12
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
For what concerns the reality of our ideas and concepts, Darwin’s Theory
of Evolution teaches us that, contrary to the dogma of the great Swedish
biologist, Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), species are in a continuous state of
evolution themselves, so that an immutable idea of equinity does not exist:
both horses and equinity have only an ephemeral existence. Science has
helped us go one step further, beyond the experience of our senses.
But even with the full backing of science, i.e. when we arrive at all the
conclusions that present-day science can provide to us, can we really state
that what we have found corresponds to the full reality, i.e. to what really
exists? Of course not, but, as we will learn in the next Section, we must be
satisfied with that knowledge.
1.4 Is There Only One Truth?
In the previous Sections we have tried to define the goal of our book, i.e. to
learn as much as possible about the Universe in which we live, relying both
on what we perceive inside us (i.e. a priori) and on what we discover from the
outside (i.e. a posteriori). In the process we must keep in mind that both our
reason and our senses can at times deceive us. Hence, we must find criteria
to guide us in our path and hopefully keep us on the right track.
Essentially we can identify two such criteria: consistency and economy in the
choice of assumptions. We leave the latter for later discussion (in Chap. 3) and
concentrate here on the former. It might appear that the need for consistency,
i.e. of avoiding direct or indirect contradictions, is so obvious that no further
discussion is required. However, in normal worldly affairs this is certainly not
the case. An analysis of the speeches of most politicians shows that they often
indulge in promises that are, at least in part, mutually conflicting, in order
to appease as many voters as possible. More relevant for us here has been
the proliferation in past centuries, and in totally different cultural contexts,
of philosophical theories, which aimed at the justification of a double truth,
e.g. a scientific truth and a theological truth, sometimes apparently in mutual
contradiction, yet both considered to be valid in their own domains.
In order to understand what appears to be a contradiction in terms, we
first must define what we call truth. If we mean that truth is what exists in
an absolute sense, independently of our observations and immune from any
possible contradictions, the question arises of how we can reach it. Indeed,
there may be various alternative possibilities to achieve this, in which case we
might arrive at multiple interpretations of the truth, each of them valid in its
own context. It may seem astonishing that such apparent contradictions can
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
For what concerns the reality of our ideas and concepts, Darwin’s Theory
of Evolution teaches us that, contrary to the dogma of the great Swedish
biologist, Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), species are in a continuous state of
evolution themselves, so that an immutable idea of equinity does not exist:
both horses and equinity have only an ephemeral existence. Science has
helped us go one step further, beyond the experience of our senses.
But even with the full backing of science, i.e. when we arrive at all the
conclusions that present-day science can provide to us, can we really state
that what we have found corresponds to the full reality, i.e. to what really
exists? Of course not, but, as we will learn in the next Section, we must be
satisfied with that knowledge.
1.4 Is There Only One Truth?
In the previous Sections we have tried to define the goal of our book, i.e. to
learn as much as possible about the Universe in which we live, relying both
on what we perceive inside us (i.e. a priori) and on what we discover from the
outside (i.e. a posteriori). In the process we must keep in mind that both our
reason and our senses can at times deceive us. Hence, we must find criteria
to guide us in our path and hopefully keep us on the right track.
Essentially we can identify two such criteria: consistency and economy in the
choice of assumptions. We leave the latter for later discussion (in Chap. 3) and
concentrate here on the former. It might appear that the need for consistency,
i.e. of avoiding direct or indirect contradictions, is so obvious that no further
discussion is required. However, in normal worldly affairs this is certainly not
the case. An analysis of the speeches of most politicians shows that they often
indulge in promises that are, at least in part, mutually conflicting, in order
to appease as many voters as possible. More relevant for us here has been
the proliferation in past centuries, and in totally different cultural contexts,
of philosophical theories, which aimed at the justification of a double truth,
e.g. a scientific truth and a theological truth, sometimes apparently in mutual
contradiction, yet both considered to be valid in their own domains.
In order to understand what appears to be a contradiction in terms, we
first must define what we call truth. If we mean that truth is what exists in
an absolute sense, independently of our observations and immune from any
possible contradictions, the question arises of how we can reach it. Indeed,
there may be various alternative possibilities to achieve this, in which case we
might arrive at multiple interpretations of the truth, each of them valid in its
own context. It may seem astonishing that such apparent contradictions can