# 1999/4/15

#==================#
# Contextual Truth #
#==================#

# Peikoff, OPAR, page 172-174

    Man is a being of limited knowledge -- and he must, therefore,
identify the cognitive context of his conclusions.  In any situation
where there is reason to suspect that a variety of factors is relevant
to the truth, only some of which are presently known, he is obliged
to acknowledge this fact.  The implicit or explicit preamble to his
conclusion must be: "On the basis of the available evidence, i.e.,
within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following
is the proper conclusion to draw."  Thereafter, the individual must
continue to observe and identify; should new information warrant it,
he must qualify his conclusion accordingly.

    If a man follows this policy, he will find that his knowledge at
one stage is not contradicted by later discoveries.  He will find
that the discoveries expand his understanding; that he learns more
about the conditions on which his conclusions depend; that he moves
from relatively generalized, primitive observations to increasingly
detailed, sophisticated formulations.  He will also find that the
process is free of epistemological trauma.  The advanced conclusions
augment and enhance his earlier knowledge; they do not clash with
or annul it.

    I have already illustrated this fact in the discussion of
contextual definitions.  Here is another kind of example, drawn
from the field of scientific induction.  Some time ago, medical
researchers learned to identify four types of blood: A, B, AB, and O.
When blood was transfused from one individual to another, some of
these blood types proved to be compatible while others were not
(an undesirable reaction, hemolysis, occurred).  For example, the
blood of an A-type donor was compatible with that of an A-type
recipient, but not with that of a B-type.  Later, a new discovery
was made: in certain cases, an undesirable reaction occurred even
when blood of type A was given to an A-type recipient.  Further
investigation revealed another factor at work, the RH factor,
which was found in the blood of some individuals, but not others.
The initial generalization (for short, "A bloods are compatible")
was thus discovered to hold only under a circumstance that had
earlier been unidentified.  Given this knowledge, the generalization
had to be qualified ("A bloods are compatible if their RH factors
are matched").

    The principle here is evident: since a later discovery rests
hierarchically on earlier knowledge, it cannot contradict its own
base.  The qualified formulation in no way clashes with the initial
proposition, viz.: "Within the context of the circumstances so
far known, A bloods are compatible."  This proposition represented
real knowledge when it was first reached, and it still does so;
in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is
immutable.  Within the context initially specified, A bloods are
and always will be compatible.

    The appearance of a contradiction between new knowledge and
old derives from a single source: context-dropping.  If the
researchers had decided to view their initial discovery as an
out-of-context absolute; if they were to declare -- in effect,
as a matter of dogma: "A bloods will always be compatible,
regardless of altered circumstances"; then of course the next
factor discovered would plunge them into contradiction, and
they would end up complaining that knowledge is impossible.
But if a man reaches conclusions logically and grasps their
contextual nature, intellectual progress poses no threat to him;
it consists to a great extent in his identifying ever more fully
the relationships, the connections among facts, that make the
world a unity.  Such a man is not dismayed to find that he always
has more to learn.  He is happy about it, because he recognizes
that he is expanding and refining his knowledge, not subverting it.

    Although the researchers cannot claim their discovery as an
out-of-context absolute, they must treat it as a contextual
absolute (i.e., as an immutable truth within the specified
context).

    The researchers must know that the initial generalization is
valid -- "know" as against guess, hope, or feel.  It is only on
this basis that they can progress to further discoveries.  Since
it is an established truth that A bloods are compatible under
the circumstances so far encountered, the researchers are able
to infer, when they observe a new reaction, the presence of a
new factor.  By contrast, when the anti-conceptual mentality
observes the new reaction, he stops dead.  "My generalization
was unreliable," he sighs, "science is a progression of exploded
theories, everything is relative." 

    A man does not know everything, but he does know what he knows.
The choice is not: to make unwarranted, dogmatic claims or to
give up the cognitive quest in despair.  Both these policies stem
from the notion that omniscience is the standard.  One side then
pretends to have access to it somehow, while the other bewails our
lack of such access.  In reason, however, this kind of standard
must be rejected.  Conceptual knowledge rests on logic within a
context, not on omniscience.  If an idea has been logically proved,
then it is valid and it is an absolute -- contextually.  This last
term, indeed, does not introduce a factor distinct from logic and
should not have to be stressed: to adduce evidence for a conclusion
is to place it within a context and thereby to define precisely
the conditions of its applicability.