THE INVASION OF TRUTH
For every single time we told or heard a story, we have assumed they were maybe fictional, or even if real, they were definitely selected pieces of events put together to give a representation of an actual. Most people never go to the extent of asking how much the real ones are true, and to what degree it qualifies as truth. The farthest people go is ask for other versions to commemorate it so they can confidently accept it.
There's no conceivable truth by any human beyond what they can comprehend as organized from a specific or numerous points of views. And this becomes a problem when someone else is supposed to tell their version of truth about the same event another witnessed from their point of view, acknowledging their bias in perception, largely not by just the variation in quality of their perceptive organs and it's variety alone, but by the relationship they create with the elements of the event they're witnessing. With these factors, including a number of others that influence these very ones like our emotional complexities responding to tiny bits of the event that we may have come across in our past (triggering all sorts of things) and a lot of others.
When we think we have an understanding of something, we rather radically capture some glimpse of the absurdity of nature and its abstractions we have had over the past come to terms with. Nietzche states that the real truth about objective truth is that the latter is only a fiction, any candidate for truth must first be expressed in language, and language is notoriously unable to take us to reality. Words like a hall of mirrors only reflect each other and in the end point back to the condition of their users without establishing anything about the way things really are. "Truth" is the name we give to that which agrees with our own instinctive preferences. It is what we call our interpretation of the world.....
These modern philosophers of the 19th century on existentialism pave the way for the postmodern thinking, that which analyzes the establishment, what metric is used to establish the establishment, the fundamental laws of logic, semantics and pragmatism. It looks like postmodernism establishes that the line between figurative implications and literal implications is only virtual. It keeps shifting the closer you look at it. Hence, relating to postmodernism, metaphorization and literalism are just interchangeable archetypes. On a brighter side, words have a limitless spectrum of meaning and could mean anything at any point in time.. We’re just complex code constantly misunderstanding each other.
Human beings are story telling creatures. We're wired to see connections and look for patterns amongst the chaos. Every assumption, idea, observation including tested hypothesis are just strands loosened from the fabric of all that exists, the entirety of chaos where we would like to play the fixer of all things who manufactures meaning. While of course, chaos in this scenario is the only representation of the ultimate(truth).
While all of this is highly debatable, statisticians and scientists often ask many of the same questions. What should we observe? What can we infer from the data? What's a good test? When do we have confirmation? Scientific thinking and traditional statistics owns a place in this invasion. It surgically cuts through the whole and prunes the shrubs from assumptions and hypothesis to make establishment posited as truth. Statistics involves understanding data put against a hypothesis. A hypothesis which at best is explained closely to an assumption. So even before the data is collected or assessed, it being subjected to whether or not an ideology is true, ends up limiting all the potential the study could establish. This sounds to me like a model used to measure and modify degrees of support. And this is the entire essence of scientific thinking. To whatever extent we think it is flawed, it is still the best we made for ourselves.
