The unverifiability of hearsay and the extreme epistemological restrictions of the senses would be exemplified in a situation where two doctors came forth, each one holding a bottle of medicine that they claim is a cure for some condition or an amplifier of health. Each one says the other's creation is poisonous, lethal to humans. Aside from the grand fact that there is no way for even a scientist with human limitations to know that any amount of intentional, careful sensory testing shows them something beyond their own subjective mental experiences (which might have nothing to do with external objects), there is absolutely no way to know that either is being honest or dishonest, no matter what they say about their own work or that of the other figure.
Could you tell by merely observing the bottle? Only a fool believes that any words or markings on the side are by logical necessity an accurate description of the contents. They could be deceptive or negligently placed, not that words are anything more than mental and social constructs used to convey ideas. Even if they are not, it does not logically follow from the presence of any linguistic title or statement that the medicine is as presented, so it would be impossible to know from the words. Could you know by looking at one of the supposed medicines in your hand? One could never know ahead of time which is poison or which is medicine, or, indeed, if either of them is poison or medicine at all rather than just a neutral capsule or pill. Of course, if you consumed one and it turned out to be deadly, it would be too late.
This scenario is not about medical paranoia or a particular kind of skepticism that only scientists and scientific epistemology is rightly subject to. Yes, there is no way to prove the legitimacy of one's sensory perceptions beyond that they are being subjectively experienced, with the sole exception that it is possible to know that physical substance of some kind exists. Yes, hearsay is nothing more than unverifiable words no matter who the words originate from. One cannot know historical events or laws of nature beyond the veil of rationalistic skepticism from assertions. Whatever sources they came from are themselves hearsay or subjectively perceived. This is not unique to medicine or poison, or to a particular supposed causal relationship or scientist's claims.
In the hypothetical situation, there is not necessarily any danger at all in the actual contents of either product, but this scenario illustrates just how scathing and inescapable, for human limitations, the inability to prove hearsay truly is. It is logically possible for someone to lie, and it is logically possible for someone to be sincere in their mere assumptions, and the scientists, unless they lack basic human restrictions, would be unable to transcend them through sensory investigation, memories of events, or verbal claims. The scientists could not know if what they are saying is true, but they, like everyone else, can know that literally anything can be true about their alleged medicine as long as it does not contradict logical axioms. An outside party woud only be further removed from their direct experiences creating the product, as hopelessly subjective as those experiences are.
People like the scientists or their audience might believe that they can know something on the basis of assumptions, but they would either be believing in a verifiable thing (like strictly logical truths or introspective states) without looking to the actual proof or they would be believing in something that their epistemological limitations have locked away from them. Whether a pill will have a certain effect is not a matter of inherent logical necessity like the truth of axioms is, for there are many different possible cause and effect outcomes of taking the medicine that are or could have been true, and the laws of nature could change suddenly and selectively as it is. There are multiple reasons why one cannot know what will happen from any sort of consumption or if any spokesperson for a product or scientific discovery is correct, unless they, too, acknowledge their perceptions as not guaranteeing the truth of scientific or historical phenomena.
Ignoring these facts is not something unique to plenty of scientists, as being a scientist does not mean a person is dishonest or irrationalistic (or the inverse), but being a scientist neither exempts someone from being unable to ultimately verify the hearsay of others or from being unable to prove to someone else that their sensory experiences are accurate. Evidence, which is tied to perception and seeming probability, is accessible through words and sensory observation, yet never does this evidence reach the status of logical proof. There can be evidence that a product works as promised, but even a user who does not make assumptions one way or another has metaphysical and epistemological risk in using it--but it is all hearsay that is unverifiable in this way, not just of the scientific kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment