, a report of it. But that said, I cannot very well go chase up every source in every book I read, can I? The very point of buying it was so I would not have to.

But then, if the writer articulates the argument and proof which is more thoroughly substantiated with a greater set of data and more explication in the source, then I suppose this isn’t a problem, and I can just read the book without fact-checking everything.

For instance, I could spend time memorizing the fact that […] or I could just remember that […]

Indeed, one could. My only problem is that in an argument, one is challenged to provide the proof for ones argument, and one does need to have in ones head, a certain repository of concrete data which can bash out to support the abstract argument. This is one of the things I think the intellectuals at the ARI, like Dr Brook and Dr Ghate do so well. Although, they do do this after having prepared the talk they’re giving.

I’m sure everyone here has read some newspaper editorial and said something like, “Heh, this writer must be a pragmatic collectivist operating on altruistic principles” or something to that effect.

I know what you mean, I’ve done that too. And the method you describe is very good. I shall use it next time I am studying an article or piece of non-fiction.

Perhaps the answer to your question lay in knowing when a particular piece of knowledge is specialized in nature, and when it is accessible in a more general form. Focusing on the latter in most areas of study is preferable.

I think I can tell the difference between the two. What I want, however, is the certainty to say that I understand this subject and can discuss it with 80% of rational men. I don’t need the level of knowledge that those specialist 20% of men possess, those men for whom the issue must be dealt with in far greater depth, not because any essentials have been left out by that 80%, but because the subject is just so interesting and engaging. I am interested in the abstract essentials, and the facts essential to understanding those essentials – essentially.

For instance, go to an art museum and pick a painting that you like[…]

I like that a lot. I shall use that next time I’m in a museum. As for the value of Fiction, I find it very useful in integrating Non-fictional knowledge, but I can’t use it in and of itself as a better resource. Obviously, not only is it likely to have fewer actual facts about the subject, however good the abstract essentials it picks out are, but those abstract essentials, I find, just aren’t as fulfilling without knowing the facts first. For example, Les Miserables and A Tale of Two Cities would have been far less impacting if I didn’t have even my rudimentary understanding of La Revolution and the ‘Reign of Terror’, or of Napoleon and the history of the French Kingdom and the following Republic.

Philosophy performs a similar function, that’s why I like to read philosophy texts also. By nature, such texts are not really specialized, they just require the capacity for thought (unless you’re reading some garbage linguistic philosopher).

You mean the Philosopher is like your appreciator of Art, looking at and deconstructing life into a meaningful form?

Sophia: Hehe, yes, that is very much my method up until now, the questioning. I’m just hoping to develop something I can do somewhat more independently. Although, I don’t know why I should need to. It isn’t like the people who are willing and able to lend me some time to answer some introductory questions today, are going to suddenly disappear tomorrow. I guess I just shouldn’t be afraid of admitting my ignorance. But you know this male-pride thing…

9

I guess I just shouldn’t be afraid of admitting my ignorance. But you know this male-pride thing…

:stuck_out_tongue:

One of my fav life wisdoms is:

“Showing off is the fool’s idea of glory.”

Bruce Lee

It sort of applies…

I know that you probably meant this only half seriously (because I have seen you asking questions quiet openly). But, in your case particularly, your youth is giving you a lot room in terms of ignorance at this point, even on rather important topics, not being a negative reflection. It is your inquiring mind and an intellectual honesty with which you approach reality that matters the most (to anyone - women also~). This applies to everyone regardless of age but you have this additional excuse due to your age. It is the method which matters - because with that knowlege is only a function of time.

10

(unless you’re reading some garbage linguistic philosopher).

Hey buddy, I could take that personally.

11

Hey buddy, I could take that personally.

Sorry David, I didn’t mean it as an attack on all linguistic philosophy. It is a crucial area of study. Just that there has been much linguistic philosophy I have read that is, quite obviously, tailored towards an individual with specialized knowledge. Certainly a contrast with the ancient Greek philosophers, who tended to write on much wider topics (at least the few I have read).

Tenure: I gotta run out for now, I’ll be back later, or tomorrow in the New Year.

12

To elaborate (using my own spin) on adrock’s comments, memorization of low-level facts is not a useful activity. Starting from the learning perspective (“what do I have to do to to be doing things right”), I think you have to really, really know the method of integrating facts in order to form higher-order conclusions, and you need to be totally down with the Peikoff hierarchy in epistemology. (It occurs to be that the referent of that expression may not be self-evident: I mean his OPAR ch 5 exposition of the evidentiary continuum and the difference “possible, probably, certain”). This gives you the tool to properly appreciate and evaluate knowledge in an organized, rational, and methodical way, to understand the relationship between abstraction and fact.

I suppose, sufficient to the point where you can say, “Yes, I understand this and, taking as a given that I can correctly apply philosophy to this situation, any valid philosophical point I make here will be perfectly sound” without fear of contradiction.

Okay. My own zone of concern is empirical: I wonder “How do I know that this is really a fact?” I am very stingy with granting facts and leaving matters to just correct application of philosophical principles, and I never accept anything as “given”, though it may be “earned, by demonstration”. This is not exactly a trade secret, but it’s a truism that I’ve validated over a few years, that a lot of the time, people do not know what they are talking about, and they are interpolating a lot when they make claims. The specificity of the claim helps to distinguish claims justified by reference to nifty ideas vs. actual facts.

for instance, I don’t know the first thing about how to perform neuro-surgery

Don’t be so shy. You know that you have to shave the guy’s head, wait, first get the consent forms signed, then somehown nail the head down, then get some hammers and knives and start cutting. That’s not enough to allow me to entrust my brain to you, but it’s not being “literally ignorant”. You might be literally ignorant about how to produce wiimbi.

but they’re almost always prefixed with an “if my understanding of this is ‘X’ then it would be immoral of Israel not to retaliate”.

Hopefully you don’t actually say that out loud. I should point out that it is very rare that conclusions about non-perceptible facts can be asserted with full certainty, but I also insist that it can be done. If the question of the moment is whether Israel should disband its army, you know that Israel has the right to defend itself, and you need not concern yourself with obscurata regarding the specific property rights of Shlomo X and Mohammed Y.

However, I can’t post in the topic either way, because I don’t really know what I think of the subject, because I just don’t understand it. It’s so complex, all the political ties, the history of them, the actions, the responses to those actions, the responses to those actions, on and on.

When someone makes a specific claim as the right conclusion, it has to be supported by fact. Ask, “what facts support the conclusion?”. When someone makes a claim as to fact, you can ask “How do you know that’s a fact?”. Admittedly, you run the risk of seeming like a fool if you ask the question of the Leverhulme Distinguished Chair in Middle East Politics and History, but still, he ought to be able to actually tell you (possibly in a 50 page response) what justifies his claim as to fact.

(assuming a basic level of shared respect for things like Logic and evidence amongst all the authors)?

WHAT!?!!? Assumption not granted.

Anyhow, not every “what is your evidence” question is a hostile challenge, and some Leverhulme Distinguished Chairs in Middle East Politics and History are willing to speak politely to a newb and actually answer the question.

But then, if the writer articulates the argument and proof which is more thoroughly substantiated with a greater set of data and more explication in the source, then I suppose this isn’t a problem, and I can just read the book without fact-checking everything.

Yes, but it’s unlikely that an author will really do that. I would urge you to cultivate the habit of fact-checking, so that you can better understand when an author is just making stuff up versus when it’s probable that the conclusion is logically warranted by the known facts (even if the article fails to make the argument explicit).

[Oh yeah, it’s that time over there. Happy New Year]

13

With the exception of the exceptionally intelligent, few of us are so inclined as to be able to specialise in more than a few central fields. These usually consist of our career. A pilot studies aeronautics, and might also be knowledgeable in the history of flight, as well as certain scientific theories pertaining to weather and flight. Or more classically, a scholar will know about his specific field, such as philosophy, or economics, or history, but rarely does he have the knowledge to make a substantiated and definitive statement about anything significant outside his field.

To bring this now to what concerns me: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Climate Change; Medicine; the History of various nations (and why some triumph and others fall behind); the various, seemingly valid Capitalist models for Monetary theory and how important it is; the nature of Art; and so on, and so on. There are many, many things which are quite important to any normal person wishing to survive today’s intellectual climate, which seem to require a specialist understanding of all of these fields. But how does one find the time for all of them?

The best answer I have come up with is that one just chooses the ones that are most important to one’s life and find the time to study them. But how does one know when one has got to the point where one has a sufficient knowledge of the subject? The whole point is that one is ignorant of the subject. How, without knowing, for example, the full history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can one know that one has an unbiased, fair, objective understanding of the issue, one sufficient enough to start making any moral and political claims about the issue?

This troubles me greatly, as one can enter any one of these arguments, with both sides of the argument holding the same thought: “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If only he’d read the books I’ve read on this subject, and knew the history I knew, he’d know why he’s wrong”.

If I understand what you’re getting at, to a certain degree we are victims of our time. If lots of people in lots of fields are doing shoddy or dishonest work, then it will be much more difficult for us to decipher truth from falsehood. On the other hand, if more fields of study are generally healthy – which means more people are doing good, honest and solid thinking — then we will benefit enormously from such an environment.

I think that, for example, in many ways science was much healthier in the 1800s and that an amateur reading science publications then would have benefited enormously without having to worry as much about propaganda as we do today. Today a high degree of skepticism is required when dealing with many science issues.

Caveat emptor! You need to gauge your level of trust of the knowledge you are gaining and seek out honest sources to the best of your abilities. This is done by applying reason continually.

Now, on the straight up question, how do you know if you’re right in any time, the answer is by making sure you are in line with the evidence. It’s a constant and never ending process. Never stop doing it. If you are wrong, then you’ve learned something and that is good. If you are right, all the better. The bottom line is reality is what it is and so the truth is discoverable.

14

To elaborate (using my own spin) on adrock’s comments, memorization of low-level facts is not a useful activity. Starting from the learning perspective (“what do I have to do to to be doing things right”), I think you have to really, really know the method of integrating facts in order to form higher-order conclusions, and you need to be totally down with the Peikoff hierarchy in epistemology.

I’ll go back and re-read that. Regarding learning low-level facts however - you think this is not important? I agree it’s not important qua learning facts, but it is certainly very important if you want to be able to speak abstractly, to know that you can prove it concretely and refer to these specific facts? I wouldn’t say someone was making baseless accusations because he can’t provide me with his proof right now and can only direct me to where I might find the proof, but he must at least know where it is, right?

The specificity of the claim helps to distinguish claims justified by reference to nifty ideas vs. actual facts.

You mean the important distinction to learn is between the - and I use this because I saw someone quote that poem on the forum today - ‘Kinda-sorta’ truths and the things are certain proofs; between the things which are probable and certain. Is this why you bring up the point about looking back at Chp 5 of OPAR, the Possible/Probable/Certain distinction?

I should point out that it is very rare that conclusions about non-perceptible facts can be asserted with full certainty, but I also insist that it can be done.

I’m surprised that you say ‘rarely’. I mean, what exactly do you mean by non-perceptible facts and why do you think it is so difficult to assert them with full certainty. Even being a difficult thing to do, I might say it’s uncommon, but to call it rare is to say that there are very, very few people who make assertions about non-perceptible facts (or that your average person has very, very, few), which we can be certain of.

Happy New Year

15

Regarding learning low-level facts however - you think this is not important?

I generally find memorizing facts to be useless per se. However, the paring of fact and higher-level conclusion is very useful. Thus I would not bother to specifically learn that sodium has 11 protons, three electron shells, and one electron in its outer shell. I would not bother learning that the nonfuture of “destroy” in Yawelmani is [c’omhum]. However, I would learn the broader conclusions which these are relevant to plus these facts. I’m certainly not arguing that you shouldn’t learn facts, rather I’m saying that bare facts aren’t cognitively worth much. That’s the distinction I’m making.

You mean the important distinction to learn is between the - and I use this because I saw someone quote that poem on the forum today - ‘Kinda-sorta’ truths and the things are certain proofs; between the things which are probable and certain. Is this why you bring up the point about looking back at Chp 5 of OPAR, the Possible/Probable/Certain distinction?

If I correctly understand what a kinda-sorta truth is. In my business, people have been uttering exaggerations for many, many years, where they claim that {Facts A} show {Conclusion B}, but actually the facts might show any number of conclusions only one of which is B. Looking ahead to what I said about absolute certainty being rare for high-level conclusions, it’s not enough to just show that you have a lot of evidence for B, you also have to rule out alternatives. Speaking of chimps, conclusion-leaping pervades research on signing monkeys, and the promoters of the signing chimp idea have simply not provided any controlled evidence that the behavior is not standard stimulus-response associations. The lack of data is what makes signing ape studies so questionable.

I’m surprised that you say ‘rarely’. I mean, what exactly do you mean by non-perceptible facts and why do you think it is so difficult to assert them with full certainty.

What I mean by “non-perceptible facts” is any fact which you cannot see directly. For example, you can see that a particular pot of water is boiling, or you can see that a temperature-measuring device registers 100 C, but you can’t see the fact that – as a law – water at sea level boils at 100 C. It is a fact, but not one which can be directly perceived, and which much be reasoned to with the help of the things that you can perceive.

There are two main impediments to being able to assert a higher-level conclusion with certainty. First, there are many alternatives that cannot be absolutely eliminated from consideration, as lacking any support whatsoever. Second, there is a tendency to state broad conclusions where the evidence only support a narrower conclusion. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity: the evidence only supported a much more modest conclusion. Even though Relativity is better supported that classical mechanics, it still does not qualify as “certain”, because there is evidence that points away from that conclusion. Unanswered counterevidence means that a claim is not certain.

16

I’m certainly not arguing that you shouldn’t learn facts, rather I’m saying that bare facts aren’t cognitively worth much. That’s the distinction I’m making.

Right, right, certainly, I agree with this. I think it’s painful and not very useful at all to learn facts without knowing what they mean. I think Scott Powell handles this quite well in his ‘History For Adults’. He gets you to learn facts along the way, in a kind of by-wrote way, but only in the context of their specific periods, and only so that you can then integrate them into a meaningful whole, for example, “The foundation of Europe starts somewhere around 451 with the Battle of Chalons, and ends somewhere around 800 with the death of Charlemagne and the splitting of Europe between his sons into distinct sections, roughly being: Austria, Germany and France”.

Looking ahead to what I said about absolute certainty being rare for high-level conclusions, it’s not enough to just show that you have a lot of evidence for B, you also have to rule out alternatives […] [e.g.] The lack of data is what makes signing ape studies so questionable.

What I meant was something more like the politicians answer, but I guess more abstractly, it’s the same thing. You ask, for example: “Has gun crime gone down?” and they answer “Our officers have caught fewer and fewer people carrying guns over the years”. The implication (what my Logic professor loves to harp on about, “Conversational Implicature” and which he thinks it is in fact a valid form of logical reasoning) is that there aren’t as many people committing gun crimes. However, the truth could be that fewer officers are performing stop and searches; or that guns are being better concealed; or that, indeed, fewer people have guns, but the only individuals who have guns are now the type who want to mug people and hold up convenience stores, thus leading to absolutely no decline in the amount of people threatened with and shot by gun-men.

So yes, what I mean by the kind-sorta is the blurry answer, which doesn’t actually make a strong (actually, I question whether ‘strength’ can be applied to logic; either it’s logical or it ain’t) logical connection, but which relies on both parties sharing the same interests which would lead them to drawing their own, personally satisfying, unfounded conclusion. I imagine this is how Obama had such a successful campaign and why most MSM remains in print.

There are two main impediments to being able to assert a higher-level conclusion with certainty. First, there are many alternatives that cannot be absolutely eliminated from consideration, as lacking any support whatsoever. Second, there is a tendency to state broad conclusions where the evidence only support a narrower conclusion.

Certainly, this is difficult, if one doesn’t know how to do it, but surely, once one knows the method, it is no more difficult than any other act of reason. It’s difficulty lies only in how general a conclusion you are trying to reach. Actually, I see you said, ‘Higher level’, so I take it we’re not just talking about ‘at what temperature does water boil’ or ‘do animals evolve genetically or do they inherit the efforts of their parents?’. We’re talking about, as you mention later, much more difficult, highly scientific conclusions, such that they must cover the whole scope of existence - Newton’s laws are very practical within their scope, but there’s still lots and lots they don’t explain.

However, I do not doubt that you think Newton was, rightfully, certain of his views. So, do you mean instead then, that one should learn how to narrow the scope of one’s conclusions to make sure they are precisely fitting to the observations and evidence, and no further?

17

The implication (what my Logic professor loves to harp on about, “Conversational Implicature” and which he thinks it is in fact a valid form of logical reasoning) is that there aren’t as many people committing gun crimes.

It is sorta valid. What it might tell you is what the other guy is claiming (not whether what he is saying is true), but you have to be well informed about the context for that kind of inference to be valid. My perspective is that people should be aware of that kind of reasoning and be able to determine what the other guy literally intends, because abuse of implicature is a common method of smuggling falsehoods into an argument.

We’re talking about, as you mention later, much more difficult, highly scientific conclusions, such that they must cover the whole scope of existence - Newton’s laws are very practical within their scope, but there’s still lots and lots they don’t explain.

However, I do not doubt that you think Newton was, rightfully, certain of his views.

As a matter of fact, he was not, and at some points he retracted implications of certainty. Stephen Speicher brought forth the relevant quotations in his last visit to HPO in about 2004. What is more important is that “certainty” is not a feeling, so it would not matter if Newton felt certain or didn’t feel certain, it is an objective relationship between a proposition and evidence.

Whether you are considering a political question or a scientific one, it is important to understand that man usually has to made a choice based on what he knows now. Thus we need not inquire into whether Hamas-supporting goat-hearder Mohammed Marshad’s great-grandfather did, 100 years ago, purchase a particular piece of land, in order to determine that Israel has the right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks.

18

It’s generally a lot easier to poke holes in someone’s theory than it is to make a theory in the first place, anyway–which is why most people prefer polemics to actually doing anything. I try to remember to devote at least some of my time to at least attempting to draw conclusions off what little data I have.

I, like David, find that memorizing facts is virtually useless–especially when it’s often so easy to look them up. Much better to know where and how to look and how to evaluate sources once you find something.

That, and I haven’t found a lot of specialized knowledge to be necessary to defend fundamental issues. Oh, sure, more data can strengthen your case, but if someone isn’t convinced after the fourth or fifth way of supporting the same argument, I’m not sure that the four hundredth is going to be any help in changing their mind. Convincing someone that man has volition rests on a single fact that they can easily observe for themselves. Convincing someone that a new cancer drug has a slightly improved remission rate vs. this other treatment program for people with this specific type of cancer over the age of 60 requires boatloads of data. It’s not the same thing.

That’s among the reasons why arguments should be phrased in terms of fundamentals–if you’re an Objectivist arguing about global warming, it’s futile to try to argue about the meaning of tenths of a degree in average temperature differences measured over continents. The point is that forcing people to behave certain ways over and against their own judgment is WRONG–it doesn’t matter whether the earth is warming or not, it will STILL be wrong.

Once I realized that, I stopped caring about the climate science, because there’s no data that could change my conclusion. This is also why I don’t even make a pretense of following the news any more–all it does is make me depressed and pissed off over things I can’t control–and I get even more depressed and pissed off when I realize I can predict the events just from hearing things like “did you hear about the latest in the Gaza strip?” “Let me guess–Palestinians shot at or otherwise attacked Israelis, who retaliated and are now being criticized for it?” “You’ve been reading the news?” “Not a bit.”

All that stuff pales in importance next to the vital tasks of finding a job, working on my novel, trying to get into college, and even things like cooking dinner and doing laundry. There just aren’t enough hours in a day.