Lost in translation

I have decided that the first post needs to lay the foundation of what follows. A clear and distinct understanding of the words I use is important. When I use words like fact, knowledge, truth, and faith, I do not use them lightly and wish to convey specific meaning. Philosophers have haggled over the exact definition of these concepts for millennia but I will try my best to show what I mean when I use them.

When two people communicate but they do not tie the same meaning to the words being used in the conversation, what the parties try to convey will be lost in translation. We have to agree on the meaning of these concepts before we continue.

When I speak of trees or rivers misunderstanding is less likely than when we start speaking of more abstract human constructs such as truth, knowledge, justice, fairness, etc. This misunderstanding must be avoided if I am to convey my message effectively.

The definition of truth in particular has kept philosophers busy for millennia. Without going into too much detail I will say that when I use the concept truth I mean the correspondence theory of truth.

Correspondence theory state that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs – a statement is deemed to be true if it reflects an objective reality and does not contradict any other statement deemed true. In practice this is the definition of truth as accepted by a court of law.

On the definitions of knowledge and fact I will not say much more than to say knowledge is the polar opposite of faith. The way to knowledge and fact is through the scientific method and the theory of falsification.In later posts I will explain both the scientific method and falsification extensively.

I do not know the way to faith, for if you came to believe anything that is in fact false, like you can drink poison and live, the consequences will be swift and fatal. Therefore I must conclude that faith can be lethal when it contradicts knowledge about the physical world we live in.

I will discuss the scientific method in much detail later, for now it is important that you understand that humanity broadly agree to these definitions – it is apparent in the legal systems the developed world over. A personal belief or some supernatural claim are hardly grounds to convict a suspected murderer; the courts seem to require something more substantial linked to objective reality – a body and a bloody knife perhaps. Like the law, the book of fact and knowledge require substantial evidence or impressive formal, non contradictory logic before you may add a statement to its pages.

This is the foundation of this entire blog, statements of fact are based on empirical evidence or inductive reasoning following the rules of formal logic. Evidence and reason is the basis of all knowledge, and failing this no statement can be claimed true. For too long have we deferred critical thinking and uncompromising intellectual questioning to some authority or other. Some people would say ignorance is bliss, I'm with Socrates on this one - "An unexamined life is not a life worth living"

To end off this post I quote Ayn Rand "Morality is the judgement to distinguish right and wrong,vision to see the truth,courage to act upon it,dedication to that which is good,integrity to stand by the good at any price"