Saturday, September 12, 2009

Matters of Fact - Who's to say?

I thought it interesting that matters of fact are understood to be indisputable truths yet interpretations of those truths may be different and if so, then therefore shouldn't there only be one true way to interpret truth? I apologize for the circular thinking, but what I am trying to get at is it takes truth to interpret truth and yet we find limitations in every science. In turn, what does Boyle do to alleviate this perplexity? - he changes the name of the game and in fact does not necessary produce matters of fact but interprets them through many experimental trials. In modern day scientific understanding, it is thought that one can never absolutely prove his or her theory correct, rather only test to make sure there are no known counter examples. Thus returning to the idea that if there is to be matters of fact there also must be an absolute interpreter but that would illicit the question: who or what?

1 comment:

  1. I agree with your post. Truth is supposed to be clear and absolute, but I guess there really is no absolute truth is there? Truth has become so ambiguous and can be interpreted in infinite ways that it no longer can be called truth anymore. We believe something is true if there is no evidence disproving it. There is no absolute interpreter and therefore the idea of matters of fact is also not absolute.


Wider Two Column Modification courtesy of The Blogger Guide