Hi Yani: I think I possibly might be beginning to understand what you
are saying. There are many truths out there. There is the truth in the
eye of the beholder -- this is based on a person's particular baggage
that he has acquired in his/her past. Then there's the truth (if you
happen to believe this one) that there exists a subconscious entity
which Stephen Hawking refers to as the universe which has always been
around and will always continue to be around. In this subconscious
entity exists language (Herodotus called it Phrygian) and thusly all of
us were born with this ability to use language.
Gerry
Jani Vatka wrote:
> This is a bit late because my mailbox was down for a while... Sorry
>
> BR,
> Jani
> **************
>
> I agree that all knowledge is subjective and cannot be reduced to pure
>
> objectivism.
> Our mind has some kind of relevant part in the concept of truth. It's
> too bad that
> today's science often forgets the subject.
>
> Science is certainly dealing with knowing but in a special way:
> science
> handles the
> truth through a determined (more or less) set of rules. The rules
> through which
> science works are the special thing which separates science from any
> other way of
> knowing.
>
> I have noticed many times that maybe specially in archeology the truth
>
> seems to be a
> little bit too much in the eye of the beholder. This doesn't mean that
>
> I'm thinking
> the truth being something final. The truth I'm searching for is no
> absolute truth.
> Maybe an example helps me here:
>
> We have three different opinions or theories (for example) dealing
> with
> an
> archeological problem/question. We have a non-archeologist person (to
> make this
> scenario easier let's imagine that the person doesn't have any
> knowledge
> of his own)
> who should evaluate the three theories and decide which of them is the
>
> most
> archeological. The person would need a set of basic rules by which the
>
> evaluation
> could be done. What are those "basic" rules in archeology?
>
> Then the person would need to know what is the truth in archeology. I
> think we can
> find the answer by answering the question "What archeology as a
> science
> is able to
> know about the past (and the reality)?". To clarify that, we should
> probably ask what
> is the object of archeology. There is already an answer to this
> question: it says that
> archeology is studying the human being through physical remains etc.
> I'm
> just not
> satisfied with the answer because the human being is not only an
> object
> but also a
> subject. This can be seen in archeology when for example remains
> related
> to religion
> are studied: suddenly we archeologists have very little to say about
> the
> past (well,
> we maybe say much but I haven't been able to locate justification to
> our
> theories...).
>
> Anyway, the "archeological truth" could be a some kind of combination
> of
> basic rules
> and possible truths. And archeology is a science when done "by the
> rules".
>
> Wou, maybe there are enough questions already...
>
> BR,
> Jani Vatka
>
> Ken Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Given your belief that "truth lies in the fusion between both art
> and
> > science" I would be very intrigued to know what features define for
> you "science."
> >
> > -Ken Jacobs UdeMontreal
> >
> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Jani,
> > > Your question is most interesting since it's the same question I
> asked
> > > my mentor many years ago. His answer was that truth in
> archaeology is
> > > like truth in every discipline -- biology, history, anthropology
> etc.
> > > He later wrote about truth being in the eye of the beholder --
> which I'm
> > > convinced that it is. But now that our world has been compressed
> under
> > > the influence of the internet, I think that one needs to embrace
> > > "science" as a ground mark, and then proceed carefully from
> there. I
> > > also think that truth lies in the fusion between both art and
> science.
> > > Regards,
> > > Ger
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|