Historical Truth
How do we know Winston Churchill lived?
Because we've got living people who remember Churchill (including me), photos and films of him, autographs of books and papers written by him, thousands of newspaper reports of his activiites, etc. etc.
But there is a current of radical skepticism today that voids all of that to the point of solipsism, and I've seen that on this forum. Thus, the argument might go, I haven't seen Churchill, thus Churchill cannot exist. Further, even if I had seen Churchill, how can I be sure it wasn't a delusion? And certainly physical evidence can be fabricated. Reality and indeed truth as an idea has become completely subjectivized. Nothing is real except that which we convince ourselves is real, and then it is only real to us.
The broader question to me is whether there is merit in that current of historical or scientific agnosticism that claims that we cannot be sure of anything. I consider that to be an epistomological error. There is no margin of doubt that Churchill lived, and those that claim that there is a .000000 . X 10 thousandth .01 possibility that he didn't are merely being willfully ignorent. They might claim you cannot be sure as an absolute fact that you saw Churchill and they cannot be sure as an absolute fact that Churchill ever lived. They might even claim they cannot be sure that you exist or they exist! This has its roots in Karl Popper, who says you cannot prove a theory or know it is true, but you can disprove theories by proving facts that are incomaptiable with them. Thus, you cannot induct a universal truth claim, which would include the claim that Churchill lived. As applied to laboratory testing, Popperism makes scientific sense. As applied to history and philosophy generally, it defies common sense. Is there any doubt that table salt is sodium choloride, that we need oxygen to live, that professional wrestling is fake and the moon landing is real? But why is that the case? It is because in the realm of our existence, there is indeed uncertainty, and perhaps much of life is uncertain. But it does not follow that all of life is uncertain. Science and history build on a continuum from claims that are possibly certain-- "there is life on Mars"-- to those that are absolutely certain-- "Winston Churchill lived" and "some atoms are radioactive" -- from "we know that X is true" to "it is impossible to conceive that X is false".
Because we've got living people who remember Churchill (including me), photos and films of him, autographs of books and papers written by him, thousands of newspaper reports of his activiites, etc. etc.
But there is a current of radical skepticism today that voids all of that to the point of solipsism, and I've seen that on this forum. Thus, the argument might go, I haven't seen Churchill, thus Churchill cannot exist. Further, even if I had seen Churchill, how can I be sure it wasn't a delusion? And certainly physical evidence can be fabricated. Reality and indeed truth as an idea has become completely subjectivized. Nothing is real except that which we convince ourselves is real, and then it is only real to us.
The broader question to me is whether there is merit in that current of historical or scientific agnosticism that claims that we cannot be sure of anything. I consider that to be an epistomological error. There is no margin of doubt that Churchill lived, and those that claim that there is a .000000 . X 10 thousandth .01 possibility that he didn't are merely being willfully ignorent. They might claim you cannot be sure as an absolute fact that you saw Churchill and they cannot be sure as an absolute fact that Churchill ever lived. They might even claim they cannot be sure that you exist or they exist! This has its roots in Karl Popper, who says you cannot prove a theory or know it is true, but you can disprove theories by proving facts that are incomaptiable with them. Thus, you cannot induct a universal truth claim, which would include the claim that Churchill lived. As applied to laboratory testing, Popperism makes scientific sense. As applied to history and philosophy generally, it defies common sense. Is there any doubt that table salt is sodium choloride, that we need oxygen to live, that professional wrestling is fake and the moon landing is real? But why is that the case? It is because in the realm of our existence, there is indeed uncertainty, and perhaps much of life is uncertain. But it does not follow that all of life is uncertain. Science and history build on a continuum from claims that are possibly certain-- "there is life on Mars"-- to those that are absolutely certain-- "Winston Churchill lived" and "some atoms are radioactive" -- from "we know that X is true" to "it is impossible to conceive that X is false".
Labels: history
posted by My Mall and News at
6:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home