The data suggests and that is all

So the witness then is an important piece in pursuit of the truth. The information the bring is the frame work on which one begins to see a representation of truth. Granted that a representation does not a truth make. However, the simple existence of an ability to represent truth or describe reality is evidence (see previous post on witnesses) that truth exists.

Do you see what I see

The witness brings evidence. Evidence by it's very nature is not proof. Evidence rather is simply one data point in the effort to make a case. The judge must ensure that a case is made, rather than a conclusion reached with little or no evidence.

Evidence

A witness by definition is simply one who testifies to what they know. To the things that they have seen, heard, or in some cases have become an expert in the matter to which they testify. They are not the one who sits in judgement.

Witness

The culture has not accepted that one point, reasonably communicated is enough to reach a conclusion on an issue. Other points of view, gathering information that gives a more full picture, or even observation of reality are now seen as unnecessary if the first witness is confident and convincing enough.

We can and we must

One if the reasons that truth is seemingly harder to find is because we have confused the difference between evidence and proof, as well as a witness and a judge. On any given matter conclusions are arrived at far too quickly these days.

Questions

What is truth? Is it scientific in nature? Religious,cognitive, subjective? All questions are aimed at finding truth. If not then why ask them? What standard can we use to determine weather or not something is true? Is it even possible to define truth?

Truth Is Worth Seeking

Truth makes a difference. There are many philosophies that are meaningless, and futile. Truth is not. Agnostism for example is not worth pursuing. If we don't know if we can know anything, than why would we try? Why would we even bother to state that we don't know if there is any certain knowledge? Or what about Deism? What good is it to theorize that there is a god, or higher power, but that they are now uninvolved? One might as well be hedonistic if that is the case, or agnostic for that mater.

When one claims a "truth" that is not true it can easily be interchanged with another claim with the only observable difference being personal preference. With how attached we get to our preferences some times it may seem more fundamental of a difference. The emotions and passion that are part of our preferences make these differences seem larger than actual outcomes. The real truth claim in this case is me vs. you.

Truth Has No Agenda

Seeking truth is a good place to start. In the information age, there is plenty of fraudulent information we have to sift through. There is plenty of information that seems like it is true. Studies, science, historical events, entertainment and religion are all fed to us with a "spin."

Truth stands on it's own. One has to seek it out. It does not come to us in most cases. One marker of truth is that it has no agenda. When discovered there are usually outcomes that can be beneficial to the discoverers. Take Tesla for example. When he discovered alternating current, and invented was of generating it and distributing it he was working for GE. Edison did not want to look foolish, or lose market share. In short he felt threatened by Tesla's safer, more efficient truth.

This illustrates that truth does compete. Truth is still truth though, and it does not have and end it is angling for.

Searching

Where does one look to find principal. They are every where. Every one is selling a set of principals. Most often so they can use us to their end. In a way it is an attempt to highjack our say as an individual. They want us to vote, or buy, or simply not care to their benefit. Again, not some shadowy set of individuals that run the world, but every one. That is how wealth is centralized. That is how movements start. Getting you to accept a set of principals, or worse just actions with no rational, is how pop culture works. It almost defines pop culture in a way.

Are you buying?

More Factors

I am not trying to discount the importance of our experiences and how they shape the way we see reality. Even the way we understand the terms right and wrong. Simply using those terms is an emotional trigger for many of us because of such experiences.

However, isn't that why it seems like it is too big a thing for one person to grasp? If all we use to find our principals is our own experience, we would never do anything other than justify our preferred actions. On the other hand in all honesty everything that one could consider in the process of finding a foundation comes from experiences. One cannot become impartial to self. So we recognize that up front. Yet, one cannot find certain things within them selves either.

The big question

So where does one start when trying to choose principals that determine right and wrong? It is such a big thought to think that one person could understand what is truly always right and always wrong. We are also prone to favoritism. Wanting to make exceptions for some of our favorite activities that even in passing consideration are clearly wrong. Or exceptions for loved ones, or those who don't "understand." Part of the difficulty is that weather we know it or not, we always start with our own experience.

What is Best

How do we understand a best outcome? How could we even desire? What could we want if there were no such thing as right and wrong? At some level we all operate with a sense of what is right and wrong, but what is that ideal centered on?

Our choices are all dependent on the principals that we have chosen. Take the decision to buy a new car for example. We all would have a rational that helps us determine not just to buy one, but also which one to buy. Such ideas as reliability, certain functions like all wheel drive or good fuel economy, seating capacity and so forth. We use these factors to make choices.

A Question We Are Allowed To Ask

Right and wrong? Are we really trying to inject some sense of correct vs. incorrect into the way we see life? Out comes are just that aren't they? What place does the idea of right or wrong have in how we evaluate the way we determine what actions to take?

There are such things as right and wrong answers to math calculations. There is a correct way to write and incorrect. There are standards in this world. Our actions are measured in terms of right and wrong. If this is not so then how could one feel offended when stolen from?

Does It Work?

Can the standard of weather something works determine right and wrong? Today we face the idea that if something works it is good. Shock therapy works. Violence works. Liposuction works. Does the idea that if it works it is good work?

The Importance Of Individuals

We live in a world that seems to be pre-occupied with minority status. Weather we are talking about a racial, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliations it seems that categorizing people dominates our discussions. None of these groupings make any sense with out one person at a time being part of a given group. It is the sum that gets the attention. We pay little attention to Siak communities, Uighur folks or Tazmanian families. Why? Because there are not as many of them as say Asian Americans or Muslims. Vast numbers are not the only factor. The degree of impact is more to the point. How many of us knew the difference between a Shiite and Sunni Muslim before the current war in Iraq? Another example would be Jewish communities. In New York one is far more aware of folks with a Jewish heritage because they make up 8.2% of the population. Compare that with a national average of 2.2%. The felt impact is much higher for a New Yorker than any where else in the country.

Yet none of the categories that people end up in mean anything unless there are individuals in them. The individual lends their power and influence to the group. The individual is the smallest minority. The individual makes choices. A group cannot. Some of the perspectives that we have seen so far result in the neglecting of the individual because of the power of the group. Yet such group has no power unless the individual is a member. This is a crucial point in understanding our world. One Tazmanian person does not define all others. There is no human experience unless the individual exists.

Manipulatvie Minority

Their are those that seek to exploit the tribalism that can be so prevalent. I am not speaking of some shadowy unknown group of world leaders. Rather advertisers and political strategists. The more people they can find a common thread between and "define" as a single group, the more they can benefit. Soccer Mom's are an example. Or tweens. Hispanics are another. The last example is an effort by the Nixon strategy team to lump all central and south American folks into a single group with the goal of getting them to vote en-mass in their favor.

The forging of sameness in likes and dislikes, identifiers, values and consumption is just an advertisers job. However we make our selves trivial by tribalizing. In seeking a tribe to belong to we lose our own sense of right and wrong. In fact, there is a way of looking at the world that professes this paradigm as reality. Truth must be subjected to our cultural norms to be understood, and therefore becomes relative. In other words, there is no reality only an experience. The experience is then validated by numbers. The larger number of people that share it, and like it indicates how good a given experience is.

Some agree with utility equalling worth. This line of thinking is always a prelude to despotism. A tyranny that justifies the murder of others for the purpose of consolidating power.

An alternative view would be seeking identity in belonging to a group. Again we see political, religious and scientific labels that seek to define these groups. We can add to the mix at this point fashion generational identifiers and status cymbals. We find value in the "clubs" we belong to. Be it a prestigious school, a type of clothing or behavioral trends that indicate our club, it is a neo-tribalism that finds power and value in how many people we agree with. One irony that emerges is the way that some seek to be anti-tribal becomes it's own club. For example, guys who wear their hat backwards, or people who like independent music and films. They are all trying to be different in the same ways, and so then they are creating a new tribe.

First Steps

Principals are closely intertwined with other pieces of our intellectual constructs. For example political schools of thought (liberal or conservative) or religious thought (Budist or Christian) or even scientific (Gradualism or Catastrophism). All of these things influence the others, and all claim to be a set of principals. However, if these are the places that we start we are starting with the circumstances and are working back to a principal. In other words we are reacting and then seeking a rational to support such a reaction.

Our thoughts and views then are becoming a product of the reactions that we take. Our emotions drive our actions, which drive our thoughts. If this is the case we are behaving as though we subscribe to "what I do is who I am." This reduces personhood then to a history of performance. The individual is then simply one set of functions, and can be reduced to what ever utility that function may provide to others.

A starting place

Do we chose to think, or simply react? Why would one choose one over the other? The weakness of thinking first is the never ending rabbit whole that leads us to conclusions like there is now way to know anything, or the only way to see the right and wrong is my way. To react only has obvious problems as well. One of it's strengths is the immediacy of action especially in perilous times.

So we must find principals. A well thought rational and set of values that govern not just reactions but also further thought. What principals one chooses are Critical.