Here I have an interesting question. If there wasn’t any agreement, then we would not have the same answer for math. Even in any other subjects.
My question is some how related to agreement and reasoning.
If there are three houses, house A, house B and house C being arranged as A, B, C.
Then assuming that these houses have their own house numbers from 1 to 3 on the other side of each house and if house B was built first, then house A and at last house C was built. Which house could most probably be house number 1, house number 2 and house number 3?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments
6 comments:
It is a very good observation, Chilot. If you look at it carefully you are justified to say that some things are true just because we agreed up on them – like the claim Accra is the capital city of Ghana. But is this always the case? If we put together two oranges and three oranges can we make them six just by agreement? Of course we have to agree that 1 is 1 and 2 is 2. Beyond this I don’t think consensus would take us a long way. If all the scientists agree that the atomic number of hydrogen is six will it be the truth? Would it be helpful in the making of hydrogen bombs? Here you can say people used to believe in all sorts of ‘now-wrong’ things like earth being the center of the universe. Is it because they decided about it by agreement or is it because the evidence they had at the time pointed to such a conclusion? Do you see any difference?
Try this:
If everyone who speaks English agrees that the word "zoggaloogoo" means "plate of rice and chicken", does that mean that it is true that it does?
If everyone in the world thinks chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream, does that mean that it is true that it does?
If everyone in the People's Republic of Wongalongaland agrees that it is good to torture babies, does that mean that it is true in the People's Republic of Wongalongaland that torturing babies is good?
In each case, what do you think? And why?
If we all believe on what we agreed don’t you think it is true? For example let me conceder what you have said above “If everyone who speaks English agrees that the word "zoggaloogoo" means "plate of rice and chicken" ….
If all English speaking people believe that "zoggaloogoo" means "plate of rice and chicken" then the work that they are using has a true meaning.
If you do not believe on this then how do you thing language changes? Do you think that what we all speak is the same as it was spoken several years ago?
Now let me get back to my question. I am not sure how differently it is interpreted but what I am trying to focus is that …….
If you observe three houses ABC being arranged respectively and assuming that each of them has a number from 1 to 3; but you can’t see that which number belongs to which house, then can you tell the house number of each house? If B was built first and C was built last. Give your reason.
Hi Chilot,
I think you are right about my language example. Language is conventional, which means that we all in some sense have to "agree" about how to use it if we are to understand each other. It is also arbitrary, which means that there is no necessary connection between the objects we are describing and the symbols we use to do the description (think of translations of words), so there is basically nothing apart from agreement that we can fall back on in order to construct language.
But what about the moral and taste examples I gave? The value of this is in comparing the answer you gave for the language example with the others...
You say you want to "get back" to your house example, but I'm afraid I can't detect any link between the very important TOK question about agreement and truth (that is why Mr. Kidane and I have concentrated on this) and the houses. Perhaps there is a link, but I for one would need some clue about what it is. Can you help us?
my question goes to Mr Kitching!!
what you mean is for something to be true it should be believed right?
which means if you believe that something is true then its definately true.i know this question has been asked a number of times but i dont seem to get it.
thank you
Always simple,
I think I understand why you have asked this question, and I think the answer lies in the exercise that I set above - with the language, taste and moral examples.
In order for language to work, we need to operate on common ground. If I decide that "slonk" means "goat" and you decide it means "school" then we are already on the road to trouble. We have to agree at least implicitly to use words in the same ways if we are to succeed in communicating. You can call this "belief" if you like - we all have to believe what the words mean, and that common belief and how we act on it (ie how we go on and use the words) produces a sort of truth - that "table" means that flat thing with usually four legs that we use for writing on, etc., and not something completely different.
But what about a country in which everyone believes that torturing babies is good? Does that make it good? The situation here looks different - can we just decide, on the basis of our shared beliefs, what is morally good and bad? A relativist would answer "yes" - that morality is simply a matter of opinion; what we believe becomes the truth - but I suspect most of us would hesitate to agree with this. What do you think?
Post a Comment