Not surprisingly, I disappeared after that first post. That tends to be the general approach to blogs - it's like starting a diet on a New Year's resolution (I've never actually made one, but I can understand the premise), or, as one comedian put it, "trying to burn off sixteen years of beer and pizza in one day of exercise" (paraphrasing). There's a lot of enthusiasm that first day, but damned if day two isn't a bit of a test to dedication. My own experience suggests day fifteen is the clencher - if you can manage that one, it's a habit.
Today we're covering epistemology - that branch of philosophy that deals with the very premise of how we understand things. I should probably start out by saying that I don't have a formal education in philosophy, nor am I well-read in the subject - for the most part, I find that it's composed of a lot of bullshit and that, as a field of study, isn't approachable for anything but understanding what other people have thought. Philosophy is applied history, and this makes sense. As a study or as a field, you'd expect some sort of consensus of any form of absolution had been discovered. That's exactly what I want to address, though - absolution.
Absolution isn't certainty - absolution is fact. To state that you know something as a fact means you can prove that fact just as cleanly, methodically, and soundly as you can a mathematical theorem (starting with something that requires no real axioms, such as set theory). To be fair, you cannot do this with any field except mathematics except in terms of applications of a particular implementation. That is, there are facts in regards to constrained or designed systems - it's a fact that brackets are used to designate context within Java, but this is because we have designed that fact with respect to Java. "Java" is not a concept, Java is an invention. The distinction is important, but I'm not terribly fond of arguing semantics (just making my usage of these words clear), so let's continue.
If absolution is fact, then absolution is Truth (with the capital T and all). I want to stress this as a premise in exactly the same way a Christian attempts to defend his beliefs. Absolution is how things *really* operate, how they *really* work, how, at the heart of all things, things really, actually are.
Now, I've discussed previously how science is a process and an application of logic. Logic is mathematically absolute in premise and applied to a particular concept it does have certain rules and methodologies that are entirely provable and sound. You cannot refute logic - let's make this clear. But logic is always applied to a particular context or domain, ergo, most arguments involve a great deal of exchange of evidence or knowledge rather than refutation of the argument itself. Two competent people with opposing views can both be absolutely correct and accurate in their logic with no mathematical flaws. The disagreement is one of knowledge and scope (in some cases, as petty as in definitions) . A Liberal and a Conservative arguing bring in evidence and examples in order to modify the knowledge available to the logical application. There's generally an emotional bias in order to reject knowledge that would require a change in the scope or application of logic, but the logic is sound. This is why if two people set out in exact terms what they accept as sufficient evidence and both are logically accurate that they will generally come out with a shared view. The argument is a process and, children, critical thinking is hard.
Aarguments are fundamentally scientific, which is somewhat interesting. They follow the same rules and the conclusions are absolute provided the given knowledge or observations are accepted. There's quite a bit of muddling in terms of definition and language, and most arguments don't resolve simply because it's extremely difficult to accurately convey information and arguments, but it absolutely can be done. Given a context of knowledge, there is truth and it is absolute, but only within the constraints of that knowledge. This is why principles are important. They represent philosophical axioms. This is also why they can change without need for argument, evidence, or reason - and that should alert you to one of their issues. Two opposing axioms cannot be reconciled or argued (it's the nature of an axiom), so the proponents of either must entirely reject the premise of the other for no rational reason.
I know that last statement is going to piss off a certain type of person. But let's make this clear - this is no absolution in an axiom other than in itself. You accept it because. If could give reason, logic, or mathematic rationale for it, it wouldn't be an axiom. This is why understanding a system of subjective values is important. If your principles are based in your values then there need not be any contradiction and all things you hold can be logically and absolutely derived without deviation - but your values can change, and you need to accept them as "non-truths." Their your values, not the values of the universe or reality. You can certainly postulate a set of values and principles which is optimal with respect to a particular result, but unless you can prove there's some absolution toward it as fact (and good luck finding that molecule of Justice) then it's just a thought exercise with respect to a particular, intended goal.
Values are subjective, then. This is fine. You can derive everything down to manners from that and concepts such as enlightened self-interest. But the underlying values are going to vary, and the actual results of that might not be that different, but there will be differences. So we wander back into the realm of absolutism, because I state that there is no absolute set of values - no correct values (again, the word "value" itself should make this evident).
Now, all of the above dealt with domains of knowledge with respect to arguments or views. I'd like to wander into the domain of knowledge itself and in understanding. Science, being a process, cannot and is not necessarily intended to arrive at absolution - science produces models that reflect and change according to observation. This is, at least, true in terms of science in concept. In practice, scientists take the first semi-working model and run hog wild with it (I'm thinking of chemistry when I write this). Because science produces models and describes all things under the premise of "theory," science does not expect absolution. The goal is for the facts, but the approach is through approximations and tests - hence the reason science rejects God but does not disprove him.
In lieu of that, I pose a rhetorical question - suppose you found a model or theory that worked for all tests with absolute perfection. No exceptions, no expansions needed to the theory. More than likely, the theory would be very simple with wide ramifications (given the stated characteristic that it needs no expansions or exceptions, which largely compromise the depth of complex theories [to explain the odd cases that don't line up and attempt to rationalize why]). To the hypothetical extreme, suppose this theory provided, overnight, the equivalent of a millenia of technological advancement. Such a theory would undeniably be great.
And so enters absolution (if anyone is thinking, at this point, to never start a sentence with a conjunction, I remind you of two things: 1) language evolves, and 2) fuck you). Provided you encountered such a theory or model, and even if you could discard the scientific process and its implicit non-absolution, could you know that it was fact? Could you know that such a model was how things truly operated, how they truly existed? I postulate that you could not - not to the same extent for which you can for mathematics. Mathematicians are somewhat unique in that, despite all of the rules they've laid out for their systems, they still call something a theory despite being able to prove within the constraints of their system that it cannot be disproven in the future (though I wonder if the issue there is the same I describe for realms outside of mathematic derivation).
I postulate this out of pragmatism (I have never seen an argument that could be bundled with any sort of evidence for which no person could argue against) and out of tenacious absolution in and of itself. God is not going to descend from the clouds and tell you that you're right. You can always be certain within the domain of an application or in established information, but I'm talking the universe itself - down to fundamental forces and the way things are. Dimensionality is probably the best example here, particularly with respect to time.
Now, to a true scientist, to a true practitioner of the scientific method (this is not the "No True Scottsman" fallacy - science has a defined, known process which either is or is not followed in its entirety), this shouldn't present a problem. The search is for the best model or theory, and there may be an expectation of eventually finding absolute truth, but there's no guarantee of confirmation (lest you'd see the word "theory" quite a bit less). Know that I do not argue semantics when I state that, if a scientist postulates a theory is fact, that scientist advocates belief, faith, and religion. These are not interchangeable precepts. We call evolution a theory because it is that; we do not expect it to be disproven and the evidence is pretty damned airtight, but we still allow that it can be disproven. Theories are (dis)provable - this should, of itself, indicate a lack of expected absolution.
To me, however, this is a problem. I am not interested in models and I am not interested in "the best explanation we've got" - I want fact, truth. I want absolution and I do not want it through faith. However, given the inherent contradiction of the search for absolution (the methodologies) and absolution itself, you cannot achieve this without faith.
Ergo, you cannot know absolution. I do not postulate a lack of absolution, however - I find the idea absurd. There's a demonstrable consistency which more than suggests absolution.
Thus, we get into sophomoric arguments of perception. Ah, yes, the crux of postmodernist bullshit. The idea that you can't know something because there is nothing to know. Or, at the very least, that your methods aren't contradictory in terms of discovery, that they're simply flawed. The absurd idea that your senses and rationality are flawed (curious to see someone trying to reason away reason). Know this: there are only contradictions in knowledge or conclusions. Generally, I don't bother with such arguments - I can do away with your proposition that you don't exist or that you exist subjectively by breaking your nose and asking you to deny it.
I do bother with them in terms of invention, however. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a new color. I can't imagine a new accent (or one that I haven't encountered before). Maybe both are cases of limited imagination, maybe they're just examples of simple absolution. If color is simply a perception (and attach to that all postmodernist implications of the word), then you certainly should be able to perceive new ones. To suggest that you cannot would sure as hell imply that there's an absolute range of available ones. It's an interesting demonstration of what a concept really is: they really do have to reflect reality, though perhaps not to such a literal extent as to argue that the imagined monsters under your bed are not a "concept" (it exists in the range of possibility, maybe even probability, but not in actuality).
I don't hinge a lot of philosophical ideology on the color issue, but it's of considerable interest to me. Enter synaesthesia - the perception of senses across different receptors than those arranged for the purpose. Hearing colors, seeing sounds, seeing tastes. I can understand the idea loosely - smell and test are pretty strongly tied together. I can relate color as a range as I can sound to a range, so I could see that, rather arbitrarily, you could group them together and perceive them as one. I'm sure you could classify tastes much the same way. I can understand the idea. I can't imagine actually experiencing it.
But it brings to mind hallucinogens. In particular, it brings to mind psilocybin, the active compound in many hallucinogenic mushrooms (psilocybes, such as the ever-popular cubensis). From what I read, synaesthesia is a fairly common experience on these drugs, as well as the ego-breaking, time-breaking dissolutions provided by the fabled "heroic" dosage. The latter I generally dismiss - people who tend to believe the things they hallucinate tend to have been pretty damned stupid to start with. I am, nonetheless, curious. If such a hallucinogen can cause me to cross senses, can it allow me to perceive new senses altogether, or, in particular, imagine or "experience" components of those senses I cannot otherwise experience?
In short, can a mushroom grown in a pile of shit make me a new color?
I honestly don't know the answer, and given the subjectivity of the question, I reject the forays and attempts of others. In essence: "Dude, I totally saw a new color while tripping!" "Ok, what did it look like?" "Uhh... blue?"
I find colors to be an interesting application to explore the idea of absolution. They are testable entirely because they are often-used examples of perception (with that connotation that your brain is wired to only sense a few, rather than there being an absolute range). Because of all of this, I decided awhile ago that I would, in fact, try mushrooms.
The results of that are still pending, because I'm still waiting for the damned things to grow.
