"There's too much information, but not enough to go on" - Ian Hunter, "When the World Was Round"
There is a difference between information and knowledge, let alone truth. These days, it's hard to know what to believe. Fifty years ago, a few nightly news programs and a couple of newspapers peddled what they reported to be "the truth." But the internet has changed all that. The internet has forced good old competition back into a truth business that was once monopolized by tightly controlled corporate entities. Information now flows from numerous sources. Much of what constitutes "knowledge" cannot be broadcast by large corporations like CNN, Fox News, or the NY Times, because their corporate sponsors would pull their support instantly.
For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that it is, in fact, possible to "know" something. Philosophy has attempted over the years to figure out what we can really "know". Basically, philosophy is a search for opinions that are both true, and that we can be justified in believing to be true. Even science is based upon its own 'philosophy' of knowledge, and the assumptions that support this philosophy.
Scientists know things about the world, but there are built in limitations on science's ability to make "truth" claims. Scientific experiments may measure something 100 times, only to "assume" that the universe will behave in the same way on the 101st time. But, this is only an assumption. Also, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits science's ability to "know" certain things about our universe. And, when we look at matter in its most basic form (quantum mechanics), we see that "knowing" the state of matter may not be possible without first having a conscious observer force the particles to behave in a certain way (the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, for example).
"There's too much information, but not enough to go on" - Ian Hunter, "When the World Was Round"
There is a difference between information and knowledge, let alone truth. These days, it's hard to know what to believe. Fifty years ago, a few nightly news programs and a couple of newspapers peddled what they reported to be "the truth." But the internet has changed all that. The internet has forced good old competition back into a truth business that was once monopolized by tightly controlled corporate entities. Information now flows from numerous sources. Much of what constitutes "knowledge" cannot be broadcast by large corporations like CNN, Fox News, or the NY Times, because their corporate sponsors would pull their support instantly.
For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that it is, in fact, possible to "know" something. Philosophy has attempted over the years to figure out what we can really "know". Basically, philosophy is a search for opinions that are both true, and that we can be justified in believing to be true. Even science is based upon its own 'philosophy' of knowledge, and the assumptions that support this philosophy.
Scientists know things about the world, but there are built in limitations on science's ability to make "truth" claims. Scientific experiments may measure something 100 times, only to "assume" that the universe will behave in the same way on the 101st time. But, this is only an assumption. Also, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits science's ability to "know" certain things about our universe. And, when we look at matter in its most basic form (quantum mechanics), we see that "knowing" the state of matter may not be possible without first having a conscious observer force the particles to behave in a certain way (the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, for example).