A Historical Post

It has been a long time since my last post in this blog, so I am going to summarize where I am at right now. I started laying base "foundations" for truth, talking about its objectivity and exclusivity. I talked about different areas of truth such as morality and religion in terms of their objectivity. And I started to talk about the search for truth through science. I will continue off that last post by talking about finding truth through history, and will probably continue to other areas thereafter.  

I am starting a new blog here. This blog will contain more frequent and varying posts. Basically I will write about what I feel like writing about at the time, similar to the "side topic" posts in this blog. This "From The Ground Up" blog will continue in a more logical order and will have less frequent, but longer posts. 

Anyway, on to history. People, including historians have various definitions for history. Some of these definitions involve what people wrote down (hence their biases get involved), and how people today interpret the past. However, for simplicity, I will use the definition that history is "all true past events". Along with being simple, I think this is the best fit for a definition of history. For example, the fact that I wrote this sentence is a true event of the past. Even if there was no evidence that would help someone determine if I did write that sentence (i.e. if my computer broke and I never told anyone about it), that event would still be history. 

The historian's task is to attempt to determine what actually happened in history. There are issues that cause uncertainty with what actually happen, especially with ancient history. Today, video cameras allow us to see what happened in the past, sometimes with complete certainty when there are multiple camera angles and eyewitness testimony. However, with ancient history, we do not have that convenience. Instead, we have writings from people who had a particular worldview and biases which influenced their writing. And oftentimes, we do not have multiple "angles" as we would today. Instead, we have one writing (or a few writings) about a person or event, which becomes even more problematic when the person wrote with a bias. 

Should we give up on figuring what happened in ancient history because of these problems? I do not think so. Although we cannot have absolute certainty about what happened in ancient history, we can come to a reasonable conclusion about some events that happened using the evidence (i.e. the copies of writings that did survive through thousands of years) that we do have. 

Historians tend to "want" certain things from ancient writings in order to help them determine the truth about a particular event or person. Some of these things include:

1. Multiple attestation - This goes along with the "multiple angles" idea that I discussed above. Historians prefer having multiple perspectives about, for example, a particular event. Even though there are biases that affect how the writers describe that event, multiple attestation can allow historians to determine if the event did indeed occur.

 For example, assume there are two sources about Alexander the Great conquering Persian. One of these sources is from the perspective of one of Alexander's soldiers. The soldier essentially lifts Alexander up as a god when talking about his conquest. The other source is from the perspective of the Persian King, and the king writes constant insults about Alexander and complains about being conquered by him. Even though these are two completely different perspectives, and certain details about the conquest likely differ, historians can still determine that Alexander most probably 1. existed and 2. conquered Persia. 

I used the term "most probably" there because possible theories could be made that Alexander did not conquer Persia. It is possible that someone made up the story 100 years later to elevate Alexander's status after his death. However, in this case the best explanation for these writings (after consideration of other factors) would likely be that Alexander's existence and conquest of Persia are true. I personally like New Testament historian NT Wright's use of the terms "extremely unlikely", "possible", "plausible", "probable", to "highly probable" in reference to the certainty we have about a particular historic event. 

2. Date of original writing close to the events written about - This one is pretty simple. The closer that the writing was to the events, the better. There is less time to fabricate a story to the point that the main events that the writing discuss are false. Legendary material (i.e. elevation of the details of an event or person) tends to build up over time. This is especially true in ancient history, when stories were usually passed down through multiple generations before the story was written down. If the author used source material that has an earlier date than the original writing, is can also strengthen the reliability of the writing. 

3. If we do not have the original writings, there are multiple copies of the original writings that are close to the date of the original writing - this factor is important to determine if the copy of a source that we have today matches the original source. If there are multiple copies, then historians can detect if errors have been made from some one copying either the original source or another copy. If the copies were written close to the time of the original writing, there is less time for these types of errors, as well as manipulation, to occur. It is important to point out here that we do not have ANY original writings from ancient history, so these problems are present for every ancient writing we have today. 

4. Archeology backs up what was written down - this  factor does not lead someone to prove that an event happened, but it can build up the reliability of a writing. If findings from archeology do match up with details form a writing, it shows that the writer was not just making things up; there was some care with getting the facts right. 

5. Embarrassing material - this is information that historians would not expect the writer to include in the writing based on historical context. This is a minor factor compared to the others, but still something to look at.

There are more factors, or "criterion", that historians consider to help determine if an event occurred. The first two are most relevant for historians to determine what happened, number three helps determine the accuracy of writings we do have, and 4 and 5 provide additional evidence for the reliability of a source. 

I also want to point out an important distinction to make - historical facts vs. interpretation of those facts. Once a historian determines the events that happened at a time in history, there may be different conclusions about what those events mean. 

For example, two historians could agree that Alexander conquered Greece, Persia, and then turned back once he got to Asia. Virtually ALL historians who study Alexander may agree that this is true based on the writings we have. However, the two historians could disagree on why Alexander turned back. Maybe Alexander just got tired and thought he conquered enough, or maybe his soldiers complained enough to force him to turn back. No matter what answer is correct to the question of why Alexander turned back, the base historical facts of his conquering and turning back are still true. 

I know my example of Alexander is simple and probably not historically accurate. However, I am just using that example to show why multiple attestation is important (in factor #1 above) and how interpretation of facts do not take away from the truth of the facts themselves. And by historical facts, I mean events that  almost certainly happened based on the data we have". As discussed earlier, complete certainty in ancient history is nearly impossible.

There is more to talk about with ancient history too, especially the difference between oral tradition and how we record history today. But I'll leave it at this for now, and move on to the next area we can use to discover truth, philosophy.

Science Rules?

The first area we can explore to discover truth that I will discuss is science. When talking about this topic, it is important to establish definitions. There are different definitions for science, whether it's "the study of nature" or "any use of the scientific method." So, I will use the following three definitions from Webster's dictionary to establish what I mean when I use these words:

Definition of science:

"Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena"

Definition of scientific method:

"Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

Definition of knowledge:

"The fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association"

With these three words defined, I move to a discussion on science. This area of truth has been extremely important for our understanding of the world. Thus far, science has proven to be a very trustworthy source of truth. Why? If you have multiple people performing the same experiment over and over, and those experiments give the same results every time, you gather a great amount of evidence supporting the conclusion that those same results will continue to occur. Many tested hypotheses (i.e. if event A happens, then it will result in event B) consistently lead to the same results, which points to the conclusion that there is uniformity in the natural world. Using this assumption about uniformity in nature, scientists have drawn conclusions about natural “laws”. These laws indicate that a particular experiment or event, under the same conditions, will lead to the same result. 

A simple example of this method involves the law of gravity. You make a hypothesis that if you drop a pencil (assuming no anti-gravity conditions), it will move downward, towards the Earth's core. You perform the experiment once, and it holds true. Then you drop the pencil one hundred times, same results. Then one hundred people also perform the experiment, pencil still drops. As more evidence is gathered, you gain more confidence that the pencil will always drop.

This method has led to expansive knowledge about the Earth and the Universe. However, there are some shortcomings to science that prevent it from being the only way we can find truth. Here are some examples and brief explanations of these shortcomings:

1. The scientific method cannot be used to gather evidence for necessary scientific assumptions - The assumption that the scientific method can be used to gain knowledge about nature cannot be backed up through scientific experiment. Instead, this is a philosophical assumption. Also, the assumption that we can trust our intellect or senses in the first place is philosophical. I'll write about philosophy in a future post. 

2. Scientific knowledge can only be gained through observation with the use of the five senses - This is pretty obvious and may not seem like a big deal. However, if there is any truth that cannot be discovered through observation using sight, taste, hearing, touch, or smell, science cannot form conclusions about that truth. 

3. Science is limited to drawing conclusions about repeatable events - Example: The experiment of dropping a pencil can be repeated many times. However, a particular instance of me performing the pencil experiment cannot be repeated. When I dropped a pencil at 10am on 5/3/12, I cannot go back in time and repeat that exact event. Science cannot lead to the conclusion that I performed that experiment at that moment. This is an example of a past event. The conclusion that a past event actually happened would need to be drawn through history, which I'll discuss in my next post. 

4. The scientific method cannot be used to determine truth about many questions involving life and human existence -  Some examples include, "What is the overall purpose of my life?" "What is truth?" "Was it immoral to steal that candy bar?" These questions cannot be answered through repeatable and observable events. These are questions that philosophy and religion can potentially answer, but not science. 

Why am I pointing these things out? The worldview that science is the only method humans can use to determine truth is common today, and I do not think it is a very reasonable view to hold. My main point in this post is that while science is a trustworthy area of truth, especially pertaining to knowledge about the natural world, we need to consider other areas of truth. Science does not solely rule our search for truth. If it does, some very significant questions about life are passed over without consideration. To look into those questions, we need to consider non-scientific areas. Three of those areas that I mentioned in this post and that I may expand on are history, philosophy, and religion. 

To close, I would like to point out that my understanding of science is by no means complete. I may be incorrect about some of the things I posted above. This post gives a pretty shallow look into science, but I think it is sufficient to explain my main point. There are also more examples of the shortcomings of science. But this post cannot provide a full discussion about the topic, just like all my other posts.

Bias With a Remote Possibility

This post begins a series on exploring the different ways we can discover truth. Three main areas I want to focus on are the following:

1. Science

2. History

3. Philosophy

I may discuss the area of religion/spirituality as well. When I say "area", I am referring to either one of these subjects or any other subject we can use to discover truth. Before moving on to these areas, I'm going to post a few of my thoughts on our search for truth. So here we go...

1. We should start our investigation of a truth proposition without assuming limitations. In other words, we should be willing to look for truth in any area where it could potentially be found. If we assume without reason that truth cannot be found in a particular place, then we may only discover part of the truth, or completely miss something important. However, if there is good reason to not consider a particular area or truth claim, then it may be appropriate to leave it out of the investigation. I will explain this point further when posting about the specific areas.

2. Despite point #1, we are almost always going to have a bias when considering truth. We look at the world in a certain way based on our past experiences and our thoughts about different topics. This perspective of life is called, quite simply, a "worldview". A worldview encompasses your overall beliefs and opinions about life. Since everyone has a worldview of some sort, it is essentially impossible to enter an investigation completely "objective" and "unbiased". 

People also tend to want to confirm the worldview that they began with in their investigation, so becoming unbiased is even more difficult. However, there are things we can do to move towards an unbiased look at truth. We can look at the strongest arguments from various claims to the same truth. Then, we can "weigh" those arguments to see which one seems the most reasonable. And we can be careful to not leave out evidence that would strengthen an argument we disagree with. 

Personally, in terms of the area of religion, I grew up going to a Christian church weekly, and have not deviated from belief in the religion of Christianity. I have a bias towards the Christian worldview, and tend to try to confirm that view more than opposing views. However, I do try to "fight against" that bias by considering arguments from other sides (i.e. the atheist "no god exists" side) and weighing those arguments against the ones supporting Christianity. Thus far, I have found that Christianity is the most reasonable explanation of how the world works, but am open to changing that belief if an opposing view appears to be the most reasonable instead. If I found another view to be much more reasonable overall than Christianity, it would not make sense to continue holding the Christian worldview. I would basically be denying myself from knowing truth at that point.

3. We can have some degree of confidence about truth. Although there are a lot of possible answers to a topic, we do not need to quit the investigation of that topic altogether. As described above in my personal example, we can weigh those different possibilities and find that one possibility is the most reasonable, or almost certain. We can believe that a possibility is true even though we may not be one hundred percent certain we are correct.

We incorporate this point in everyday life. I'll use an example of my hypothetical friend Brad using a remote to turn on a TV. Brad comes home from a long day of work and collapses on the couch. He grabs the remote and hits the "on" button with the belief that such an action will turn on the TV. Is he 100% sure that his action will turn on the TV? Maybe, but there is a possibility that the batteries ran out of juice. Brad could also come up with more absurd possibilities. Maybe his cat ate through the TV power cable while he was gone. Maybe the power company cut off electricity to his house. Maybe he was unknowingly teleported to an alternate world where remotes no longer turn on TVs (that's right, back to the old days of getting up to turn the TV on!) 

I could continue listing possibility after possibility of non-TV-turn-on scenarios. But based on past experiences, Brad has better reason to believe that the TV will turn on than he has for any other conceivable possibility. His strong degree of confidence in the truth proposition that "this remote will turn on the TV" led to his action of pressing the big red "on" button. In the same way, we can have confidence that a proposition is true even of there is a possibility that it is not true. We make decisions every day based on this principal.

These are just three things to consider with the topic of truth; there are plenty more. For my next post, I will start to discuss the areas of truth listed at the beginning of this post, likely starting with science. 

A Trophy-Worthy Assumption

My first four main posts mostly discussed the existence of objective truth. Why focus on this topic so much? My aim with this blog is to establish basic assumptions, and from there build up to other claims to truth. In this post, I am going to attempt to explain what I mean by "From the Ground Up".  

When someone makes a statement, that statement is based off certain assumptions. For example, a person, let's say Fred, who goes to the Packer Hall of Fame, makes the statement "The Super Bowl 45 trophy is in front of me". When making this statement, Fred is assuming several things:

1. He can use his mind and reason to come to a truthful conclusion

2. He can trust his senses (sight in this case) to come to a conclusion

3. Objective truth exists

4. He is not deceived; this trophy is the actual Super Bowl 45 trophy

Fred may be assuming these things to a certain degree of confidence for various reasons. Here are examples of some potential reasons. The numbers are matching the numbers of the assumptions above:

1. Fred has made many correct conclusions in the past using his mind. Using logic, he knows that 2+2 does equal 4. He did make a wrong decision when he invested into Facebook stock when it was released, since the stock plummeted. However, he used reason to come to the conclusion that he had made an incorrect decision. Also, he has very little reason to accept the idea that he cannot use his mind to draw conclusions. Because of these experiences, Fred has a very high degree of confidence that he can make this assumption. 

2. Fred realizes that his senses have been trustworthy in the past. He knew that he was cold before he entered the Hall of Fame based on his sense of touch. He found the location the Hall of Fame by following road signs with his sense of sight. He generally trusts the area of science (forming a hypothesis and making observations with the use of the five senses to come to a conclusion). Science seems to lead to truthful conclusions about his surroundings. Again, based on experience, Fred has a very high degree of confidence that he can trust his senses.

3. This is explained more in my first post. Fred is making an assertion that is true for everyone, everywhere, at any time (that the trophy is in front of him right now). In order to make that assertion, he needs to assume that there is objective truth. He has a high degree of confidence in this assumption. 

4. Fred trusts that the Packer organization would not put a fake trophy in the Hall of Fame. He finds that the theory that this is the real trophy is way more reasonable than competing "conspiracy theories." If he does not want to depend only on his trust in the Packers, he could inspect the trophy more closely to see if there are signs that the trophy is, for example, plastic.  Because of his trust and also because no other theories are more reasonable than the theory that this trophy is the real thing, Fred has a high degree of confidence in this assumption

All of these assumptions lead to Fred's conclusion that he is standing in front of the real Super Bowl 45 trophy. These assumptions can "build off" each other. For example, Fred cannot make the assumption that the trophy is real if he does not make the assumption that he can use his mind to come to a conclusion.

I notice a few things about this example. First, Fred has reasons behind the assumptions that he makes. He may not think of those reasons as he makes his claim about standing in front of the trophy, but they are still present. 

Second, Fred has a certain degree of confidence behind his assumptions. For example, he does not know with 100% certainty that the Packers did not replace the trophy with a fake. He did not personally watch the trophy go from production to the induction into the Hall of Fame. But he still finds it very reasonable that the trophy is real. This level of confidence applies to the other assumptions as well.

Third, his conclusion is based off his trust in a third party, the Packers organization. He may not have empirical evidence that this is the real trophy. In this case his trust, along with comparison to competing theories, is enough for him to form a reasonable conclusion.

I used this example as a starter point to explain ways we can discover truth. I think there are at least three important things to consider regarding the ability to know truth:

1. You can rarely (if ever) have 100% confidence about a claim to truth

2. A person who makes a claim to truth always has reasons behind that claim (that doesn't mean that those reasons are good)

3. There are different areas we can consider to discover truth

I am likely going to write several posts on point #3, but may write about #1 and #2 as well. So, continuing my "From The Ground Up" theme, I am going to build off the basic (i.e. “ground”) assumption that truth is objective in order to make my next assertion: It is possible to have knowledge about that objective truth.