We ought to distinguish skepticism used as a method at getting at the real truth, a method often used by attorney’s in cross examination, from out right skepticism as an “I give up” attitude where the acquisition of any knowledge is impossible. We obviously have some knowledge, even the most mentally challenged have knowledge of some things. The question is what do we have knowledge of, and here is where we should apply skepticism as a method, perhaps do a bit of cross examination of ourselves.
Descartes and Socrates both have something in common, not only were they founders in some sense of Ancient and Modern Philosophy, but also mercenary soldiers. Socrates was also a stonecutter, and made a livelihood in the agora (marketplace) of Athens, where the rich and powerful would dialogue with him on a variety of ideas. Both Descartes and Socrates to some extent used a form of skepticism as a method for arriving at the truth. Descartes used doubt as a method at arriving at what was impossible to doubt. Socrates employed a method of question and answer, he called dialectic in searching for knowledge able to stand up to scrutiny.
As for Plato perhaps it is those who have the time to do philosophic thinking, or those who are inclined and have no axe to grind are those who should rule. Not only because, they have no axe to grind, but also because, they might think deeper about the subject and apply a form of skepticism to political ideas. Note there is always something wrong with an idea, especially political ones, but there is also only a partial truth in everything we think experience and say. Perhaps we are just examining the shadows on the wall and need to get the big picture and see what is and who are actually causing the shadows to fall on the walls of our cave. (See Plato’s Myth of the Cave Republic, Book VII, 514a–520a)
Whenever I am in dialogue with someone on philosophic or philosophic-like matters I often ask the question: “How do you know that?” It is surprising the answers you receive. Seldom is it because the person has had continuous experience with the subject in dispute, or even less often is it because my mind is so constructed that I cannot help but know that. Seldom more often than frequently I get a response which amounts to: ”I don’t know, it’s just my opinion”. Well opinions are OK, but they must have some justification and seldom do we explain ourselves well enough to express that justifying reason, if there is one. We all are aware, if we do any thinking at all, that opinions differ from knowledge in Greek δόξα means an opinion of something especially a high opinion, hence the Hellenistic connotation of ‘glory’ put on that term. ἐπιστήμη means knowledge, the kind we have in Science or Philosophy. It is the generally accepted view that δόξα + λόγος = ἐπιστήμη, λόγος here meaning a justifying reason for the opinion.
Rightly applied skepticism as a method seeks the justifying reasons for an opinion. One should note here that even our perceptions fall into the category of opinions, because we might just be wrong in our perceptions, either through some sensory handicap or simple misidentification of our percepts. Lovers often encounter this difficulty. If A and B are in love, A may misinterpret B’s behavior as destructive of their relationship (love) or B’s intentions. In this case arguments, sometimes heated, ensue. But the philosophic argument is not that kind of argument, it is more like an argument in Mathematics. An argument is aimed at providing the λόγος upon which the ἐπιστήμη will stand the test of truth, or live up to the answer to the question: “how do you know that”.
It is a mistake to think that the sciences deal only with facts. A more correct understanding of the methods of science yields the knowledge that science deals with explanatory theories (theories meant to explain natural or behavioral phenomena which we can perceive). What science does is to employ facts as evidence either to confirm the likelihood of its theory or disconfirm the possibility of said theory. This is one of the main reasons, Physics (and science in general) has a quest for a general theory of everything. There are two aspects to any science - explanation (theory) and description (facts). No science deals with either exclusively. The reader should note that in the conformation/disconfirmation process a form of methodological skepticism is generally applied.
What we ought to do is apply a methodological skepticism on all our current ideologies, both political and scientific. We ought, in short, realize the end of skepticism is truth not mere opinion or empirical belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment