Two additional concepts I wonder about - time and action. As humans, most of whom are not philosophically minded, we crave certainty to make sense of the world and to provide a foundation for our actions. Remaining uncertain (epistemologically humble) might be the correct philosophical path to ultimate truth. But danger lurks if it prevents us from living our actual lives.
Swift's flying falsehoods are leapt upon because they provide an anchor for our decisions and actions.
Danger also lies when humanity leaps on the wrong flying falsehoods (eugenics as an obvious example). Consequently, how we navigate a world of competing flying falsehoods at a societal level is critically important. But at an individual level, when point in time decisions require a level of (even false) certainty to make (if we are to avoid an inertia filled, un-lived, life), what choice have we?
Great points! And it will take a lot more space that reasonable in this comment to respond properly. I will try to explore some of these themes in future posts.
One thing I would say is that there is a difference between being uncertain and being humble: we can act decisively and even confidently based on our best current judgement, but maintain the epistemic humility that we may turn out to have been mistaken.
Similarly, it often makes sense to latch onto a flying falsehood to anchor our actions. If we have epistemic humility, we will be paying attention and revise that anchor if it turns out to be wrong. If we don't have that humility, we will tend to dig in and continue on the same path.
One final thought for me: I don't think that we can wait until we know with certainty before we act. Most of the time, we need to act and do something to find out whether we were right about what we knew. If we wait, we can never really know.
Does this mean that the anchors to our actions must only be ever be conveniences rather than truths? If so, what does this mean for our personal narrative?
Even if we start with conveniences as anchors for our actions, they do not need to remain that way if we revise, consider and test as we go. That is a core way we discover truth. We start with something - maybe a hunch, hearsay or a hypothesis - and then we test it in practice or by experiment to figure out whether it was accurate, i.e. whether it is true.
This makes perfect sense to me at a societal level, although we can expect some bumps in the road. But I wonder whether it is as easy at an individual level. If our actions outlast our convenient anchors, does that leave us in a world of epistemological angst in seeking to reconcile an ongoing state of being created by our past actions (which we can no longer change) with a new and better truth which demands a different choice. If you are left with a path between regret and hanging on to an outdated truth, which should we choose and which, as a matter of evidence, do people tend to choose.
Two additional concepts I wonder about - time and action. As humans, most of whom are not philosophically minded, we crave certainty to make sense of the world and to provide a foundation for our actions. Remaining uncertain (epistemologically humble) might be the correct philosophical path to ultimate truth. But danger lurks if it prevents us from living our actual lives.
Swift's flying falsehoods are leapt upon because they provide an anchor for our decisions and actions.
Danger also lies when humanity leaps on the wrong flying falsehoods (eugenics as an obvious example). Consequently, how we navigate a world of competing flying falsehoods at a societal level is critically important. But at an individual level, when point in time decisions require a level of (even false) certainty to make (if we are to avoid an inertia filled, un-lived, life), what choice have we?
Great points! And it will take a lot more space that reasonable in this comment to respond properly. I will try to explore some of these themes in future posts.
One thing I would say is that there is a difference between being uncertain and being humble: we can act decisively and even confidently based on our best current judgement, but maintain the epistemic humility that we may turn out to have been mistaken.
Similarly, it often makes sense to latch onto a flying falsehood to anchor our actions. If we have epistemic humility, we will be paying attention and revise that anchor if it turns out to be wrong. If we don't have that humility, we will tend to dig in and continue on the same path.
One final thought for me: I don't think that we can wait until we know with certainty before we act. Most of the time, we need to act and do something to find out whether we were right about what we knew. If we wait, we can never really know.
Does this mean that the anchors to our actions must only be ever be conveniences rather than truths? If so, what does this mean for our personal narrative?
Even if we start with conveniences as anchors for our actions, they do not need to remain that way if we revise, consider and test as we go. That is a core way we discover truth. We start with something - maybe a hunch, hearsay or a hypothesis - and then we test it in practice or by experiment to figure out whether it was accurate, i.e. whether it is true.
This makes perfect sense to me at a societal level, although we can expect some bumps in the road. But I wonder whether it is as easy at an individual level. If our actions outlast our convenient anchors, does that leave us in a world of epistemological angst in seeking to reconcile an ongoing state of being created by our past actions (which we can no longer change) with a new and better truth which demands a different choice. If you are left with a path between regret and hanging on to an outdated truth, which should we choose and which, as a matter of evidence, do people tend to choose.