In philosophy and science, we quite often make systematic approaches that limits our thoughts to be as accurate as possible.

Examples are endless - basically every logical system, every epistemological research, they all at some level try to do things similar to (merely the best example I can think of) Popper with the distinction of science and pseudo-science. We make assumptions for what is true, such as it has to be logical, it has to make sense, it has to have clear connection to our empirical world, it has to be compatible with our moral beliefs, etc.

I ask, why do we make such assumptions about the nature of the world? How do we know it even fits within our possible scope of knowledge? What keeps us from having a completely skeptical (Hume style, though even he wasn't completely skeptical) view on the world, or the radical theistic view of "we can't know nothing about nature because God works in mysterious ways"?

This question seem to aim for skepticism at its core, but do note that the question is mainly about the "limiting" of the possibilities of truth.

  • The question seems contradictory: "why we limit the search of truth to what is true?" – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 13 '18 at 10:46
  • The "search after truth" presupposes the metaphysical and "unjustifiable" regulative idea that truth exists. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 13 '18 at 11:12
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA except postmodernism, I am not familiar with any philosophical stand that says there's no "truth". And the question presupposes non-postmodernist stand, yes. – Yechiam Weiss Feb 13 '18 at 11:20
  • Cutting off unpromising options is an adaptive mechanism of every living creature. What can be explored in more detail has to be brought down to size given limited resources. Of course, the judgment on lack of promise may be erroneous but without it no action is possible at all, the unabridged sea of possibilities is too vast. In pursuit of knowledge this translates into critical attitude and healthy skepticism to limit gratuitous speculation, and it can always be reconsidered when circumstances warrant it (think of the history of atomism or heliocentrism). – Conifold Feb 13 '18 at 21:08
  • @Conifold yet there are many possibilities that are dismissed while they can be true, with no inherent issue in them, but ideas such as Occam's Razor and falsification cuts them off. We can't possibly know that a theory must have as little assumptions as it can, or that it has to be falsifiable (merely examples, again). If I ask it more boldly, how, or why, do we have the audacity to prevent such theories from being researched? – Yechiam Weiss Feb 13 '18 at 21:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.