Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

What is the truth? Will we ever find it? (S13; G4)

Hello everybody.  I really enjoyed reading about Darwin, Kierkegaard, Marx, and Papineau.  Like all of the other readings, there are some ideas that I agree with, and others I am skeptical about.

Darwin claimed that we, as humans, evolved from monkeys.  He shut down creationism and held tight to his belief.  While I am not saying that humans did NOT come from monkeys, I am also not saying that I do not believe in creationism.  How do we know that both ideas are not the truth.  I believe that the Bible is filled with symbolism.  If you asked me if I believed in the Big Bang theory, I would say yes.  If you asked me if I believed in the Bible, I would also say yes.  I think that science and religion can coincide with one another, despite popular belief that it cannot.  I agree with Darwin's idea that we are in a constant process of change and evolution.  But what was there at the beginning? Who or what created the very first "something"?  I liked how Darwin did state that, "the whole thing is too profound for human intellect."

I loved reading what Kierkegaard had to say about faith in God.  Although it involves a huge amount of risk and irrationality, Kierkegaard argues that faith in God is essential, despite its difficulty and at times, unconventionality.

Marx is admired in that he was a common man who fought for workers' rights.  He saw the suffering and inequality the working class endured and wanted it to change.  He knew that the workforce was what drove the economy.  If the workforce is dissatisfied, the economy is at risk.  Do you think workforce satisfactions plays a major role in economical prosperity?

I really enjoyed reading about Papineau's ideas.  Papineau questioned the unobservable world.  Can something we cannot see actually exist?  There are no factual findings; just a bunch of hypothesized explanations.  Call me a skeptic, but I believe that "knowledge of the unobservable world is not possible."  I, too, believe that all of these scientific theories are simply a bunch of misinterpreted false relationships.  Past theories are usually found to be incorrect, so what makes people so confident that our present-day theories stand correct?  Papineau argues that "we should be realists about good theories and skeptical" about others.  The question that arises is, how do we know which theories are good and which theories are garbage?  Nobody will ever agree on a set of good theories.

Looking forward to hearing everybody's thoughts!

Arielle Roides

4 comments:

  1. Natalie Ricketts2:08 PM CDT

    Our next topic is skepticism by Stroud which he describes as the attempt to understand how human knowledge of the world around us is possible. I think that knowledge of our surrounding world is definitely possible. Although I believe there is an infinite amount of knowledge in the universe and we can never attain all or even a fraction of it, we still can attain some, especially what is closest to us and that which surrounds us in our everyday lives. Like Stroud states, as long as you actually are perceiving what’s going on around you, and it’s connected in the right way with your perceiving it, then you do or can know what is so. I think being skeptical of what we do or do not know is somewhat silly. Personally, what I perceive my life is, I believe that IS my life. And sure, if somehow something is different and, for example, things are only in existence while I am conscious of them, so what? That does not affect me and so it doesn’t worry or concern me. Although these are interesting and fun to talk about and ponder on in various conversations or a philosophy course, they would not affect me in the way in which I think about my life each day.

    --Natalie Ricketts

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although Stroud's ideas are fun to play around with, actually practicing them would be absurd. It is undoubtedly true that many things occur in reality that we are incapable of being aware of. For example, chickens can see the sunrise before humans can. My brother who is autistic can hear thunder before anyone else. However, very few of these things are going to impede my life. If for some reason something out of my perception and control is impedeing my life, then it is just that...out of my control. In my humble opinion it does no good to dwell on things you cannot control anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I absolutely agree Caitlyn--"accept the things you cannot change."
    But that just goes to show that just because you have not heard the thunder, does not mean that it is not TRUE that the thunder has sounded. You just did not hear it. By the way, great presentation yesterday. You included some really great points and philosophical comparisons in your superhero analysis.

    Thank you for your comments!

    Arielle Roides

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amanda Gargano1:37 PM CDT

    I found this chapter on Scientific realism very intriguing. I mean, clearly there are things in this world that exist despite the fact that we cannot see them. One should keep in mind that seeing is not always believeing. Despite the fact that we cannot see the wind, we know it is there. Papineau brings up very interesting questions and explanations, about scientific realism, and I really apperciated his through analysis on things.... As for Stroud's ideas on skepticism.. Do you think that anything in this world can legitimately be deemed factual? And why does Stroud say some kind of marker is important in distinguishing reality from a dream?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.