Yet, apparently we do realize we are wrong sometimes. Sure, up until that point we are ignorant of our wrongness. At some point though, error is recognized, or you and I wouldn't agree that everyone can be wrong at least sometimes about some things.
Seeing our past theory as having been wrong, in hindsight, does not make our present theory right by default. But a lot of us choose to believe this, anyway. Even though, logically, every time it happens, we should be assuming that it is happening, still.
This seems to be a strategy. Trial and error.
One that can never "catch up". It's always seeking truth in hindsight. But the truth doesn't live in hindsight.
Yes indeed. Our perspective is limited and we do not get to observe the whole shebang all at once.
The problem is that we don't know how much we don't know. So we can't know how much it would fundamentally change what we think we do know, if we knew it. We just pretend that what we think we know is mostly right. But in fact we have no way whatever of justifying that presumption. Even when we apply our theory and it functions in the moment and under the circumstances, that doesn't mean it's right. It just means it worked for us, that time, when applied.
A lot of people are fighting this realization. They want their gods or their scientism to overcome this scary dilemma of our perpetual unknowing for them. And so they want to fight with anyone that dares to contradict that desire.
I dare to contradict that desire. It's my gift to you all.
Yet, what our experience shows us is that our incremental improvements in understanding actually increases our perspective (relative to where we have been) and actually decreases limitation experienced in our earlier states of ignorance.
All it shows us is that our theories sometimes work according to our desires, under certain circumstances. But we are stupid and selfish humans, so even that little bit of self-service is enough for us to pretend we got reality and truth, licked. Under control.
It seems you deny there is a capacity to have some objective knowledge of reality and the ability to conclude some things not possible. Not sure if you are going to sway many to that view.
"Objectivity" is an illusion. A false conceptual idol. It's very similar to what the "inerrant Bible" is to some fundi-theists. They both can be useful and insightful, but neither is the Holy Grail that people want to make them out to be.
Doesn't this position in some way suggest that you know what the full truth is such that you can make such an assessment?
Interestingly, we can know
that we don't know without knowing
what we don't know. So your attempt, here, at the "nut-huh, YOU did!" argument doesn't work.
How do you know that "it's holistic beyond the capacity of our binary mental processes" if we do not know all there is to know about reality yet?
Because if it wasn't, we'd know that it wasn't. We don't, so it is.
Logic has some fundamental limitations in it's utility. It is highly dependent on factual information to "logic" upon.
"Facts" are just bits of information that appear true relative to other bits of information that appear true. But their truthfulness fails all the time depending on what other facts we relate them to. So it would be a mistake in logic to assume that facts equate to reality or truth. And therefor, that so does the logic applied to them.
Not sure why one person can only see "side A" and another only see "side B" or that both cannot realize they are looking at a coin with sides by definition.
Happens all the time. Haven't you been paying attention to OUR conversations?
Beyond that, we have billions upon billions of observers over time, so it is never just two folks looking.
And every single one of them limited, flawed, and trapped by their circumstances. Even if we could see the world through every one of their minds eyes, at once, we still would be stuck in the same human condition that we're stuck in, now.
Strongly disagree that we can't mitigate human fallibility.
I know. But you'll thank me someday for telling you that we can't. Well, we can "mitigate", a little bit, maybe. But certainly not overcome.
