But why stop there? ...
What can you really know? What do you THINK you really know?
Not just the Big Bang theory. But that person who you think is your Father.
Literally everything is somehow communicated to you through intelligible thoughts ...
Can anybody really develop into a functioning adult without accepting the thoughts of others whatsoever?
Or is it about Empiricism?
At some point you get drowned in the depths of philosophy.
Actually I do not stop at Kant nor Empiricism. They did not have the privilege of having electron microscopes. Nowadays we realize that we do not even
know how many dimensions exist. Knowledge is impossible, 100%.
For practical purposes let's divided reality into 3 parts, past, present and future. We should know most about the present, because of our empirical
observation. But unfortunately, while the chairs we sit on appear solid, they are mostly empty space with a few atoms in between. Our senses fail us.
Predicting the future is done by making (imperfect) empirical observations, and creating a theory that explains the observation (through thinking that
may or may not be flawed). We then use the theory to build bridges, attempting to have them not collapse during their useful life.
The most interesting for our discussion is knowledge about the past. Until recently we have relied almost exclusively on reports of observations to
tell us what happened in one-time historical events. Such reports from, say, newspapers were collected into history books.
I am not asking these fundamental questions in order to find some philosophical absolute like Kant did,
but to satisfy my very practical doubt
that much - if not most - of what I learned in history lessons may be 180 degrees away from the truth.
Eye witness accounts of accidents are known to be highly inaccurate. Add to that the fact that these reports are mostly provided not
bystanders but by biased participants of the event. Further add that the event took place 50 or 500 years ago. And since then they have been run
through the government filter that has absolute power over any information that is provided under its umbrella.
It seems obvious to me that the end result (our history book) is unreliable, to say the least. Presenting such unreliable information as fact is
suspicious in itself. It should be examined skeptically. If it does not stand up to scrutiny the blame goes squarely to the government. If the
government prohibits or discourages such scrutiny it clearly has something to hide.
E.g. is it physically possible for (all 3 NY) buildings to collapse - vertically - as they did on 9/11 due to fire? This is where you use science.
Again, nothing can be known, which is why mutually exclusive theories can be maintained. If there were a possibility for knowledge we would have
about an event as recent as 2001. It is not possible.
This is what we must come to terms with. Yes, we must also "believe" information provided to us by others - but only basic (mechanical) information
from neutral sources (say demolition companies in non-anglophone countries), and then we can start making our own theory by independently "thinking",
rather than "believing" the conclusions arrived at by others about historic events such as this one.
And btw, what would be your reaction if scientific data (like the 9 months thing) pops up that causes you to ask your parents (biased participant
"observers") and they avoid to answer your questions? Lingering doubt?
I do not "believe" alien or UFO accounts, I "think" aliens exist because of (mechanical) data about quarrying and placing 1000 ton rocks in
edit on 2-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)