8.0.2 Alternative Conclusions

Version 1.0 March 2013                                    (Previous Version)

As we are all aware, our opinions change over time. 

There is no in principle reason why life should be simple.  Life is complex.  We must allow for, and live with, ambiguity and uncertainty.  Bertrand Russell, the famous 20^th century English philosopher, said that when the experts disagree, lay people should have no opinion.

These global beliefs allow for various alternatives and allows for differences in judgements.  If reason and the available evidence don’t lead to a single conclusion, on a particular matter, then to be reasonable we must continue to entertain all those alternatives. 

Science especially seems to change rapidly, and it can seem bewildering.  We need to remember that the fundamental theories of current science have been around for over 100 years: the theory of evolution, the general theory of relativity and quantum theory.  These theories are being continually validated by the evidence.  We know the theory of relativity and quantum theory do not explain everything in physics, but we know they explain very big and very small things very well.  The theory of evolution is being filled out with advances in genetics and biochemistry.

Theories in history are much more fluid.  Keynes’ theory of employment, interest and money, devised over 70 years ago, is still useful today, and essentially explains how a country like Australia survived the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 without a recession.  But Keynes’ theory didn’t handle the period of stagflation of the 1970s: we know it is incomplete.

We now understand that theories in science and history evolve.  No theories are complete and fully explain everything.  People discover flaws and omissions and inconsistencies with reality, and begin to devise alternative explanations.  For a while we may be uncertain as to which explanation is the best.  Eventually one of the alternative explanations might be seen as better. 

This is a dialectical process, originating in ancient India and Greece, where two opposing sides discuss their views.  The dialectic is more recently associated with German philosopher George Hegel, and Karl Marx.  We begin with a thesis, discover inadequacies in it, develop an alternative, the antithesis, and eventually resolve it with a synthesis.  We don’t have to imbue this process with any inevitability, but it is a way of looking at how our understanding evolves.

We can disregard certain alternative conclusions that reason and the evidence shows are false, or for which there is no justification in reason and the evidence.  But some conclusions alternative may be viable – not contrary to reason or the evidence.  It is still reasonable to disregard some of these.  For instance, we can’t prove that life is not all a dream, or that other people are real.  We accept such conclusions because they help us understand what is going on, and they are consistent with the evidence.  But some alternatives we cannot reject on such grounds – so we need to consider them.  We also note many of these as we consider each knowledge domain.  We also investigate who would disagree and their possible reasons.  These could due to:

·         Psychological drivers  more

·         Concerns with particular topic.  more