chapters 2 and 3

This section of reading was interesting to me in that it addressed this issue of certainty and also the arguments of relatvism. To me he seems to be saying that the best way we have of deciding whether or not something is true is how well it seems to fit with our other beliefs and whether or not there is other good reasons to believe it. Complete certainty is probably impossible as Lynch sees it yet this does not mean we should not strive for truth because we can still have truth and find justification in believing this...after paths lab today I am very interested in how we are going to go about the idea of knowing, or if we will find a better answer for knowing, now that we have said that being justified in a believing a true belief is not the same as knowing something is true. I know that is not really his strongest concern for this book, instead he is more interested in convincing us of his truism than investigating how we can now the truth. Still it is interesting to think about. His end conclusion on relativism is soemthing I really liked by the time he finished explaining his stance. He seems to be taking a stance that there are objective truths but there can be mulitiple truths at ones, especially dealing with the human constructions in the world. His example I liked alot was the body of law where different laws can be true or false depending on the body of laws which they fit with; like drinking alcohol is illegal in some places and not others and these laws are still true in these places because laws are a human construct that is designed to reflect the needs and values of a society. This idea of looking at truth for the most part I can agree with but with the law example I become a little uneasy. Would this mean that a law created by one country that fits its system of laws is always true. I get that the law would be true insofar as it is true that it is a law but would it have to follow that it is true that it ought to be a law?