| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
The rational dance around the (non-existing) middle
Many of us think that finding a single truth (like particle physics’ aim to complete their “standard model” with a “Higgs particle”) is a problem concerning reasoning, when it actually is a problem concerning classification.
The problem is that classification is orthogonal, ie, that every class consists of other classes, because it means that classification lacks a consistent middle. The problem with this fact is that it means that plain classification (like particle physics and cladistics) is consistently contradictory (actually paradoxically contradictory as Bertrand Russell demonstrated), whereas orthogonal classification (like Linnean systematics) is ambiguous with respect to the classified (ie, that there are several consistent classifications of the same set of objects). This fact thus means that finding a single truth can only be paradoxically contradictory or ambiguous, ie, that there isn’t any single truth, independently of reasoning.
In the lack of understanding of this fact, discussions are bound to end up in a “dance around the (non-existing) middle” – discussion participants occupy different varieties in a theme and then close up on the (non-existing) middle of this theme, when suddenly some participant suggests a totally different theme with other varieties, which participants then occupy, and so on… We can thus stop this “dance” (or “vicious circle” as Henri Poincaret called it) with an orthogonal classification (like Linné did), but then we have to admit this fact (ie, that there isn’t any single truth). Linné didn’t have any problem with this, because he was religious.
The question is if we (humanity) ever will admit this fact or if we’re doomed to an eternal dance around the (non-existing) middle. It is the same question that confronted the rationality of the ancient Greeks and caused the decline of their dominance. Pure rationality furthermore requires that we admit this fact without refraining to (irrational) religion – is it possible? Can rationality admit that it can never reach an unambiguous understanding of reality without refraining to religion. Can it leave the question open admitting that it doesn’t have an answer? Can rationality admit that it can’t provide a single truth?
Source: http://menvall.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/the-rational-dance-around-the-non-existing-middle/
