All knowledge of any phenomenon is limited by the assumptions of a given sociocultural temporal context. This philosophy assumes all knowledge is relative to or constrained by what is known at the boundaries of the unknown during a given period.
Social (the summation of knowledge held by all people, or a subgroup of people, depending on the context of analysis) at a particular point in time (say, for example, at this moment).
Not all truths are actually true but the most likely are the ones that persist the longest and in spite of repeated attempts to disprove or falsify because those attempts when they fail are evidence for that truth.
Say that two people make an interpretation of ta social event, interaction, of phenomenon. Who's interepretation is correct? It doesn't really matter what the interpretations are for this discussion because the point is to make an interpretation requires assumptions about what is observed...
Since what is observed is not what is actually "out there", because it is filtered through the schemas each of us holds, the framework of these schemas determines the conclusions or interpretations that are made about the social event, interaction, or phenomenon. How a framework develops is essentially subject to principles of evolution.
Take an isolated schema in the context of a person's psychological framework and extrapolate this to the "level" of any given field of inquiry at a given point in time and the notion of a collective framework of the field begins to materialize. Or, further, take all the knowledge of, say, the social network of researchers within a field and while there may be different camps there are usually common assumptions about certain areas, topics, or ideas that are held across these subnet groups that thread these groups together.
Whether there is such thing as "progress" is another discussion (as it assumes a directionality) but assuming "progress" does exist and its conception is a larger collection of shared, agreed upon, common knowledge, the schema of a given field, network of researchers, body of knowledge, etc., does not exist separate from the assumptions it makes, it is founded upon them and sometimes these assumptions are challenged and hold while other times these assumptions are not challenged, may not be true, and faulty, or only partial truths, are built upon them...
However, when assumptions are challenged and what was truth is now changes so does the frame upon which future knowledge is accumulated or seen through. This can happen in incremental ways or with entire paradigm shifts.
Is it true that "All knowledge of any phenomenon is limited by the assumptions of a given sociocultural temporal context"?
Yes, everything is random, I agree. We think "hic et nunc" (here and now). The rest are just references.
Best regards
Mike
Miquel Ricart , what do you mean by "random"?, and regardless of what you mean by "random," is it true that "everything is random"?
Hello Martin Klvana
Even scientific theories are hypotheses. Chance is a huge power. No one is out of it
Miquel Ricart , but "chance" refers to the probability/potentiality (of something to happen), and when something actually happens, it does so by obeying the unbreakable laws/principles of nature; many (if not most) scientific discoveries are serendipitous, but serendipity is not randomness.
Hello Martin Klvana,
Everything non-tautological is random for each subject.
I exclude "scientific truths"
Best wishes
Mike
Social (the summation of knowledge held by all people, or a subgroup of people, depending on the context of analysis) at a particular point in time (say, for example, at this moment).
Not all truths are actually true but the most likely are the ones that persist the longest and in spite of repeated attempts to disprove or falsify because those attempts when they fail are evidence for that truth.
Say that two people make an interpretation of a social event, interaction, of phenomenon. Who's interepretation is correct? It doesn't really matter what the interpretations are for this discussion because the point is to make an interpretation requires assumptions about what is observed...
Since what is observed is not what is actually "out there", because it is filtered through the schemas each of us holds, the framework of these schemas determines the conclusions or interpretations that are made about the social event, interaction, or phenomenon. How a framework develops is essentially subject to principles of evolution.
Take an isolated schema in the context of a person's psychological framework and extrapolate this to the "level" of any given field of inquiry at a given point in time and the notion of a collective framework of the field begins to materialize. Or, further, take all the knowledge of, say, the social network of researchers within a field and while there may be different camps there are usually common assumptions about certain areas, topics, or ideas that are held across these subnet groups that thread these groups together.
Whether there is such thing as "progress" is another discussion (as it assumes a directionality) but assuming "progress" does exist and its conception is a larger collection of shared, agreed upon, common knowledge, the schema of a given field, network of researchers, body of knowledge, etc., does not exist separate from the assumptions it makes, it is founded upon them and sometimes these assumptions are challenged and hold while other times these assumptions are not challenged, may not be true, and faulty, or only partial truths, are built upon them...
However, when assumptions are challenged and what was truth is now changes so does the frame upon which future knowledge is accumulated or seen through. This can happen in incremental ways or with entire paradigm shifts.
these responses confuse me...could either of you add a bit more to your responses : )
Martin Klvana
Miquel Ricart
Hi both...I am very confused by your responses. Could you please provide some more information?
Hi Andrew
In my opinion
1. Chance is decisive in the action.
2. Being is determined by chance and chaos. And
3. The perplexity of the human being is almost absolute in his life
We have no means - at this time - to understand reality
Best wishes
hi Miquel Ricart still confused but thank you for your responses : )
Andrew Silletti Jr. , "intellectual nature is always one and the same, whereas physical nature varies, changes unceasingly with time and place, and is modified in a thousand ways according to circumstances." --Fabre d'Olivet (Discourse upon the Essence and Form of Poetry)
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy