Problems with Relativism
Problems with Relativism
I just now saw the following post:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@lukestokes/what-if-there-is-no-big-t-truth
This is the latest article I've seen about this concept called "relativism" which essentially states that people can disagree about anything and nobody is more correct than anyone else. Earlier today I heard a story of someone who had a disagreement with someone, to which they responded, "That's just my opinion and opinions can't be wrong."
Being a mathematician and logician, this sentence makes me cringe because I know that the implicit and sometimes even explicit first rule of logic is that contradictions can't be tolerated.
The reason we need this "law of noncontradiction" is that, without it, our words are meaningless...sure you can say that there's no real truth, but then you're giving up any right to object to injustice...you're giving up any right to object against anything because you've already declared that their opinion is just as valid as yours.
You can get mad...but you must then acknowledge that your anger is illogical!
The most blatant problem with relativism, though, is that it defeats itself...
I can easily claim relativism is false, I'd be making a truth statement from a position where they can be made...
However, if you try to claim that relativism is TRUE, then you're making a truth statement from a position where you've already disqualified all truth statements!
You're saying, "Objectively, there is no objective truth." without realizing that that sentence applies to itself!
In other words, if you believe subjectivity, you can't defend it or even claim to be more correct in believing it!
No where in my post did I use the word relativism. Nowhere did I suggest the "laws" (that's just a word we use to describe a useful convention) of logic are just opinions or that every opinion is equally as valid as any other.
I'm sorry my post was so poorly written to imply I support relativism as you're describing it. I've been a programmer for over 20 years. Code either works or it doesn't. As with logic, there's no room for relativistic, subjective opinions when it comes to code that works and code that doesn't. I've also seen code break because the "laws" were broken due to something like a buffer overflow or some other hack which was previously undiscovered. This shows the "laws" really were just super useful conventions and sometimes those conventions need to be updated with a patch to the language.
There are many different forms of logic, used for different purposes at different times. Again, useful conventions. This is why epistemology is so critically important. If someone thinks tea-leave reading is just as valid an epistemology as logic, reason, evidence, skepticism, and the scientific method then we can demonstrate how poorly their method predicts future events and corresponds to our observed reality. All truth claims and epistemologies are not equally valid and we can demonstrate this using conventions which work without having to claim those conventions are the ultimate, supreme, unchanging Truth.
Thanks for responding! I still don't really understand what you meant though...if Truth is not unchanging, yet is not arbitrary, then what is it in your view?
I think big "T" Truth may not exist. I think what we call "truth" is something we've found to be such a reliable convention that it would take an amazing discovery to uproot it and change it. Our understanding of gravity, for example, is quite good in that we know what goes up must come down. That said, we still don't know if things such as a graviton exist or if gravity might be something we can manipulate in the future. If we make new discoveries which lead to things like a gravity gun where it could be manipulated at will then calling gravity a big "T" Truth would have been presumptuous and wrong.
I'm comfortable with this definition of truth:
When our understanding of facts and reality improve, then our concept of truth will improve along with it. That's why I don't see truth as unchanging as it only represents, at any given time, our current understanding of what "is".
Does that make sense?
That makes a bit more sense, but I'm still not really convinced of it...I like your definition of truth though!
But I got the feeling that, at the end there, you changed what you meant by it...by saying
The words "our current understanding of" seem to limit "in accordance with reality" in important ways.
I believe that we shouldn't look back on Newtonian physics and say, "Newtonian physics WAS true, but now it's not, because relativity and quantum stuffz", but instead we should say, "Newtonian physics HAS ALWAYS BEEN FALSE, but it was a useful approximation of the truth (which we still aren't sure of)."
In a more serious tone, I don't think we would be justified looking back on history and saying, "It WAS true that Jews are inferior, but now it's false"...I think we need to stand up against that and say, "It HAS ALWAYS BEEN true that all people are created equal!"
If the first case were true, then truth would be no justification for anything!
I would never say Newtonian physics was wrong. Within it's given category, it's still as useful and "true" today as it ever was. The problem is language and categorization.
Water is wet. Is a water molecule wet? A group of them? We have trouble understanding emergent properties but much of our reality is an emergent property of many smaller things.
If there's a way to perceive "reality" beyond what we "currently understand", what would that be? To me, that's logically impossible. As soon was have more information, our understanding would catch up to better form our perception of reality.