Today in class we introduced Hume as the greatest skeptic of all the philosophers. According to Hume, there is no way to know anything for sure because the nature of the source of our impressions is impossible to determine. Which I agree with, but what I want to know is... what's the problem with not knowing. If I may borrow a phrase from one of Professor DeVitto's previous posts on my blog, what's wrong with a "provisional sense of 'knowledge' "?
As was mentioned in class, we can say that the odds of hitting a billiard ball and nothing happening are highly negligible. So why not follow the idea of rationalism in which we attempt to verify the consistency of our ideas of reality-- for example, every time we hit the billiard ball it moves (the criticism of course being "how do you know it will move next time?"-- which there is no way to know). Why not apply the principal of induction and say that since the ball always has moved, then it always will move (only for cases in which the probability of an event occurring is determined to be 95 % or greater... for more info on the origin of this statistical practice see my first blog). Then Reese's idea can be applied where as long as a 95 % occurrence is observed, it can be called a fact (for the sake of "discourse") while the word "fact" would refer not to the truth of a phenomenon, but rather to our consistent understanding of said phenomenon in lieu of the ability to discern the truth behind it.
That's just my take on the issue. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think this is really insightful and a cool solution to the problems in philosophy! What IS wrong with not knowing? All we CAN know that reality is subjective based upon our own perception. The cool thing about that, is we have a bit of control over our perception. For example, consider a bad mood. If you really want to, you can decide that you dont want to be in a bad mood and focus on things that make you feel better, hence CHANGING your perception from negative to positive. So, we have no way of knowing anything, and maybe thats ok. but what we do know is that reality is based on our perception, and we can manipulate that to make our lives better. so, even though we can never understand the true reality, we can make "our" reality work for us. and if we can make our reality work for us, then why does it matter if we understand EVERYTHING? thoughts?
and like you said with the billiard ball example: in "our" reality we have decided that when something works 95% of the time we consider it fact. that is how we make "our" reality work for us
I completely agree with what you're talking about. I think there's nothing wrong in "not" knowing. I suppose that's just life then, because anything can happen at any given moment. Yes, I know that when I drop a glass bottle from a high place, I won't fully know what will happen until I see the shards splayed across the ground, but I've got a pretty good idea. And if that "pretty good idea" is right each time I drop a glass bottle, then there will reach a time where I stop wondering if it'll happen on the 20th time.
It's just a sort of understanding that humans share with each other, and that understanding, that assumption, helps us carry on with our lives. It's those "pretty good ideas" that also protect us. If I've seen dogs get upset if they're messed with while they're eating, I know I'm going to avoid them. I won't think, "Ooh, perhaps this time this particular dog will be OK with me petting it while it eats." I'll use that assumption, because I don't TRULY know, to save myself from what will probably hurt me.
I hope that made sense. But yes, Hume focusing on what we don't know isn't too important, because no we don't know for sure, but it's our assumptions that keep us going.
Post a Comment