Musings of a Seminarian

Epistemology has progressed (regressed?) to the point that skepticism is the order of the day.

Popper says that Science cannot prove anything.

The world is filled with belief systems that are internally rationally coherent but are without external reasons to believe in any one of them. We cannot know whether they are "true".

I agree that we cannot know they are true in a foundationalistic sense because all "foundational" truths can be questioned.

Humans, however, do not need to know if anything is true. If the skeptics are right then all human beings have lived their lives without knowing anything is true.

On the other hand, humans do have to "do" something. People are born and find themselves, as Howard the Duck, says "trapped in a world they did not create."

Here they sit.

Now what are they going to do?

They may find that there is nothing that they can "know" with absolute certainty but the have to do something, they can't just sit there.

But yes they can, you say, they can just sit there.

Exactly.

Just sitting there is "doing" something.

So, now what do they do?

They have to find ways to make decisions, choices.

If they are "rationalists" they want to find methods of making choices that are rational.

How do you rationally make decisions if you don't have the facts?

That's not a hard question. We do it every day.

What executive, when faced with a decision and a deadline, did not want more information before she made a decision.

We make plans for the future. What career field shall I choose? What shall I major in? What shall I make for dinner? We make these plans knowing(?) full well that we cannot foresee what the future holds.

We cannot say "I'm not going to do anything until I know it is right." We take in data, and using our reason and best judgement (or not) we act.

Notice I say "data" and "information", not "facts". The word "facts" implies that the stated proposition is true.

Data and information can be determined as as "reliable" or "unreliable" or somewhere on the continum between, but from a skeptical viewpoint we cannot know they are true.

The term "reliable" indicates that one can "rely" on them. Reliability implies that one can make good decisions based on that assumption.

Good decisions can and must be made without "knowing". What is needed is a method for determining "reliability".

But thats another day.