When people to claim be experts, we expect them to be knowledgeable and reasonable concerning their area of expertise. It is presumed (generally speaking) that a doctor actually wants and intends to help you, a statesman (as opposed to a politician!) seeks the good of the country, a salesperson wants to sell the best product they have for you, (If they are a Mike Lindell type), and that faith leaders want to better both their lives and your life.
Now we have all seen charlatans in all these areas, especially when a crisis hits.
Comparing Dr. Scott Atlas' recommended approach to handling the COVID 19 Crisis to Dr. Anthony Fauci's is an enlightening study in itself, especially in light of Fauci's history. But Dr. Fauci's history was covered up, he was portrayed as a hero when a close look at facts and logic proved him to be a villain. This is why we need to convince people not simply to believe us about these matters, but to reason for themselves. This is the purpose for this post.
The first place to start is the nature of truth: (Norman Geisler points this out in I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, which he co authored with Frank Turek) Here are some truths about Truth, from his book.
-
Truth is discovered by men, not invented by them. Truth exists independent of our knowledge of it, e.g. Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics, and other truths.
-
Truth Is Trans- Cultural - From 2 + 2 = 4, to the Earth is a sphere, truth is truth where ever you are, regardless of what your culture might have to (or even might still!) say about it.
-
Truth itself is unchangeable, though what we believe about it may change. At one time, many believed the world was flat -- but it has been a sphere all along.
-
Beliefs do not change the truth, no matter how sincerely held. Many sincerely believed the earth was flat, only to be proven wrong. For a more recent example, many believed that Fauci's recommendations were correct, we are seeing the devastating consequences already. This reminded me of the old chemistry warning in poem form:
Johnny went and took a drink,
Now Johnny is no more,
What he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
-
Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it: An arrogant person telling the truth doesn't make it any less true. A humble person telling what is false doesn't make what is false true.
-
All Truths are absolute truths: even those that appear relative are really absolute. (e.g.) "I. Frank Turek, feel warm on November 20,2003." may appear to be a relative statement, but it is actually absolutely true for everyone, everywhere that Frank Turek had the sensation of warmth on November 20, 2003."
In Short: Contradictory beliefs are possible - Contradictory truths are not.
This causes us to arrive at the Law of Non-contradiction:
If A is true, then non-A cannot be true at the same time and manner.
The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.
Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:
Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."
Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.
All observations on the non-celestial scale (and the model based on them called "quantum field theory") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.
Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.
A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).
Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?
Answer: you can't.
We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.
The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, logic, reason, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.
Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."
Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.
That's the entire point of the book.
The less evidence you have for your position, the more faith you need to believe it (and vice versa).
Oh for crying--it's called a metaphor. I am autistic and I can see that.
You haven't read the book. If you had, you would've learned the easy counterpoint:
Why should I listen to YOU? You don't have the truth.
You should listen to me only if you want to. However, I provided a counter argument to the main premise of the OP on how we "know the truth" and you didn't address a single point I made (even if you think you did).
I'd respond, but it doesn't seem you want to listen, and since you didn't actually address anything I said there is nothing to respond to.
Maybe you should try re-reading what I wrote without thinking of it as some sort of attack. I don't think you understood the fundamental premise of the argument. That may be my fault, but without you actually addressing what I said, I can't tell how to better state it.
So you don't have the truth. Bye.