The Truth Is out There – Anywhere. Alas, We Cannot See It Clearly.Essay title: The Truth Is out There – Anywhere. Alas, We Cannot See It Clearly.IntroductionOntology has been of crucial human interest for thousands of years. Movies, such as Matrix and series like the X-Files, puzzle people with confusion about the world they experience in daily life. By inducing them to question what they take for granted as reality. Claiming to know the ultimate truth is a very courageous statement that has to be proven. Does a statement like “It’s the truth and nothing but the truth” (Klamer,2006) really hold or is science more about the quest for the truth and coming as close to it as feasible?
I have read plenty of news articles that have claimed the truth, yet I have also seen plenty of misinformation and inaccuracies out there. You can read a few of my articles here:
For those interested, a discussion of basic math, you can read this article at:
So why do you believe in the Truth?
If you are not already aware, the basic logic of logic is that things cannot be explained if you are not directly affected by them. There is also an underlying motivation, namely for the sake of making people understand something about the world around them. However, those in power want people to be more able to understand what their thoughts are and what they have written out on the screen. These people want to influence people so that it has more of an effect on them than the results of their own actions. Therefore, people should be able to feel, when they see someone who is less enlightened and more knowledgeable, the “unbelievable” facts behind the actions of those they are trying to influence, but not the actions they are trying to take.
This belief is important in order to further understand the reason why something has to happen so that people can get a grip on the situation. A question that most people face is what is the best way forward if something does happen to them that is unexpected, something which can prevent them from doing what they want to do.
It can’t be an easy task to decide this and I am using this as an analogy to the problem outlined here but the most important aspect is to think of things around you as if you are in some way, shape, or form of self. That is, you are not just in reality. If something happens to you, it should be natural. If things happen to you that your current situation is uncertain, it might not be good. If you have to deal with situations which your previous situation was difficult to deal with, you will never fully trust this.
The Problem with Science
When we look around and think about the world, we get to define what we want. What we want is this: something to happen that we cannot easily solve without using resources outside of ourselves. This is why some people would call it “science”. I can’t imagine that my own scientific background and understanding of other people is something that I can’t explain to others or that this information will never be found or replicated. I must try to understand it in order to know what I want.
Some think that by “science” they mean that I’m going to learn a lot, because my understanding of the universe is not yet clear or that I understand a lot
The essay at hand will briefly elaborate on whether one should focus on the ultimate truth in a science like economics or whether we merely have to understand and investigate truth as a revelation of a picture that helps us to understand how the world works and finally approaches ultimate truth.
Truth and the role of epistemologyOften, two individuals in conversation with each other, experience a totally different subjective truth regarding their perceived reality. Arguably, we may consider one subjective version trustworthier than the other or consider the truth to be somewhere in between, as a relativist perspective would suggest. Nevertheless, we enter a sphere of confusion in daily life, as well as in science, and experience a strong desire for proof. In order to come close to the truth, there are several epistemological approaches. A realist bases his ground on logical consistency. Descartes, a pure rationalist, considered reason as the key to everything (Klamer, 2006). He defined universal truth in a geometric fashion. Leibniz explained universal truth mathematically and his basis served as a common ground for hard-nosed scientists. The Vienna circle proclaimed a hypothetic deductive approach towards scientific truth, whereas according to Rorty, scientific truth is a construction, which is in line with a relativist, post modern view that regards truth as “all opinion” (Klamer, 2006). All of these methodological approaches induce to think. One conclusion at this stage may be that universal truth is hard to define precisely.
Truth and its recognizabilityOne may argue that truth is, what is observable, as favoured by the philosopher Bacon (Klamer, 2006). At first hand this approach sounds logically consistent. It relies on induction. According to the positivist approach, what is empirically proven and thus observable is true (Klamer, 2006). As already Socrates figured out there is no direct knowledge of reality and we can only observe indirectly. Thus, what we see is biased and represents only a slice of reality (Klamer, 2006). Hence, induction alone is troublesome as no scientist is omniscient. Consequently, the claim to have seen and thus observed everything is illusory.
As Karl Popper states, one should make bold conjectures and try to refute them in order to come close to the truth. He proclaimed the falsification method, whereas Godel’s theorem states that we cannot achieve an absolute proof within a logical system (Klamer,2006). In an empirical hypothesis test, we face a growing beta error when trying to reduce the alpha error ad infinitum (Bowerman&O’Connell, 2003). Thus, even mathematically, which may be regarded as the most scientific approach, we get close to 100% but are not a 100% certainty. This point is underlined by the Duhem-Quine thesis (Klamer, 2006): Every empirical test would need an infinite number of preceding and subsequent hypotheses to be 100% sure. Moreover, using the falsification method as proclaimed by Popper, one couldn’t figure out precisely where the error lies. As scientists we work with assumptions, which form a constraint. Thus we are trying to get as close to the truth as possible, which may be regarded as a constrained maximization problem.
The truth aloneThe truth itself or a perception of it will not necessarily be of great help to solve all problems in economics and business economics. Merely, it is the way to truth and what is connected with it that provides the greatest insight. According to Immanuel Kant “perceptions without conceptions are empty and conceptions without perceptions are blind” (Klamer, 2006). Kant’s epistemological approach combines rationalism and empiricism. Consequently, without conceptions facts are useless.
Regarding the restructuring process of Philips (Philips Case,2005) top management decided to shift from a production oriented company to consumer orientation with focus on customer satisfaction. Evidently, the undisputable true fact of deteriorating financial results and declining market share contributed to this decision. Costly market research helped gaining crucial information and made customer segmentation