An indispensable qualification is to distinguish between what really is and what is (or can be) known. But objectivity-blindness seems pervasive.
Topics
About: truth
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: What Is Required Is to Be Legitimately Accurate, Which Is . . .
- 2: There Is No Such Thing As Prescience
- 3: Hypothesizing Is OK and Necessary, But Beware
- 4: A General Checkup on Objectivity-Blindness May Be Due
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will understand what being legitimately accurate is.
Orientation
There are some articles on truthfulness (here, etc.).
There is an article on the reality, observations, and interpretations of them.
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: What Is Required Is to Be Legitimately Accurate, Which Is . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Being truthful is the most fundamental, absolutely indispensable thing to be for any being.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, the problem is that some persons do not agree on that point.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I know, and it is rather 'many' or even 'most' than "some", among Biasians.
And I cannot help but admit that I have no means to argue with them, because I have no base on which I can build my arguments: I have to say like "This is true, is it not? Then, this should be also true. . . ", but being true or not does not matter to them in the first place . . .
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Persuasions are usually done based on emotions, not based on truths, among Earthians.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But what I have to do persuasion on is that you should not be persuaded based on emotions.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You will have to do it based on emotions.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But I am claiming that you should not do a surreptitious thing as trying to persuade someone by manipulating his or her emotions.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A catch-22, huh?
It is fundamentally futile to be concerned with those "some", "many", or "most" persons.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Then, let us suppose that we are talking in a limited group of persons who agree on my premise.
To be truthful is to be accurate.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Of course.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But what is required for non-omniscient beings like us is to be legitimately accurate.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Is there such thing as being illegitimately accurate?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes, there is.
For example, you cast a die in an opaque box and declare "It's 6!", and let us suppose that that happens to be true, and you say "Look! I was accurate!".
Well, certainly you were accurate, but not legitimately accurate.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Are you condemning every kind of betting?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
No. Betting is not declaring that you are accurate; betting is risking your money while you know that you may not be accurate.
Being legitimately accurate is stating what you really know.
As for the example of the die, being legitimately accurate is stating "The probability of its being 6 is 1/6.".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You should say like "almost 1/6", because no actual die is completely symmetrical.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"The probability of its being 6 is almost 1/6.", to be more accurate.
2: There Is No Such Thing As Prescience
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I find it very foolish among Biasians that someone asserts something groundlessly and happens to be right and boasts his or her having been right: it is no credit to him or her; it was just a luck.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
He or she is boasting that he or she had prescience.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But there is no such thing as prescience actually.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It is an inveterate myth among Earthians that there is.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
And it is a very harmful myth.
A plain fact is that nothing can be known groundlessly; if a groundless assertion happens to be right, it is a luck, not prescience.
As Biasians believe in the existence of prescience, some zany disputes happen: one side asserts one thing and the other side asserts another, both groundlessly. For me, whichever side happens to be luckily right, the both sides are just unreasonable persons who make groundless assertions; I do not value one side any highly just because the side was lucky.
I say that it is very harmful, because it is the cause of such futile disputes.
3: Hypothesizing Is OK and Necessary, But Beware
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
But there is something called "educated guess".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There is: groundless-ness is not a matter of on or off; it is a matter of degree. So, a hypothesis is 95% likely to be right, while another hypothesis is 1% likely to be right.
I am saying that groundlessly ASSERTING is bad; hypothesizing is good.
If the 2 sides are hypothesizing, it does not become such an ugly dispute, but a fruitful argument: "Do you hypothesize so? Well, it is a possibility, although I do not adopt it. Maybe I can learn something from it although I do not totally adopt it.".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You can accept a hypothesis even if you do not adopt it.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes, but be aware that not every hypothesis is acceptable.
The absolute requirement for any hypothesis to be acceptable is to be consistent, internally and externally.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
When you say "internally and externally" . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Being consistent internally means that the hypothesis does not contain any logical contradiction.
Being consistent externally means that the hypothesis does not contradict any known fact.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
As new facts are known daily . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Any hypothesis can be consistent externally only so far; a new fact may deny the hypothesis, and then the hypothesis will have to be modified or retracted, which is the standard process of improving one's worldview.
There are some persons who claim the right to insist on their inconsistent hypotheses, but I do not admit such a right: any inconsistent hypothesis is definitely wrong and they have to come back with modified or new hypotheses.
4: A General Checkup on Objectivity-Blindness May Be Due
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I find some people among Biasians who cannot distinguish between what really is and what is (or can be) known.
They insist that something does not exist just because it is not or cannot be known, a totally stupid idea.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
They "cannot" or 'will not'?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I was suspecting that they 'will not', but now I have begun to suspect that it is a kind of congenital condition, like color-blindness. I would call the condition 'objectivity-blindness'.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Are there many who are suffering "objectivity-blindness"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I see many and very perturbingly, even among highly-educated people.
For example, there is a mathematics professor who is claiming that a function is not legitimate just because humans do not know its behavior and the nature of the function would change if the understanding by humans on its behavior was changed; he is claiming also that the natural numbers set does not exist just because humans do not know well about most of its elements, and also that the square root of 2 does not exist because humans do not know its whole digits.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
. . . Is this about him, personally?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
No. It is rather a pervasive phenomenon.
That odd interpretation of the quantum mechanics seems to keep being mainstream.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What is "That odd interpretation"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It insists that wave functions are objective entities, which leads to that foolish Shrodinger's cat.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And your interpretation is . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The quantum mechanics has already abandoned describing what the objective reality is (because of the uncertainty principle) and is about what humans can predict. So, naturally, wave functions are not about how particles really are, but are just about what humans can predict, as well as the uncertainty of the life or death of the cat is not about that the cat is in a half-alive-half-dead state, but is just about that humans cannot predict the state.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That seems a quite natural interpretation.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But there are some people who persist to that odd interpretation . . .
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I wonder why.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I can only guess that they cannot distinguish between what really is and what can be known.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And is it a congenital condition? Incurable?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Maybe.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
you cannot blame color-blind people "Why can't you distinguish colors?!", as well as you cannot blame objectivity-blind people.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But they should be at least aware that they are objectivity-blind. Maybe, a general objectivity-blindness checkup is due.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What kind of checkup will be that?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It will consist of very simple questions, like "Suppose that there is a particle that does not interact with anything at all, so, it cannot be detected. Do you conclude that the particle does not exist?"
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The question has already declared "there is a particle", which means that the particle exists . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Nevertheless, objectivity-blind people will answer that it does not exist.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Will they?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Another question may be "The diagonal length of any unit square cannot be digitized in any finite sequence of digits. So, do you conclude that the length does not exist?".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It is about the finite-digitizability of the length, not about the existence of the length . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But there are some people who claim the nonexistence, as a matter of fact.
