In order for us to understand what is true,and gain knowledge thereof, does it have to be justified?

Question

And do we have the ability to justify ourselves? Or do we have to be justified by others? Basically, do we define our own reality, or does reality define us? For example: someone brought this up in an earlier question I posted (and I apologize if my questions all seem like I'm asking the same thing, but I'm trying to get to an answer for a research paper) For example: say a person is autistic. If that person in their own mind believes they are not autistic, but actually has a different way of seeing reality that the rest of society doesn't, how can society be justified rather than the individual? If I am but merely one person, a minority in comparision to the majority, where in a society, majority makes the justification of "truth" and "fact", then who is right? Does external sources justify what is "truth" or can we know "truth" within ourselves if we can't have justification of what we believe to be "true"?

Ok..maybe I should have left the word "fact" out, and just stuck to "truth". Another example of what I am trying to get at: Say a person is a transsexual and wants to get a sex change. This believe believes it to be truth, that they were born with a gender identity that conflicts with their physical birth sex. However, for the transsexual to even believe they are transsexual, they would have had to attain the knowledge that such a thing as transsexual existed. However, in order to fix the situation, the transsexual has to go to a doctor who justifies their belief that the truth is they are the opposite sex, otherwise, the transsexual has to live their life knowing they are the opposite sex from which they were born, but living in a world where society has justified it's own truth, based on perception.

Kathy....how do you KNOW that I don't possess these traits to which I am referring? Please stop telling me what I do and don't know. As a matter of fact, I AM a transsexual.

Answer 1

Very interesting question....goes down the lines of the age old "the ends justifies the means" script... very dangerous thinking if taken to extremes.....

Answer 2

Wow! A very good question. Baravo!

Truth, what is it? From what stand point?

Do we have the ability to justify ourselves? Do and dont. If you have a set of predetermined criteria, then you can justify something/someone based on that criteria. The criteria -- which are predetermined. The next question, do we really have the ability to establish the set of criteria? It depends on the situation you are in. In the case that you must decide what to do in your spare time, for instance, you are in best position to establish the criteria.

In other case, if you must decide what is the best for the society you are belong to, then you need to discuss with the rest. There is no guarantee that the majority will always produce "the truth", however, it is justified because any risk that may result from "the truth" that go wrong will be shared among the members. In this case, the majority has more rights for the society than the minority.

Answer 3

Interesting Q,,,but confusing with regard to your name,,,NO offense.

TRUTH and FACT are different. Science, even when disputed, offers FACT, as well as theory. Religion, for example offers TRUTH, certainly, also often disputed, and justification might not be as valid, or necessary,,, as "Belief"

Science/Fact can eventually be proven or disproven. Truth might be a liflong quest, with no clear answer, other than on a very personal level, individually.

Example: If I believe the substance of the moon is not Green Cheese, I have that belief not only because it seems silly and impossible, but because Science has offered what I "believe" to be FACT,,, that the substance of the moon is NOT green cheese.

Steven Wolf

Answer 4

I know a lot of autistic people, my own son included, and they all know they have autism. So your example is kind of uneducated. And anyway, all of this depends on your own definition of truth in the first place. It's different for everyone.

PS You're digging yourself in deeper. A transsexual does not have to know about transsexuality to know they got the wrong body for their identity. Many of them report knowing it since preschool. Part of your dilemma is that you keep using examples of people you have no experience with. If you were a transsexual, you would have mentioned it before autism, and you wouldn't have made the incorrect assumption about them.

Answer 5

I believe that there is an absolute truth and everything can be measured against that truth to determine it's authenticity.

I use the Christian Bible as my guide for truth, and I am justified by Christ.

Before you say you don't believe in absolute truth, you need to decide if you are absolutely sure.

Answer 6

truth,reality and knowledge mean different things to different people.no they do NOT need to be justified,only acknowledged and in some cases validated

Answer 7

I have no concept of your point here.
It seems to be blather and bull crap.
And I'm a master at those.
Ask a question.
Dave

Answer 8

Descartes is the guy who wrote, "I think, therefore I am." This conclusion came from his focus upon the essence of man in his Second Meditation. Simply put, his interest was to figure out not what makes up a human being, but what a human being is. This lead to conflicts in how a person is and is not his body, is and is not his mind.

Group think is the concept that ideas which are NOT valued by the dominating portion of a group BECOME pressured and pressed out. This can be induced by popularity, majority, charisma, logic, or any other form of pressure exerted by human character while it is trying to determine an answer or technique.

The problem with group think though is in defining when an idea is not induced by pressure and when it is validly acquired. Ideas can be proposed and suggested as much as they are capable of being proposed and suggested, but eventually the group will settle and an answer and stop seeking. This adjustment to stop looking at answers is what group think proposes as an effect of pressure, not an effect of justification, even if the idea happens to be the right one before it is actually confirmed.

A third idea is something often considered in parenting and education. Some children and students often do not accept an idea without understanding it. Others are more compliant because they either inherently understand, don't care to understand, are flat out exhausted, or are so happy that understand isn't a priority. Regardless of whichever characteristic it may be, the youth in the second group perform better BECAUSE they are not allocating attention to understanding and justifying that which the practice and exercise. Understanding and justifying ideas are skills unto themselves (as exhibited by our training and employment of lawyers, journalists, and politicians) and require their own conclusions in understanding of human behavior and acceptability which come about through exposure and maturity.

Now, to answer your question.

Using the above examples, you can see that justification is not required to understand or even recognize an idea. The sentinent and conscious human spirit can perform without knowing every detail or even the jist of what it is doing. Take the example of unskilled factory workers. They're told what to do to get a machine to work, and they do it. Mechanics are hired to repair the machine to get it continue working, but they (furthermore) cannot necessarily build one. Engineers are contracted to design a machine, but they do not necessarily know what it will specifically be applied towards. Financiers will purchase a machine model to be used in production, but they do not necessarily know the specifics of how it is utilized.

I won't expand into the idea of collective knowledge, common sense, and arguments versus production efficiency here, but I think you can integrate these ideas if necessary for your assignment on your own.

But what about the idea of "definition"? This can lead to a circumstantial paradox if you're not careful since it means that one who believes he is independent is only doing what he has been manipulated into thinking whether it is by a creator or his environment. First, although "definition" CAN be defined in two ways, is not defined in two ways. Definition with regards to how one sees and observes and concludes should be defined as recognition. "Definition" as regards to how one is fomulated or constructed is the true definition of "definition" in the metaphysical sense.

We have already considered the details of recognition against understanding, so in a nutshell, no, individuals recognize things by themselves because recognition is an activity which requires attention, energy, and time which all require the will of the individual. Recognition may be influenced by what is likely to occur by being exposed to certain influences, but recognition as an action is performed by individuals. The autistic person you consider in your example is not autistic in reality nor in his own mind. Autism may be a scientific conclusion, but it is still suspect to the same rules of how everything is relative, including human observation and treatment. One day, we may realize that autism is standard in the realm of genetic variation, or we may even realize that autism is just another form of will taking existence.

Still, maybe there are autistic individuals out there who are really trapped in an unfunctioning mind and body. Autism may be a cage in which an individual who wills and tries as hard as he can will not be able to cognitively process or understand certain forms of information or concepts/ behaviors as a whole. If AN individual who has autism can understand he is autistic, then he does "have" autism because like in the previous example, he has made a conclusion. Autism is a condition which is recognized or defined, so this example is just as suspect to relativity as the previous one.

"But what about in an absolute sense? Are autistically afflicted individuals actually autistic?"

Autism is a word which is used to relatively classify individuals just as much as the word "apple" relatively classifies fruit. These words have background, meaning, and evidence to prove their represented ideas existence, but they do not inherently prove themselves in an absolute sense. Only an omnipotent and omniscient being could recognize that which is absolute and true. In being such, he would have all information available to him AND he could process and recognize AND construct with it in an infinite amount of angles and degrees.

HENCEFORTH, the priority of your question has to be slightly changed. You are asking about what logically demonstrates the correctness of one idea over another in society. What needs to be considered is whether or not correctness even matters. Your first question encompasses this, so I urge you to wrap up your paper in sticking with it rather than your tangent. Logic cannot be defined by a majority position (group think), but rather only through absolute positioning (an omnipotent and omniscient being, do not mistake this for politics) as we already grasp. This understanding can be seen in how scientific experiments involve a control and experimental group while having an observer outside of that which is being tested out.

Think of prioritizing your question with regards to logic this way. Calculus and statistics are two practices used to predict outcomes based on different methods (nevermind how they can be intertwined for now). Calculus uses logic of derivatives integrals, fundamental theory, mean value theory, etc. to see how limited bits of underlying information can lead to definite (or at least finite amounts of) sets of solutions. Statistics, on the other hand, recognizes patterns and finds the PROBABILITY of what is going to occur through the use of regressions, matrices, confidence intervals, etc. The information used and gathered in each method is different from each other, yet they often come to similar conclusions. In fact, quantum mechanics (which does intertwine both of these methods) is dependent upon both probability and logic, YET it has NEVER been wrong with any prediction in spite of how each of its predictions only have a chance of occuring.

Likewise, as humans we use democracy as a way to encourage the best answer to most likely arrise and be accepted. This is because we understand that democracy is the best way we have now to let ideas naturally be argued and considered AND accepted by a group. It is similar to statistics in that by allowing thought patterns to present themselves, we can lead ourselves to the right conclusion. Authoritarian governments (monarchies, despotisms, dictatorships) are analogous to calculus, but have one significant trade off - they are faster than democracies with simpler decision making processes, but more tempermental. Leadership through a single dominant person is vulnerable not only to emotional and security contraints, but to absolute constraints which cannot be avoided since no human is perfect.

So a quick summary:
Understanding is not dependent upon nor synonymous of justification.
Yes we can justify ourselves, but we are not always right in doing so nor in choosing to do so.
No, justification by others is not a must, but it has its pros and cons.
Reality influences us, but does not construct us. Definition is also an action of the human spirit.
The holding of an idea by either a majority or minority does not make it right although it is more likely to be if held by a majority (or an eilte minority).

Your last statement is a controversial one, "[Do] external sources justify what is 'truth' or can we know 'truth' within ourselves if we [cannot] have justification of what we believe to be 'true'?"

Personally (it could take days to outline society's arguments), I believe that in order for a creator to exist he must have dispersed all of himself and his resources throughout his universe. In doing so, I'm saying that not only are we all creation of God, but we ARE God by being parts of what he was. I think if we can connect to our environment well enough and can develop our intuition, we can listen and absorb truth (although not necessarily recognize or communicate it!). Truth can become integrated into our behavior and we can apply it to the real world, but not always in a fireworks display of satisfaction or success.

Let's say a scientist sets up an experiment with lab mice in which he wants them to reach the center of a maze. In order to motivate the mice to attempting to reach the center of the maze, he places a piece of cheese there (an influence by the environment). One at a time, the mice are taken out of their collective cage, sent to the maze, perform, and are put back once they've finished. The mice, in the collective cage they came from, are then exposed to the cheese by the breath, smell, and texture of the ones which have already had to run through the maze. Those who have ran through the maze then exhibit certain behavior which CAN tell other mice what the "truth" of the matter is and how they can reach the cheese more efficiently (remember though, understanding and justification are different ideas and skills not to mention how certain mice may be developed while others are not. Also certain behaviors from different motives may render different perceptions, conclusions, and responses which may lead to a chain reaction of realligning the resulting group thinking process).

Eventually, one smart (or intuitive) mouse has to run through the maze, but rather than run through it like the others, he starts trying to sense an answer out of his environment (like meditation or clairvoyance).

The scientist becomes estranged and because he wants the mouse to complete the task, sends underlying signals through his behavior which attempt to pursue the mouses interest. In fact he fails to engage him in the intended manner (we haven't yet discussed motivation yet nor perception, but that's another question for another day). Eventually, a beam of light from his glasses, changes angles so that it reflects off the glass walls of the testing chamber, and hits the mouse in the belly in the exact right spot that he feels a surge of heat throughout him. The mouse feels soothed and rather than go after the cheese, flips on his back and starts squirming in a way reminscent of a seizure!

The scientist thinks the mouse is in pain, but doesn't panic because he knows how anomolies always occur during trials. He gradually walks over to the cage opens the ceiling hatch and sticks his hand in there to pluck the "poor little guy" out. As his hand approaches the mouse (which followed the squeaking of the door opening, the change in air currents by his hand's motion, and dislocation of the beam of light) the smart mouse "realizes" something.

Although he doesn't know he'll end up being killed if he doesn't perform (the scientist has to purify the mouse population and can't have him breeding, so he may drug him, feed him, or incinerate him), he starts receiving bad vibes from his environment. Maybe these vibes are coming from the hand of the scientist, maybe they're coming from the other mice, or maybe they're even coming from the glass container which contains him or even the cheese which may be begging to be eaten!

Regardless, the mouse finds out about its originally intended task, but instead of performing a miraculous last minute dash throughout the maze, his mind tells him only of the location of the cheese and rationalizes that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In a desperate effort, he tries to ram through the maze to reach the cheese, but just ends up slamming his head into the first wall. The scientist gives the mouse some time to process, but concludes that the mouse was just a intellectual outlier with abnormally low intelligence being that it had a seizure and spasmed into running into a wall.

If only the poor little guy HADN'T tried to find the truth and process it.