- UID
- 867119
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-3-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Issue87
37:22
Claim: Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future.
Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual turns out to be inaccurate.Thespeaker contends that any piece of information referred to as a fact should bemistrusted, based on the threshold reason that much of the information thatpeople assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate. While Iwholeheartedly agree with the speaker’s threshold reason, when it comes to theclaim based upon it, the speaker unfairly generalizes and therefore I cannotagree.
Tobegin with, due to different kinds of limit we human beings share, many axiomswe used to deeply believed turn out to be inaccurate. First, due to theprofoundly religious belief and time limit, people tend to believe in theoriesmore in accordance to their belief system until sagacious people stand out toprove another truth. One tell example involves heliocentral theory. Copernicuschallenged the long-held believe that the Earth was the very center of theuniverse by proving that the Earth actually circles around the sun, paved theway for corroborating observation made by Galileo and Kepler, pushing theboundaries of science forward by disproving the old theories that chainedpeople’s minds. Secondly, there are certain theories were inaccurate as aresult of the lack of advanced equipment at the day. Looking back to the gloomydays when Black Plague swept through Europe, killing one third of itspopulation from 1348 to 1350. With no cure available, and no clues as to whatcause the disease, many believed that it was God’s punishment for sinfulbehaviors. Last, there are always certain situations when the future was soopaque and obscured by so many factors that it was hard to draw a preciseconclusion. Consider Bill Gates, the hero of modern computer technology, whomade a silly prediction at the commencement of personal computer that in thefuture, everyone will need only a maximum of 35 MB in storage while today normallaptops will have some 500 GB hard drive, let alone storage measured in TB.
However,although I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of theissue, the speaker’s ground is too absolute. Indeed, questioning the facts, theestablished schools, the authorities, can make a difference and stimulate we humansto keep on seeking the truth. But actually the speaker incorrectly equals thefacts, or truth, to certainty. This is not the case. The philosopher of scienceKarl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He writes that scientificknowledge “consists in the search for truth,” but it “is not the search forcertainty. All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.” Byregarding certainty as one indicator of truth is misleading because none of themwill fit such criteria. Undue skepticism will lead us to places we don’t wantto go. We will end up mistrusting every piece of precious knowledge upon whichwe advance our horizon and technology just because they are not certain andtherefore our search for truth suspends and no progress will be made. Afterall, only by standing on the shoulders of the giants can we see further.
Undoubtedly,it is deeply rooted in human nature that we will not stop questioning andpursuing the truth, during which we continuously broaden our horizons anddispel our endless fear for unknown like our ancient ancestors did with fire.To make further progress one must understand the ubiquity of uncertainty andhold a wise attitude towards it. Only to strike a balance between the undueskepticism and the brave spirit to question the uncertainty can we know moreabout ourselves, about the universe and about the ultimate uncertainty andunknown. By adopting the speaker’s claim one will lose himself in the sea offear and skepticism while no progress will be done, without which we cannotdeepen our understanding of the uncertainty.
Insum, the speaker unfairly generalizes about all the facts and recommends apotentially harmful and negative way to deal with knowledge. Although it is ofgreat essence to keep in mind that nothing is definitely correct, it is moreimportant to rely on the immense treasure of knowledge built by the giants ofour time and past times. In the final analysis I agree with the speaker’sreason but cannot agree with the claim. In my opinion, the healthy attitude isto remain inquisitive in the search of truth, not too much, not too little,just right. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-3-16 12:56:49
收藏
收藏
楼主
