| What is the correct philosophy about honesty?
Should we present apparent facts that would direct a person towards a particular opinion when we know (based on past experience) that new evidence or a new discorvery might void that opinion?
Is it then the main goal of science to state "we don't know but this is our best guess to date"?
Under such a principle we must always doubt our opinion whiich would always be founded on the shifiting sands of data that can be added too or rebuked by additional interpretations of it when ever some new fact pops up. And is it a honest purpose to seek to know when we know we must remain forever in doubt as long as new information is possible.
Seeking to know then would be like looking for fantasy gold at the end of a rainbow. Where the only taboo is belief in anything we think we know.
None the less, I would agree in all honesty that IS our present status but I must ask if we can, under that guideline, at least have faith in the belief that someday the human momentum towards seeking the truth will result in the final manifestation of something "all knowing and absolute"?
Technosoul. |