Is Any Question Truly Unanswerable?

[kote]

Kote what is your point? That we have systems that give seemingly a true answer? I.e. existence exist; I'm pretty sure this is a tautological statement is it not? What does that have to do with you know the absolute truth of the matter of whether or not existence exists?

The point is that "truth is subjective" or "truth is relative" or "truth depends on your perspective" is wrong. I can have absolute knowledge about any sort of analytic concept. I know that unicorns have one horn. I know that all bachelors are unmarried.

Can I know absolutely if humans evolved from chimps? No. Do I know there is an absolute answer that I just can't get at? Yes. This is relevant to the OP because undefined questions, questions with answers that are ambiguously true or false, are meaningless.

What would it even mean to ask a question if answers are all subjective and relative? Why bother asking anything or doing any science or philosophy? Questions are only meaningful if there is a truth to be revealed, and "common sense" never trumps logical consistency. Without logic there is no such things as knowledge, only meaningless thoughts. Science, philosophy, and all rational thought depend on logic.

As for your earlier question, yes, I have a philosophy degree, so please excuse my bias. You can blame the institution for tainting me with its required logic sequence. It's quite possible that I'm just naively spouting the party line.

 

[JoeDawg]

My claim is that a=~a is never true.

You made a claim about evolution.

A truth table cannot show whether a scientific theory is true.

And that is the meaning of 'truth' that is relevant to science.

 

[kote]

You made a claim about evolution.

A truth table cannot show whether a scientific theory is true.

And that is the meaning of 'truth' that is relevant to science.

"Scientific truth" is self-contradictory. There is no separate truth relevant to science. The only truth relevant to science is the same truth relevant to philosophy. Truth is quite literally a function of logic, nothing more.

I made a logical claim about evolution, not a scientific one (analytic, not synthetic, if you prefer).

 

[Sorry!]

When I took anthropology the characteristics setting humans apart from other animals were things like bipedal, opposable thumb etc. Imagine some'thing' is born from a human without some of these characteristics... 'it's' no longer human by definition? This is absurd.

I'm sure unicorns would be subject to the same rules of genetics (if they were living by definition...) and therefore your blanket statement that all unicorns have 1 horn is POSSIBLY and probably false. Maybe one little guy was born with two or maybe one lost his in a great battle with another unicorn in which case he now has no horn.

Besides this little tidbit your truths that you claim are all from you're single human perspective and they have the ability to be fooled and wrong just like any other human. I see what you're saying in your posts. You think that because it follows from HUMAN logic that it must be true in all aspects. Sure this is a possiblity that it's 'true' to us humans at this particular moment in time. You said a few posts back

There is still an absolute truth

I definitely disagree. I don't think you understand the implications of this claim.

 

[apeiron]

The point is that "truth is subjective" or "truth is relative" or "truth depends on your perspective" is wrong. I can have absolute knowledge about any sort of analytic concept. I know that unicorns have one horn. I know that all bachelors are unmarried.

Where this discussion goes off the rails is in leaving out the idea of purpose - of meaning itself!

The modelling relations approach to epistemology stresses that knowledge is a meaningful interaction between the modeller and its world. This means that the modeller has general goals (which is what makes the exercise meaningful, as well as subjective). And the usual natural goal of modelling is control over the world. In terms of Aristotle's four causes, what we are most interested in modelling is efficient causality. Which lever do I have to pull here to get something done?

Sure, you can make a distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. But this is a point about a formal model already derived from some wider goal-based, efficient causality oriented, modelling enterprise. It is a derived subset that claims to deal with "truth".

Within this smaller intellectual space, you can start to make meaningless statements (no disrespect intended). Indeed, this is a powerful thing. Humans can imagine issues like multihorned unicorn (what about a unicorn with a second slight bump? - sorities paradox alert).

So we have invented through the extreme generalisation of causality modelling a way of creating pure statements, divorced from the necessity of being efficient, of being meaningful. But this does not make this intellectual activity the fundamental basis of epistemology.

Instead, I would hold that only the meaningful actually exists - a reality that is making causal sense to itself. Reality itself is "subjective" in this sense. And the meaningless only exists in our (now powerful) imagination as statements with no effective content. The forms without the substances.

Just think about rendering the meaning contained in a statement like "I know that unicorns have one horn."

Well, there is the sorities paradox to show that there are practical limits to that certainty - the unicorn with a second bit of a horny bump on its forehead.

And there is the implication of control. What you are saying is I know how to make a unicorn - give me a horn and a horse. Or an Ibex and a saw.

Take away that control - as in talking about unicorns as just a thing that exists, or doesn't exist - and you have lost the meaning, created a now ineffective statement about the world.

The statement "exists". But there is no operative modelling relationship. Which is where people get confused as they then try to recreate that natural epistemological relationship with the world.

Again, why is the sky blue is the kind of question that seems meaningless (I have no control over the color, nor does anyone else) becomes meaningful once it gets explained in terms like refraction - stuff over which we suddenly do glimpse a sense of effective control. The world is suddenly being framed again in terms of levers that we can start pulling.

 

[kote]

Within this smaller intellectual space, you can start to make meaningless statements (no disrespect intended). Indeed, this is a powerful thing. Humans can imagine issues like multihorned unicorn (what about a unicorn with a second slight bump? - sorities paradox alert).

I'll admit that the one horned unicorn was a bit of a simplification. Give me a list of all of the criteria that would need to be met in order for you to call something a unicorn. Maybe being a unicorn requires being part of a particular species mostly represented by one-horned horse-like creatures. There are still definite conceptual criteria by which we judge a thing to be a unicorn or not be a unicorn. If, by experience, we learn that some one-horned beasts are spontaneously produced without parents, we may redefine what we mean when we say "unicorn." If we do this we are changing our conception of a unicorn and are no longer talking about the same thing.

I would say that "I know that a unicorn only has one horn" is more accurately stated as "what I mean when I say 'unicorn' is a beast with one horn." How we choose to divide our perceptions conceptually and linguistically is subjective and a matter of convenience. Gaining knowledge is simply refining our definitions to make it easier to talk about the things we perceive. We have way too many problems trying to justify objective empirical facts or solving the arbitrariness of intentionality if we claim that this is not the case.

I appreciate the rational criticism and I certainly don't take offense to claims that I am making meaningless statements when we are discussing logic! I might actually agree with you . But then, I'm not sure if we can have the type of meaning you are looking for, at least not without a proof of the basic, separable, and objective existence of the concepts into which we choose to divide our perceptions.

"Learning" that the sky is blue because of refraction is realizing that we can eliminate complexity by reducing our number of basic concepts by defining one concept in terms of others. It's reducing our number of axioms.