- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
On top of page 173 in OPAR (Chapter 5 on Reason) Peikoff says that knowledge at one stage is NOT contradicted by later discoveries. I question this. For example, at one time it may have been correct to hold that lung cancer was not caused by cigarette smoking. In other words, at that time there were no research studies revealing such a link. But, as was later discovered through further research, cigarette is one cause of lung cancer. Would we not the say that later discoveries proved the earlier conclusion was wrong? Is the answer that both conclusions were correct in the context of the evidence at the time they were reached? This is true but it still seems that the later knowledge contradicts the earlier ie it was not just the need for a qualification as in his example of the compatibility of blood types.
On further thought I now understand that there is no contradiction involved in my example of, with new research, reaching a different conclusion about the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The earlier conclusion of no link was correct based on the evidence at that time.It was not a matter of claiming that no link could exist between the two regardless of what further research might reveal. Both the early and later conclusions were true given the evidence available at the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.