I think your thesis about the truth being the average, in the sense you
describe, is an instance of a partial truth in that it probably
does work for some class of truths, but it really only applies to those
in which the diversity of opinion is opinion based upon
observation. The first three methods, though, are not about
opinions arrived at by observation. Indeed, the third is
conspicuously not composed of any opinions arrived at by observation,
.The second could at mos be construed as being about observation in the
case where the authority arrived at the opinion that way; but the
person who adopts the method of authority is, insofar, NOT basing his
or her opinion on observation. And as regards the first, the only
observation the tenacious thinker is making is about his or her own
feelings, but the opinion adopted is not about his or her own feelings
of conviction. So you are at best right only about some cases of
settlement by the fourth method. But even there I do not
recognize in it the formal structure of the fourth method itself.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Piat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peirce Discussion Forum <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 6:14:05 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What
Dear Jim Willgoose,
Opps, I
goofed. I think you are right. In an earlier
version of my post I had included the possibility that in an open
system new energy, information and possibilities were being added (or
taken away) that would change the mean of the system and thus account
for evolution of the mean (and why variation about the mean is so
important and included in nature's plan).
Otherwise,
yes, the average represents the "least total error" of a
distribution and moreover is in some ways an abstract "fiction" as for
example the average family size of 2.3 people. Still,
as long as we are dealing with generalization about multiple
observations that in reality vary about a mean (and I can't think
of any actual observations that don't) then the mean remains the
characterization of the group of observations that produces the
least total difference from all the other observation comprising
the data set. And what is our notion of truth if not the example
with the least error?
Along
with Peirce, and statistical measurement theory, I think of
every observation as containing a combination some universal truth and
individual error. The average of a distribution of observations
contains the least percentage of individual error because that is what
the math of achieving the average produces. The "truth" of a
whole distribution is the distribution itself. The least
erroneous generalization about the distribution is its
average. I don't think truth lies outside the data. I take
the view that every method, observation or imaginable thing contains
some truth but only a part of the truth along with individual
error. Each of the three methods for fixing belief is valid
in so far as it goes (and of course as examples of themselves perfectly
true). So I would describe them as producing partial
truths. All observation are individual matters.
But idividual observations are wrong in so far as they lack
the validity that only multiple individual POVs can
provide. The whole truth requires simultaneous
observations from multiple POVs which can only be achieved through the
existence of others. And the multiple observations must be
combined rationally (as for example the simple average) in order to
cancel rather than multiply or add error. All of this multiple
POV business being required because the universe extends in both
space and time and there is no way any individual can achieve a POV
from which to grasp its totality.
As
to the flat earth example -- I'd say "the world is flat"
was not so much a wrong conclusion as it was an only partially
true conclusion. For the purpose of most local everyday walking
distances (the main mode of transportation at the time the view was
popular, though never universally accepted) the idea that the earth was
a bumpy (hills and valleys) flat surface was effectively true.
Granted, as we expand our horizons and the distribution of
observation to include previously excepted outliers the mean
shifts accordingly. An error you have correctly noted in my
account. I incorrectly spoke as if my world were the whole
world and we all lived in a locally closed and fixed
system. A common false assumption of the
tenaciously narrow minded such as myself.
BTW
some empirical studies of cultural ideals of human facial beauty point
to the conclusion that the population average (based upon actual
measurements of facial features) is the most favored. This seems
to tie in with Peirce's suggestion (as it survives my personal
filter) that aesthetics is the basis for ethics and ethics for
truth.
And
yes -- in the final analysis all of what I've proposed is not only old
hat but so limited in its generality as to be little more than a crank
opinion. I realize this. Yet for me individually
pluralism has been a big part of
my small personal conception of how truth is
approached. So I appreciate your taking the time to comment,
Jim. Your helpful suggestions have, I believe, already
brought me a bit closer to courtroom ideal of "the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth". I've been learning a
little about the history of common law recently . In a way
the common law system with its constant honing and development based
upon reason and evidence has produced a quasi scientific body of
knowledge about human behavior that is in my view every bit the equal
or superior of that produced by other social
science approaches. A psychologist who wants to
understand interpersonal relations and our society at
large could do worse than to study contract and property
law.
Best wishes and thanks,
Jim Piat
Jim Wilgoose wrote:
Interesting.
But if all the scientist did was "average" three defective modes of
inquiry, wouldn't we be stuck with the "least total error," yet an
error nevertheless? We would have all agreed that the earth is flat,
Euclidean geometry is the true physical geometry, a part can never be
greater than the whole and so forth. The other methods are
experimentally defective. Even if the average was taken just from
within the scientific community, are there not numerous examples of
"leaps" in knowledge occurring by virtue of the beliefs held out along
the fringes of the distribution?
Jim W
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]