I recently came upon an article from the site Big Think. Now, I enjoy much of what they have to offer—they get big names in science and philosophy whom I respect, and it’s been my experience that they do not shy away from what could be seen as difficult questions. Of course, the difficulty of these questions is largely based upon the opinion of the reader and not explicitly the contact, and this is where I come in. Now, it should be noted that the author of the article has a Ph.D. in microbiology, has published several books, and contributes articles to numerous organizations. Me? I’m a fat guy with a GED—we are not the same. However, I would argue that knowledge is for everyone, and a personal understanding of reality is largely the point of sapient existence.

Quid Est Veritas?

One of my issues with this particular article, for I have not read anything else by this author; is I find his questions somewhat disingenuous, and this would begin right at the outset. He begins with that moment of Jesus before Pilate when the governor is questioning Jesus. As a final declaration, Pontius is told by the man before him, “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” This quote is from John 18:38 in the NIV. Pilate’s response? “What is truth?”

Now, Dr. Berezow would have us believe we can tell nothing of Pilate’s intent about this question. I disagree. He further states that what we do know is that Pilate did not stick around for an answer, which to him is the end of the discussion.

That’s it. He leaves us in the lurch without bothering to offer any additional depth into the example he gave. Upon review, I wonder if he drew his conclusion from the Wikipedia article where it explains how scholars have debated the actual intent of Pilate’s meaning when asking this question. I read this Wiki entry—I’m fascinated by how this has been handled, at least as is suggested by the Wiki. Given that Pilate’s next move was to walk out and declare that there was no reason for Jesus to appear before him, that there was “no basis for a charge.” I’m inclined to think that he believed Jesus—or at least believed him in reference to being Jewish. Pilate referred to Jesus as their king—of the Jews, asked Jesus if he thought of himself as king to which Jesus’ reply was essentially, “Yes, but not of this world.” Pilate would then ask the people if Jesus should be released, as was the custom during Passover. The Jews, who brought Jesus before Pilate, said “no”—they wanted him executed. So, Jesus was treated like a prisoner about to be crucified, but Pilate continued to insist there was no crime. The requests for crucifixion (based upon Jewish law) were repeated because Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God. Pilate had also offered to let the Jews crucify Jesus, as it was their law, and he was their “King.” He really wanted nothing to do with this whole situation.

So, what’s my point? I believe Pontius Pilate heard Jesus’ claim of truth, and his question is based around an understanding of truth, especially philosophical truth, that is largely pliable. If there are those who believe Jesus “to testify to the truth,” and that truth relates to Jewish ideologies, then it’s out of his purview because no crime is being committed against Caesar, against the political powers over that area. It’s a non-issue for him. Being King of the Jews just means being someone else above that group but still being below Caesar, at least to a bureaucrat like Pilate. His actions suggest to me that he was indifferent to the situation overall, and his own cynicism of truth is why he asked the question. People will believe what they want and call it truth—yes, maybe that’s also my own cynicism, but it’s also quite true.

What Is Epistemological Truth?

“What do we know and how do we know it?” is the major question asked by epistemologists, and it’s one to which this article hopes to offer some clarity. Now, I agree with Berezow in “the correspondence theory, which states that truth corresponds with facts and reality.” If, given an appropriate amount of evidence, and it is demonstrated that you are holding a specific type of apple, then that fact should be irrefutable. I also am a believer that “the scientific method is the foremost system for determining facts. Therefore, science is the best tool to determine reality and truth.” I’ll be honest, I wish he had said “scientific method” instead of “science,” but that’s mostly because it seems to be more a media buzzword and it really misses the heart of what science itself is supposed to represent. Also, the scientific method is the tool and the ideology, whereas science is a larger subject that encompasses lots of sub disciplines—like philosophy encapsulates epistemology.

He then refers to a couple of giant names in philosophy essentially arguing against complete reliance on the scientific method. Well, I’m going to disagree with a couple of wildly respected minds—I’m already disagreeing with a microbiologist, I may as well push my luck.

David Hume is without question a brilliant thinker and author. Take a look at his credentials here.

Immanuel Kant—I mean—I can barely articulate the genius, so see how Stanford defines him here.

In the article, Berezow discusses one of Hume’s writings in which he argues against inductive logic—“the process of making observations and then drawing larger conclusions from limited data.” I have not read this enquiry myself, but in the way it’s explained on Big Think, Hume reduces the concept of gathering scientific information to posit a larger truth as being unjustifiable. In essence, it very ridiculously suggests we should safely ignore the idea that stars are “flaming balls of hydrogen and helium” since we cannot possibly know the composition of every single star in the universe.

His follow-up example to support Hume’s argument is—lackluster. All swans are white. Well, what about this black swan? Oh. 

Next, we get into Kant, where reality appears to be subjective: “It is impossible for humans to distinguish between reality and our perception of reality.” Again, another lackluster example to bolster this argument. Basketballs are orange, but what if my brain is wrong and basketballs are actually green?

I don’t know what he’s trying to articulate with these examples, but I’m mighty disappointed in both Hume and Kant if this was the best they could come up with (this is sarcasm; these two were on a level of thought beyond myself or Dr. Berezow). That said, Hume reduces inductive reason to a headline, and Kant argues our brains, overall, might be wrong. What neither of these specific selections or examples offer, or indeed the rest of the article, is how much we as a sentient species rely on our consistent and mutual understanding of varying concepts.

Orange is orange, not green. We accept this as a people because we agree on the differences between how those colors are typically processed by our brains, and we agree on the naming of those colors in multiple languages. 

Stars are defined as being “flaming balls of hydrogen and helium” (more or less). This is another example where we, as a species, accept a definition. Where the Hume bit misses the mark is we define stars thusly, and those things we determine are composed differently—are not called stars. The English language is wildly complicated and ever growing because we keep having to create new words, new ways to express details we were not aware of before. As the scientific method continues to thrive, as technology grows to further our ability to understand and interact with our universe, so does our ability to drill ever deeper to gain better facts. It comes down to what metric we use to determine a given fact, a facet of our reality.

I often make this point to people: the scientific method is used to demonstrate very specific things based upon our current ability to repeatedly and consistently test such things. Anyone making a claim of “all” without having to either say before or after, “to the best of our current understanding, all…” or, “from what we’ve been able to demonstrate and measure, it would appear that all whatever might potentially be.” That’s the best you can reliably state in terms of scientific understanding. So, if we return to stars for a moment, it should not simply be stated that, “All stars are flaming balls of hydrogen and helium,” but instead, “We have come to define stars as being flaming balls of hydrogen and helium because our present observations suggest this is the best definition for objects in space that generate their own light.” Or something of similar detail and specificity.

Big Thoughts

So, now we run into a horrible segue. Look, I have made some terrible arguments and I know at times I can seem almost jumpy in my commentary, but this is a microbiologist writing for a reasonably reputable website. This is just my own observation, but please feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree, because as with anything else, we have our own biases in our way of understanding things. However, it is possible to break something down to a level whereby you could, scientifically, determine if a thing is a thing.

This is where I once again disagree with what the article represents, which is odd because it also provides the very reason why I disagree with it.

There are those within the scientific community who would argue that philosophy is dead or has no purpose. Hawking is mentioned specifically, but I recall Neil Degrasse Tyson saying something similar. I think both brilliant men are wrong about this. For one thing, without philosophy, without a sense of wonder and questioning about “why” or “what” or “how,” there’d be no need for us to try to better understand our reality. Secondly, once we understand a thing, what do we do with that knowledge? Just because we can do a thing, does that mean we should?

Example questions are offered that science cannot answer, but Dr. Berezow chooses a question about the state of the economy to “prove” his point. He offers up the complications of this quite broad question. Stating that there “is no inherently correct metric” is true, but in many conversations, I find I must define the metric which we are speaking to. Or, during the conversation, there must be a pause in our flow to make sure we’re of the same understanding of said metric. So, all of the questions he poses in the article should probably be answered to give a full picture of the broader question, “Is the economy doing well?” Just like science and the scientific method, or philosophy and epistemology, the economy encapsulates GDP, unemployment, median income, the stock market, etc. It is not a simple question.

I can’t tell you how many times I respond with, “It’s not that simple,” when posed with what seems like a simple question. I mean, the article is only a couple of pages worth of material—this reply is going on twice that and I’m skipping things in my head to try to make this more concise.

I don’t think we’ll ever reach a point where the scientific method can be leveraged to answer every question, but that’s because the more we learn, the more we ask. Philosophy and science should be treated as functioning together towards greater understanding, just like our minds function on chemical reactions as dictated by our genetics and our experiences— nature and nurture.

Summary

I found the subject matter interesting, but I found the way in which the author presented it inconsistent and ultimately unfulfilling.

·         What is Truth?

·         Science vs. Philosophy

·         Science vs. Philosophy, Part II

·         …

That last bit is, “Wait, did we define truth? Not even a little bit…”

Okay, So What Is Truth?

Truth, as it relates to a specific item or concept you are attempting to understand, feels more like a process to me, a route instead of a destination. In order to define something, to really get your mind wrapped around the concept as fully as possible, there are lots of prerequisites in how language functions, how words are defined, how relevant supporting metrics are, how biases cloud judgment, and ultimately what the evidence actually shows rather than what we want it to show.