Group items tagged

My challenge to the other commenters-tell me why I must believe the truth. To be frank, although I think this was a nice piece that summed up skepticism in a nutshell, it really does not give me something I think I want- why I must believe the truth? It sounds like a logical fallacy of some sort, and maybe in the cold logic that our society follows it is a paradox, but that is the glaring question that I got out of this blog. To believe something and for it to be true is what constitutes knowledge, but why must I attain knowledge? Will it help me- obviously not according to the skeptics, as the truth of something is not something I can really determine on a large scale. We all like to think we're Heck, I could write a long essay on this and not produce a good answer to my question and that is my challenge to the other commenters-tell me why I must believe the truth. Truth is something we debate endlessly, but what is its value? Can I truly know something, if so then does that mean I understand it? I seriously doubt it, and that is because our definition of understanding is too narrow to constitute what I believe understanding is. I don't think I understand anything in its true form (a cave reference haha) and therefore I don't think I know anything but I do know that if I say "I don't know anything" I am saying a paradox as I know that I don't know anything. The real challenge is realizing how little I know, and figuring out what I do know Hope you guys can scratch out what I was trying to say in that mess.

Our strongest beliefs (truths) stem from our core epistemic principles; which are what tells us what is rational to believe. If a person believes that god created us, then his core epistemic principles is god, Christianity. His religion will tell him what is rational and what isn't, what to believe in and what contradicts his belief. He will view anyone who doubts his principle as irrational. It all comes down to the fact that no one can fully defend their most fundamental epistemic principles. Since we can't obviously prove out principles using the same method that we believe in, and we can't use another method because we would then have to validate this other method and we would just be going in a circular motion with no meaningful endpoint. Science is another core epistemic principle. It is taught by schools worldwide to millions of students every year. Science and religion cannot ever be compatible because the rationalisms of both are contradictory and sometimes paradoxical to the other. Did god create us? Or are we a product of natural evolution? Science is believed to be leading this battle, because through research and evidence collected would point it to be the more logical. Based on my core epistemic principles. I believe neither God nor Evolution explains how we came to be here, because there are so many unexplained variables that contradict both beliefs. For example if we are to entertain that we are product of Darwinism; then how come there is a huge gap in the evolutionary chain around 2 million years ago? In which after this period "primitive hominids appeared" out of nowhere…and also from a scientific standpoint, how can we really justify that the ancient Egyptians could build the pyramids without some divine intervention. I wont go into specifics but these points are large holes on both Darwinism and science. In terms of god, there is just no tangible evidence god exists. God is belief and belief has no meta

Hareth, I have thought a great deal about the question you proposed regarding whether or not knowing the truth is of any value. I certainly cannot convince you of the value in the pursuit, nor will I try; in fact, I offer that this search (or its value) is something that rarely can be instilled in another. You formulate an interesting hypothesis insofar that if discovering truth is unattainable, then "why bother?" Maybe a rejection of individual or societal purpose is the point. Uh oh. Now we have carved out another paradox. If rejection is the point and I reject the notion of finding a point, have I, in fact, found the point? When I was younger, I tended to believe that the purpose of life was undefinable (see without value) but not in a dark or macabre sort of way. I found this liberating actually and still do. This ideological subscription to a vast nothingness is at the heart of absurdism, and, as Camus tells us in the "rediscovery" of the Myth of Sisyphus, the moment we discover that the universe does not care about our needs, we find freedom. So, reject any sort of obligation to pursue the truth. Transcend the quagmire of philosophical "bleh" and embrace "life." Tell Socrates and his wrinkled old mantra "the unexamined life is not worth living" that the unexamined life is for amateurs. Wait, if you do that, aren't you actually examining life? Dang. Back to where we began.

Welcome to diigo ToK All-Stars! This interesting article from the Washington Post is relevant to our developing discussion on truth, belief, information, and knowledge. You might relate to the research-related conflicts which get discussed In this easy-to-access article.

This thought experiment came up in ToK 2 today. Have a look at this sketch out . . . make sense? Any questions?

Is this not quantum suicide?

What is "quantum suicide?"

Good simple documentary on how the world is run.

I intend to offer this to you in class; however, as time may not allow, Sean Gurley's discussion here is an interesting and unique insight relevant to the positivist approach to history insofar that historical events may be utilized to make predictions on future events.

A good statistic to keep in mind when analyzing any conflict. The question of what is an attack comes to mind, would 9/11 come under this? Would the Tet Offensive come under this definition of "attack"? If so, I think we have to consider the other side. I think his statistics were great, but I would like to see the other end. Maybe a series of statistics of the drone attacks? I think that the meaning of this video is good, but that statistics can be manipulated in many ways. Yes, the Serbs in Yugoslavia were massacring people in the thousands, it wasn't even safe to walk the streets, a nightmare of a state really. But one interesting statistic to consider is this one that I heard earlier: 14 tanks were destroyed by NATO bombings, 147 schools were destroyed by NATO bombings. Even if they're unoccupied, this is still a pretty inefficient method of warfare. Which raises the question, is there a proper way to fight war? Maybe Henry David Thoreau's idea of passive resistance works, but maybe events like the Sharpeville massacre prove it wrong. These sort of statistics are the most serious sort in a war, but not necessarily the most "truthful". In retrospect, I think that the writings of Robert Fisk are my favorite when it comes to covering war. This is because he focuses on the people on the ground, but not the soldiers, the ones who are the innocent victims of war. In conclusion, I think that this was an informative video, but one that I would consider a largely West-centric one at the same time.