Truth a matter made up of honesty and trust
Experimentally produced phenomena became part of the stock of collective knowledge largely through the testimony of trusted authors. And the winners are the ones who really listen to the truth of their hearts.
Policy in such matters ought to be informed by our best current understandings of the conditions in which geese lay golden eggs. The question is, why?
The seventeenth-century "moderns" enjoined those who would reform traditional natural knowledge and set it upon proper foundations to reject reliance upon authoritative ancient texts and the hearsay testimony of other people. How, then, were sincerity and truthfulness recognized at the origins of modern science?
And are any or all of those personal traits regarded as sufficient to ground our confidence in scientific reliability and truthfulness? Your actions are a reflection on your faith, and reflecting the truth in your actions is a part of being a good witness.
The new empirical and experimental practitioners of the seventeenth century relied massively upon trust in human testimony about the natural world, and, indeed, it is impossible that they could have produced any recognizable body of natural knowledge had they not done so.
If our current appreciation of the former leads to problems with the latter, then the remedy can only be to try to reconstitute an appreciation of the scientist as "more virtuous" than other people, and to disseminate that appreciation, without embarrassment, in the wider culture.
If the Christian teen's goal is to become more God-like and God-centered , then honesty needs to be a focus. It makes us want to earn their respect and deserve their faith. Related: Can't Find a Job? It sticks with us. Historical perspectives occasionally have the capacity to encourage a more disengaged look at present predicaments, while the fact that the divorce between expertise and virtue is, as I shall indicate, a strikingly recent one can prompt the thought that there may be some point in seeking to "unwind" a bit of history. Vigilance as a solution to problems of dishonesty amounts in practice to the enforcement of skepticism and distrust among scientists. Most of my time as a senior executive and corporate officer of various public and private companies came before all that, and, let me tell you, there was no shortage of opportunities to stray. The new empirical and experimental practitioners of the seventeenth century relied massively upon trust in human testimony about the natural world, and, indeed, it is impossible that they could have produced any recognizable body of natural knowledge had they not done so. I know more about science than about other modern specialized institutions, but I do not doubt that there are others that meet the conditions for exemption: one thinks of sectors of the financial system and the civil service. Since God cannot lie, He sets the example for all of His people. That sentiment is at the root of the modern disengagement between truth and the social virtues. I want to draw attention to how the modern state of affairs just outlined came to be. Individuals would have known enough mathematics, but not known enough about themselves. Being "trust-dependent," such agreement is no less interesting and no less problematic than "the ethical application" of agreed-upon facts. Second, we are more likely to accept claims from sources of recognized expertise and knowledgeability than from those considered to lack these entitlements.
Updated December 26, What is honesty and why is it so important? As Hardwig puts it, "the alternative to trust is By contrast, there are coherent social institutions which offer their members "external goods," those available through participation in the institution, but which do not differentiate that institution from others and which may even be had without accepting its internal standards.
based on 19 review