Milky way

An argument based on the fact that imperfect information exists tends to be an irrational one. Consider the following example:

A government wishes to construct an interstate highway that would cut through a numer of natural habitats. It is going ahead with the plan because it has calculated—and we take its calculation to be a truth in this context—that the social benefits obtained with the highway exceeds the social cost of the plan.

An environmental activist group, on the other hand, argues vehenmently that the government cannot be sure this is the case, due to the presence of imperfect information. It further develops its case by pointing out possible bias in the government, and by stating change is irreversible ie the social cost could have been underestimated.

A possible retaliation from the government can easily take on the inverse form of the activists’ argument: it can argue that the activists’ themselves do not have perfect information, and point out possible bias in the group, and state that a portion opf benefits could go into nullifying the costs ie the social cost many not be so straightforwardly signifcant.

(What happens in reality could be far from the aforementioned, but we should note this is merely a sandbox example)

It can be thus seen any argument fixated on the point of imperfect informtation is planted on barren land. The argument is able to support both propnent and opponent, it has multiple shapes—or no shape at all. All options it supports are arbitrarily supported, and we can never be sure who is right and who is wrong. Any random decision would be equivalent—or superior to—a “calculated” one, because no knows for certain whose information is more perfect. If an argument staked on imperfect informtion is accepted all options would be both invalid and valid at the same time.

The example also illustrates the tendenct within us to utilize—and sometimes unconsciously fabricate—arguments to match our ends. If that sounds irrefutably sensible we must also accept, then, that almost all our arguments are inevitably plagued with ourselves.

The example can be projected onto an infinitely larger scale. I for one am not particularly concerned with government policies and environmental issues unless they directly affect me in a selfish way. The government can be alluded to what can be called an incomplete objective truth, and the activist group represents that part within us that wishes to rebel for our own subjective truths. To the extent there can be no perfect information, we have to follow the government and not the activist group, keeping in line with the assumption mentioned earlier. The government has, or is, the better truth, however inadequate it may be relative to an absolute truth, and our faith in it has to be there.

And it seems likely faith is very often necessary to convert an incomplete truth to a complete one, the latter of which is a paradoxical term which both exists and does not. Faith forms, perhaps, the only bridge we have to make it into the realm of objective truths, though at the end of it we will find ourselves up against a large mirror reflecting our own ideals and perceptions, because there can be no objective truth.

PS. Some parts of it very indirectly taken from another blog, the material of which has its own roots in Soren Kierkegaard's "Subjective Truth".

PPS. Truths can be supported and objectified themselves by mathematics and the like, but this raises the issue of solipism and other epistemological theories that I will wade into only when I have the time and energy to; it appears ironical that one needs to put in a lot of effort to understand the belief that nothing is true except yourself, sometimes not even so.

And just to tell you, the chaung tzu butterfly story is the single most bewitching metaphysical concept I can find. I mean like, can you find a concept that can be summarised into a few sentences which crushes your whole world with such beautiful effect?