Template:Critical theory, modernism and the death of objective truth: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 43: Line 43:
{{Quote|Show me a Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science who is not prepared to jump off the Eiger in a wingsuit, and I’ll show you a hypocrite.}}
{{Quote|Show me a Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science who is not prepared to jump off the Eiger in a wingsuit, and I’ll show you a hypocrite.}}


In any case, the important belief here is that “this ''particular'' plane won’t fall out of the sky ''in the immediate future''”, and — inductive fallacy again — until that immediate future becomes the past and it turns out not to have, no one knows for sure whether the statement will turn out to be true.  
In any case, the important belief here is that “this ''particular'' plane won’t fall out of the sky ''while I am in it'”, and — inductive fallacy again — until that immediate future becomes the past and it turns out not to have, no one knows for sure whether the statement will turn out to be true.  


It may fall out of the sky for reasons quite unrelated to aerodynamics. An air passenger takes an awful lot of things, over and above aerodynamics, on ''trust'': that the ground-crew remembered to fill the tank and replace the petrol cap.<ref>{{Plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236|Air Transat Flight 236, 2001}}.</ref> That there are no undetected stress fractures in the fuselage.<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_781|BOAC Flight 781}}.</ref> That no surface-to-air-missiles are launched at the plane.<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007|Korean Airlines Flight 007, 1983}}.</ref> That airline has not secretly changed the aircraft’s flight path without telling the pilot<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus_disaster|Air New Zealand Flight 901}}.</ref> — and so on. Experience tells us none of these things are certain, but all are ''highly unlikely''.
For planes may fall out of the sky for reasons quite unrelated to aerodynamics. A passenger takes an awful lot of other things on ''trust'': that the ground-crew remembered to fill the tank and replace the petrol cap.<ref>{{Plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236|Air Transat Flight 236, 2001}}.</ref> That there are no undetected stress fractures in the fuselage.<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_781|BOAC Flight 781, 1958}}.</ref> That no surface-to-air-missiles are launched at the plane.<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007|Korean Airlines Flight 007, 1983}}.</ref> That airline has not secretly changed the aircraft’s flight path without telling the pilot<ref>{{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus_disaster|Air New Zealand Flight 901, 1979}}.</ref> — and so on. Experience tells us none of these things are certain, but all are ''highly unlikely''.


On the subject of falling out of the sky: like the rest of us,[[cultural relativist]]s do not board planes at 30,000 feet but ''on the ground''. An aeroplane that could not fly would not get ''off'' the ground, and so would have a hard time falling back onto it. So ''some'' aerodynamic principle must be at play to get a plane into the air. It does not matter what that principle is, nor even whether the aeroplane’s designer was mistaken about it, as long as it keeps working until the flight is over.
On the subject of falling out of the sky: like the rest of you, we [[cultural relativist]]s do not board planes at 30,000 feet but ''on the ground''. An aeroplane that could not fly would not get ''off'' the ground, and so would have a hard time falling back onto it. So ''some'' aerodynamic principle must be at play to get a plane into the air. It does not matter what that principle is, nor even whether the aeroplane’s designer was mistaken about it, as long as it keeps working until the flight is over.


The fact — if we have to talk about facts — is this: millions of people get aboard giant compressed tubes and catapult themselves across the planet each year because not through considered reflection on contemporary aerodynamics but because they have inductive confidence that everything will be okay if they do.  
The fact — if we have to talk about facts — is this: millions of people get aboard giant compressed tubes and catapult themselves across the planet each year. If they think about it at all, they do so not after considered reflection on the credibility of contemporary aerodynamics but because they have confidence, from experience, that everything will be okay if they do.  


We ''trust'' the regularity of established systems. If we did not, we would not use them. (Trust is an important factor in all social relationships.)
We ''trust'' the regularity of established systems. If we did not, we would not use them. But also, we would not get out of bed in the morning. (Trust is an important factor in all social relationships.)


It isn’t like we ''need'' truth, after all. All relativism asks is that when we talk about “knowledge” we don’t overstate our case: that we downgrade unjustifiable statements about ''Platonic forms'' to pragmatic statements of ''present fitness''. These are matters of ''consensus'', not ''truth''.  Truth is a platonic, static forever that we are stuck with, for better or worse. We can tinker about with consensus.
It isn’t like we ''need'' truth, after all. All relativism asks is that when we talk about “knowledge” we don’t overstate our case: that we downgrade unjustifiable statements about ''Platonic forms'' to pragmatic statements of ''present fitness''. These are matters of ''consensus'', not ''truth''.  Truth is a platonic, static forever that we are stuck with, for better or worse. We can tinker about with consensus.

Navigation menu