Since we tend to get soooo philosophical and psychological in this forum I decided to post the following from my blog.
What is Truth?
Facts:
Are facts based on what is proven or are they based on what we believe to be proven? When a theory is proven by evidence, we do not use the act of experimentation to conclude facts, but rather to conclude our beliefs about the theory. We believe what we perceived was proof or evidence. We believe that the theory was correct. But what if we didn’t believe, regardless of the evidence?
Example:
Six people do an experiment. They want to prove or disprove that dropping a brick from five feet onto a flat, concrete surface, will cause the brick to break.
They gather 15 bricks. Five of the people stand on a horizontal line each holding one brick, each person holds their brick at the exact same height and the exact same way as the others. On a signal give by the sixth person, each of the brick holders drops their brick on a designated spot. They observe the brick as the bricks fall and smash onto the ground and the sixth person takes notes. They continue their routine as the five brick holders drop their bricks and the sixth person takes notes. They compete their routine one more as they drop the last of the bricks and observe them smashing into the ground.
Now, the experiment has been concluded and of the 15 bricks 13 of them broke into pieces when they hit the ground. With a 0.86% certainty (13/15), they can now say that a brick that falls onto a concrete surface, it will break into pieces. But, they can only be 0.86% certain, because out of the 15 only 13 broke. Is it a fact that bricks that hit the ground from five feet will break? What if the experiment was done again, and the next time less of them broke? What if the experiment was done again, and all of them broke?
Now, lets flip this whole situation on it head. But, what if one of the six people disagrees with the verdict.
What if the experiment was done and all of them broke, but one of the six people believes that their theory wasn’t proven because of other circumstances. Maybe he believes that the bricks were faulty, and everybody agrees with him. However, the bricks are broken and they have no more bricks to do another trial with, nor money to purchase them. Was the theory proven correct?
What if the same person believes some other cause was at fault, but nobody agrees with him. Was the theory proven correct?
What if instead the same person believes the theory was correct, but nobody agrees with him, because they believe some other cause was at fault. Was the theory proven correct?
Do you understand what I am asking here? What if the people doing the experiment are wrong? They may believe that their theory was correct and is factual, but what if it isn’t and they simply choose to believe otherwise? The theory does not become accepted as fact, regardless of the circumstances. How often has this happened throughout history?
What I am getting at is a fact is not what is proven, but rather, a fact is what’s believed to be proven. What if we don’t believe in the correctness of a theory? What if we believe something else instead, regardless of our reasons? Facts are not based on evidence or proof, but on the belief of that proof or evidence which is, or was, presented. If, facts are based on what we believe to be proven, then facts aren’t really based on evidence or proof at all. Instead facts are based on belief and accepted facts are those that are accepted by the majority of the people involved.
-- notice --
This literature is from my own personal work and research, which is being put into a book that I am writting. Nobody under any circumstance has the right to copy, modify, or distribute the above text without my writen consent. --EtherealMerc
|
