One of the great things about being an academic is that - no matter how many things you screw up and no matter how many things didn't get done - at least twice a year you get an opportunity to start over and try to get it right the next time. With the end of each semester comes an end to the problems, mistakes, and unfulfilled expectations of that semester. And with the start of each new semester comes new opportunities, second chances, and new expectations. It may well be the thing I like best about being an academic.
This semester I have been teaching a class in how to write stories to explore the ethics of technology. It is a bold idea and, as with most bold ideas, a bigger pain in the ass than anyone could possibly imagine. But, the semester is rolling to a stop and next semester I will have another opportunity to get it right. If you have been following the entries in this blog and wondering where it all came from, it was from that class. You would probably agree that it still needs some work.
Over the summer I am going to start writing a book for that class. My plan is to get it partially written over the summer and use it when I teach the class again in the fall. Hopefully, I will have enough to begin submitting it to publishers.
I say that is my plan, but who knows what will happen. This summer I am teaching a class in business applications of virtual worlds. It is also a bold idea and, well, much like the stories class in being a pain. Since the summer is also a semester I will look back at the end of the summer, lament what I did not get accomplished, and, get another fresh start in the fall.
Since I will be devoting my writing time to my book, I will probably not keep this blog quite as diligently. I have fallen into the pattern of writing an entry every Monday morning. That has worked well and I have enjoyed that rhythm. But now, that energy will be going into the book.
Enjoy the summer!!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
A Pause for Perspective
I have been writing this blog now for several months and thought it might be appropriate to step back and think about the blogging process. For me, starting this blog was a running leap into the deep end of the pool. I had no idea what blogs were really for. I had no idea what I would write. And, I had no idea if anyone would read it. Since then I have gotten a much better understanding.
On the first question, what blogs are for, the answer is that blogs are for a lot of things. But, I think the best way to think about a blog is a private journal made public. Then asking what a blog is for is like asking what a private journal is for. A private journal is just a way to record your thoughts and, in doing so, get them in order. Some people may use a private journal to record events of the day. Others may take on deeper topics. In this blog, I have taken on deeper topics, probably too deep for most readers. But, the truth is that my private journals contain exactly the same kind of thing. I use writing to sort out my ideas. And now I am using the blog for the same thing.
On the question of what to write about, I decided, as suggested in the previous paragraph, to write about what I was thinking about. I do not expect people to read this blog as it is written. As I formulate ideas and express them to other people, I am often asked where they can read more about the ideas. Eventually some of these ideas will be sorted out and formalized. They will appear in print usually in academic articles. But there is a long way between and idea and a paper. And many compelling ideas fall off along the way. A blog is a net to catch all those ideas that despite their worthiness fell off along the way. I write about what I am thinking about. And putting it into a blog gives other people access to my private journals.
This brings us to the third question, who will read it. I was initially disturbed that there were no comments on my postings. Then I realized why. I had the settings so that people couldn't comment. However, I think most people are reluctant to comment anyway because the ideas are weighty and intimidating. However, I know people are reading because it comes up in conversation. I will be talking about some thing and somebody will say, yes you mentioned something about that in your blog.
Most blogs are like fresh bread. They have a shelf life of a few days and if not consumed with in those days, they have limited value after that. But, I put a lot of work into my thoughts and into my blogs. I view them has having a much, much longer shelf life. People will often ask me how I came up with a particular idea. Now, I can say go back and look at my blog from x months ago, maybe even x years ago and you can see how the idea evolved.
I know what I am writing is not for everyone and even for those who do like it they can probably only take it in small doses. I am fine with that. I enjoy baking the bread and you can enjoy consuming it when you are hungry and at your leisure.
On the first question, what blogs are for, the answer is that blogs are for a lot of things. But, I think the best way to think about a blog is a private journal made public. Then asking what a blog is for is like asking what a private journal is for. A private journal is just a way to record your thoughts and, in doing so, get them in order. Some people may use a private journal to record events of the day. Others may take on deeper topics. In this blog, I have taken on deeper topics, probably too deep for most readers. But, the truth is that my private journals contain exactly the same kind of thing. I use writing to sort out my ideas. And now I am using the blog for the same thing.
On the question of what to write about, I decided, as suggested in the previous paragraph, to write about what I was thinking about. I do not expect people to read this blog as it is written. As I formulate ideas and express them to other people, I am often asked where they can read more about the ideas. Eventually some of these ideas will be sorted out and formalized. They will appear in print usually in academic articles. But there is a long way between and idea and a paper. And many compelling ideas fall off along the way. A blog is a net to catch all those ideas that despite their worthiness fell off along the way. I write about what I am thinking about. And putting it into a blog gives other people access to my private journals.
This brings us to the third question, who will read it. I was initially disturbed that there were no comments on my postings. Then I realized why. I had the settings so that people couldn't comment. However, I think most people are reluctant to comment anyway because the ideas are weighty and intimidating. However, I know people are reading because it comes up in conversation. I will be talking about some thing and somebody will say, yes you mentioned something about that in your blog.
Most blogs are like fresh bread. They have a shelf life of a few days and if not consumed with in those days, they have limited value after that. But, I put a lot of work into my thoughts and into my blogs. I view them has having a much, much longer shelf life. People will often ask me how I came up with a particular idea. Now, I can say go back and look at my blog from x months ago, maybe even x years ago and you can see how the idea evolved.
I know what I am writing is not for everyone and even for those who do like it they can probably only take it in small doses. I am fine with that. I enjoy baking the bread and you can enjoy consuming it when you are hungry and at your leisure.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Truth Claims
The designation of true or false do not apply to most statements. For example, if someone were to say "there are parallel universes that we will never know about", this statement cannot be shown to be either true or false. The logical construction of this claim makes it impossible to resolve. Other statements, such as "people are basically good" are equally as unresolvable due to the ambiguity of the word good. In order for a statement to be a truth claim, it must be a claim that can, somehow, be refuted. If there is no way for a claim to be refuted, then it is not a truth claim and it can never achieve the status of truth.
The reason for this is that the body of assertions that we refer to as true are all assertions that could have been show not to be true if indeed they were but after repeated attempts at refutation have continued to hold up. This is the thing that all kinds of truth have in common. Whether we are talking about scientific truth, historical truth, journalistic truth or any of the varieties of truth we may encounter, they all follow a similar pattern. A claim is made that can, potentially, be refuted. We then try to refute it. More people jump into the fray attempting to refute it. As the claim continues to hold up after repeated and sincere attempts to refute it, we begin to believe it and the probability that it is a durable claim increases.
So, the key elements in the discovery of truth are: refutable claims, an agreed upon method for challenging them, and repeated attempts at refutation by people whose only concern is the veracity of the claim. This plays out very differently in different fields. Scientists conduct experiments. However, some sciences such as astronomy don't conduct experiments. Astronomers collect data. Journalists gather facts. Historian have to contend with the historical record. Writers of novels have to square with human experience. In each case a claim is made that must square with evidence according to an accepted method. The question, at this point is, can this approach be applied to moral truths or truths about the future?
The reason for this is that the body of assertions that we refer to as true are all assertions that could have been show not to be true if indeed they were but after repeated attempts at refutation have continued to hold up. This is the thing that all kinds of truth have in common. Whether we are talking about scientific truth, historical truth, journalistic truth or any of the varieties of truth we may encounter, they all follow a similar pattern. A claim is made that can, potentially, be refuted. We then try to refute it. More people jump into the fray attempting to refute it. As the claim continues to hold up after repeated and sincere attempts to refute it, we begin to believe it and the probability that it is a durable claim increases.
So, the key elements in the discovery of truth are: refutable claims, an agreed upon method for challenging them, and repeated attempts at refutation by people whose only concern is the veracity of the claim. This plays out very differently in different fields. Scientists conduct experiments. However, some sciences such as astronomy don't conduct experiments. Astronomers collect data. Journalists gather facts. Historian have to contend with the historical record. Writers of novels have to square with human experience. In each case a claim is made that must square with evidence according to an accepted method. The question, at this point is, can this approach be applied to moral truths or truths about the future?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Truth and Method
Francis Bacon said that method is more important than genius in discovering knowledge. He compared our pursuit of truth to a runner in pursuit of a destination. Method is the path and genius is the speed of the runner. A runner on the wrong path will get to the wrong place. If he happens to be a fast runner, he will get to the wrong place sooner. A runner on the right path will get to the right place. If he happens to be a slow runner, he will still get there. It will just take a little longer. So, method, according to Bacon will get us to the truth eventually. Genius will just get us to the wrong places faster.
Despite the variety of truth that we discussed a couple posts ago, they all have a similar method by which we arrived at them. Truth begins with a claim of some kind that we then attempt to determine the veracity of. Then we continue to test the veracity. Over time, if the claim continues to hold up as more and more people test the veracity, then we begin to accept the claim as true. This sketch of our method for discovering truth needs a little more fleshing out, but the essence holds up across different domains.
First, the claim cannot just be any willy nilly claim. It has to be a valid claim based on our understanding of the domain and clearly derivable from the things we know.
Second, the attempts to determine the veracity should be skeptical but not cynical. Skeptical means that we are trying to determine the truth rather than re-enforce what we want to believe. Not being cynical means that we have to accept evidence that is not 100% certain.
And, third, the motives of those who do repeated testing on the idea should be to determine the veracity of the idea and not some other agenda such as discrediting it. And, if the claim continues to hold up over time and under repeated challenges, then we accept its durability and accept it as the truth.
The next step is to show how this sketch of method holds up in the variety of areas we already discussed, revealing that scientific truth, literary truth, historical truth, and even moral truths have something in common. And we will see how this apporach applies to the use of stories in the pursuit of moral truth. Finally, just to push things to their limit, I will introduce a notion of truth about the future which I will call imaginary truth. Imaginary truth can and will be held to the same standards of durability as our other notions of truth. And, imaginary truth gives us a headlight into the future that we badly need as the future continues to come at us at an increasingly faster rate.
Despite the variety of truth that we discussed a couple posts ago, they all have a similar method by which we arrived at them. Truth begins with a claim of some kind that we then attempt to determine the veracity of. Then we continue to test the veracity. Over time, if the claim continues to hold up as more and more people test the veracity, then we begin to accept the claim as true. This sketch of our method for discovering truth needs a little more fleshing out, but the essence holds up across different domains.
First, the claim cannot just be any willy nilly claim. It has to be a valid claim based on our understanding of the domain and clearly derivable from the things we know.
Second, the attempts to determine the veracity should be skeptical but not cynical. Skeptical means that we are trying to determine the truth rather than re-enforce what we want to believe. Not being cynical means that we have to accept evidence that is not 100% certain.
And, third, the motives of those who do repeated testing on the idea should be to determine the veracity of the idea and not some other agenda such as discrediting it. And, if the claim continues to hold up over time and under repeated challenges, then we accept its durability and accept it as the truth.
The next step is to show how this sketch of method holds up in the variety of areas we already discussed, revealing that scientific truth, literary truth, historical truth, and even moral truths have something in common. And we will see how this apporach applies to the use of stories in the pursuit of moral truth. Finally, just to push things to their limit, I will introduce a notion of truth about the future which I will call imaginary truth. Imaginary truth can and will be held to the same standards of durability as our other notions of truth. And, imaginary truth gives us a headlight into the future that we badly need as the future continues to come at us at an increasingly faster rate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)