Why Unbounded Consistency Is the Only Way to Nearing Truths
Unbounded consistency Is the only way to nearing truths because we can't just perceive the whole of any truth: we look at the truth, now from a direction, then from another direction, weigh it, hit it, heat it, taste it, dip it in chemical solutions, illuminate it, burn it, and do whatever we can, and we make up an image of it, that consistently explains all the results.
Yes. Being unbounded is important. If you stop after just looking at the truth from a direction, that's bounded; if you resist accepting the result of burning it, that's bounded. If our understanding is true, it must be able to explain all the results consistently.
There are three frequently seen attitudes against the principle.
The first one is to believe in the intuition: "I have the intuition that can perceive the whole of the truth at a glance."
Ah, so, if a man, somehow, looks like a terrorist, it is decided that he is a terrorist.
Maybe, he has dark skin, wears unfamiliar headgear, or happens to resemble a famous terrorist.
Poor fellow . . .
The intuition is an associations mechanism, not a truths detector. When one saw that a terrorist wore a specific kind of headgear, an association, that kind of headgear -> terrorist, was established; now, when he or she sees a man who wears that kind of headgear, his or her intuition says that the man is a terrorist. That is the working of the intuition. However, of course, not all the men who wear that kind of headgear aren't terrorists. Believing in the intuition is a major cause of grave injustices.
The intuition has some appropriate uses, but believing what it says as truths isn't one of them.
The second one is to ignore inconvenient pieces of information: some people build intricate consistent theories, except they just ignore things that are inconsistent with their theories.
They are logical, except they just reject what don't fit their logic.
Being shown a counterevidence, they enthusiastically repeat how their theories can perfectly explain all the things that they chose to be perfectly explained by their theories.
Ah, in fact, they are found even in scholars or experts of high social standings.
The third one is to be awakened that one can't know the whole of any truth, and decide that truths don't matter at all.
Ah, as though, "As I can't get a perfect score, it doesn't matter if I get zero point."
Certainly, we can't know the whole of any truth, but that doesn't mean that we can't help but or are sanctioned to tell blatant lies or brazen bullshit.
It's not all or nothing. We can near truths even if we can't ultimately reach truths.
That 'all or nothing' mentality is harmful. Although we can't make things perfectly fair, it isn't that we are sanctioned to happily do blatantly unfair things. We can try to make things as fair as we can.
As we can't do most of things perfectly, what we can do is to do things better.
The 'all or nothing' mentality is an excuse for not doing efforts to do things better.
In fact, the 'all or nothing' mentality is very frequently seen among Earthians.
There are some people who say, "As established newspapers are biased, I believe fake news."
What kind of logic is that? . . . Although I don't disagree with the first part, that isn't any base that fake news isn't biased.
Established newspapers' being biased isn't any new insight. So, some people have taken measures to read various newspapers and compare descriptions. Truth seekers do such efforts, and that's to near truths.
Let's Take Detective Stories as an Example
There is a genre of detective stories on the Bias planet, and we will take it as an example.
OK.
A woman died. Who killed her, or did nobody kill her?
Well, I don't know.
We can't go back to the past and see her death ourselves.
So, we can't just perceive the truth.
The type one detective, the intuition-believer, looked at some suspects, and it clicked with him.
What clicked?
His intuition said him that a specific suspect was the killer.
On what ground?
Who knows? It just clicked.
. . . Please, would you not let it click so freely?
The detective has a very good intuition.
That isn't the issue. The suspect is a human being. Please, don't imprison the suspect just because someone's intuition said something.
He was already executed.
Poor fellow . . .
The type two detective, the self-professed-theorist, gathered evidences: eyewitnesses (she, the killed, was frequently heard bullying her maid), the motive (the maid had grave grudge to her mistress), the coffee cup brought to the mistress by the maid, a bin of strychnine the maid had in her room, but never what was inside the coffee or the stomach of the killed.
Why not?
Because the coffee wasn't poisoned at all.
Hmm.
And the detective elegantly explained the maid's psychology and solemnly concluded that the maid poisoned the mistress.
But she didn't, did she?
The explanation was so elegant!
I don't care how elegant it was.
All the evidences perfectly fitted together!
Except the coffee wasn't poisoned at all.
Everybody in the room was awed by the detective's intelligence.
What happened to the maid?
She was executed.
. . . She was a human being.
The type three detective doesn't believe in the existence of truths.
Please, don't allow such a person to be a detective.
So, it doesn't matter who was a real killer.
It absolutely matters.
There is no concept as a real killer.
I don't understand.
The detective acted on the principle that he should act as things will be most beneficial to himself.
Please, don't judge who was the killer based on such a principle.
The most unexpected suspect would have to be declared the killer because that would enhance his reputation.
As a detective who can see through intricate conspiracies?
Yes. But you shouldn't think that he is selfish: his conspiracy story entertained the mass; he did it also for the mass.
So, the poor innocent suspect doesn't matter?
It couldn't be helped, for all except him would be happy. You know, that's 'great happiness of the greatest number'.
The real killer would be particularly happy.
You know, there is no such thing as a real killer.
. . . Was the poor innocent suspect . . .
Executed.
. . .
