Response To Skepticism

In the article Seeking New Laws of Nature (pg. 129) from Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, Richard Feyman wrote that “We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.” Feyman also states that a theory “can never” be proven right. Semantically speaking I suppose that the statement has validity since once a theory has been proven to be correct, it becomes a principle theorem, or fact of reality that can be considered a truth or knowledge.

Feyman's equivocation on the word “theory” for knowledge, in no way hides the fact that he is attempting to deny the validity of knowledge. This postulation (formally known as Skepticism) promotes the evasion of certainty in knowledge. This is the same school of thought purporting that there are no absolutes (which is essentially the same thing as saying nothing can be proven to be true) which implies that we can not achieve certainty about anything. I reject that postulation for many reasons, but initially I reel from the absurdity of the statement itself, making an absolute claim of certainty about being uncertain.

Knowledge is a mental grasp of reality, reached by a process of reason based on verifiable observation. Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt or skepticism. Besides the vast repository of information - facts that have been scientifically proven to be true, existence itself remains immutably self-evident.

To propose that existence is anything other than self-evident reality, is to deny and evade truth and knowledge which is to deny your mind the permission to form cogent, rational evaluations of your perceptions. To assert that these natural facts can not be proved creates an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality. This kind of anti-reasoning is what the Skepticist sustains, and is well represented by Richard Feyman in Seeking New Laws of Nature. Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents with the hopelessness of perpetual uncertainty.

Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition. It is not required that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their rational faculties as Skepticism (Feyman’s version or any other) demands. There is a natural objective alternative that demands the application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth.

Labels

On a private forum (that shall remain anonymous) I read "... the more firmly someone applies a label to her/himself, the less likely to be able to be polyamorous in any practical sense. If that label has a capital letter at the beginning, the likelihood of "thinking for oneself" drops a bit further."

Sounds extremist to me, particularly considering how wide-ranging a generalization it is. After all isn't referring to yourself as "polyamorous", in itself, an act of applying a label? Isn't your own name a capitalized label? And there are many other identifying labels that you own i.e. your species, ethnicity, nationality, and heritage affiliation, to name just a few.

Some of these labels we choose, others are applied to us, and though we have no practical choice about their application (can't tell people what to think or say), we may deny our ownership of them. However, what purpose would it serve for me to deny that I am all of the adjective labels that describe or identify who I am? It wouldn't change the fact if the adjective is accurate. The quoted statement implies that by choosing other labels for myself i.e. husband, friend, lover, atheist, liberal, etc., I am somehow alienating myself from another chosen label (polyamorous in this case)? No, the quote is a flamboyant generalization.

Labels (whether applied to us or made by choice) are tools of identification. Identity is a fundamental concept of communication, consequently so are labels. Attempting to relegate or otherwise classify the act of “labeling” as something impractical or inane is itself a ridiculous and self-defeating. We need labels to communicate effectively. True some labels do not adequately communicate their intended use, and may be quite general in utility. That’s why we have so many of them – to drill down to the specifics – to gain an understanding of that which we are trying to identify.

Civil Disobedience

A system of laws established by the democratic process (the majority rules) by its very definition permits and and indeed, even promotes the persecution of minorities. In 1848 Henry David Thoreau wrote a treatise on government entitled "Civil Disobedience" in which he asserts that governments are typically more harmful than helpful. This may be more accurate now than then. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, but rather for justice.

The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. ~ Thoreau

For justice to exist in a democratic system, the system cannot possess the power to enact laws derived from moral principles that affect personal freedoms, or preclude minority groups from the same rights enjoyed by the voting majority. Such discriminatory systems are intrinsically subject to rightful, civil disobedience.