|
Definitions
of truth and validity have shifted over the years nearly as much
as historical interpretation. No one definition fits all. Thank
goodness. Think how boring it would be if everything could be run
through a formula.
Still, methods
of thinking that distinguish verification from something like belief
are useful. Logic and the nature of proof, the balance of reason
and intuition, have been considerations since the earliest recorded
utterances of humans. This text is a colloquial examination of logic;
it mixes some terms and quantifies none to the satisfaction of all
logicians.
The literatures
of epistemology, the philosophy of history, historiography, logic,
and the character of language are now almost endless. The following
books are a good few with which to begin (and from which much of
this section is drawn): Ayer, Language, Truth & Logic;
Barzun, The Modern Researcher; Carr, What Is History?;
Gottschalk, Understanding History; and Walsh, Philosophy
of History. Walsh and Carr are good beginnings; Gottschalk and
Barzun are practical handbooks; and Ayer gives a most incisive analysis
of language, truth, and logic—exactly as his title indicates.
Epstein’s
Pre-Columbian Old World Coins is a good example of the
handling of data. For fun, see Lamb’s Science by Litigation.
Concerning the phenomenon of cult science, see Cole.
The question
of what evidence is admissible in scientific reasoning is quite
heated in some areas, e.g., archeology, education, even history
on occasion. Charles J. Cazeau and Stuart D. Scott Jr. in Exploring
the Unknown examine the pseudoscientist and provide
a good discussion of the scientific method—with examples. They include
a section on ancient mariners (21f).
William
Sims Bainbridge’s Chariots of the Gullible is a statistical
look at von Daniken believers in extra terrestrials as well as a
good comment on who is likely to believe what. For another side
of things, see Fell and Totten.
Always
remember that more people read the National Enquirer than
the Skeptical Inquirer.
|