I Comment now that I Possess a Book

One of the things that I really want Lynch to tackle is the issues that seem to be a shade of gray when looked at even in an objective manner. Say for example, the statement “Sam’s dog is poorly trained” versus “Sam’s dog is well trained.” It might be the case that Sam’s dog is one or the other, but it could also be the case that Sam’s dog is somewhere in the middle of the two statements. Trying to decipher which one is the actual truth and the method of reaching this kind of conclusion is something that I hope Lynch tries to explain. There are few who would argue with the statement, “Peas are a vegetable” because biologically and anatomically this is true and we regard it as such. However, the statement “Peas are tasty” is a much more difficult truth to find. I’m not sure if there is a truth out there and some of us just have incorrect beliefs about peas, or if our perception makes it difficult if not impossible to ever discover the objective truth about pea tastiness.

I also had an issue with Lynch’s third goal in chapter 1; that truth is a worthy goal of inquiry. While in principle I understand and agree with this sentiment, the example he gave in the book can be compared to another case where it raises questions. He explained that someone can tell themselves that they have a blue flower growing out of their head, but no matter how many times they say it and try to believe it, it will never be the case. He uses this example to show how we have no control over our own beliefs since no one would purposely believe something that’s false. However, after hearing this example, it reminded me of the psychological experiment done with students in math classes. When students who were objectively bad at math (as in routinely were behind and scored in a mathematically low percentile on math problems by getting the wrong answer) were told to repeat to themselves that they loved math 30 times per day, their scores began to improve until one could no longer objectively say they were getting wrong answers anymore. In this sense, was the truth of the situation changed by sheer will? Or is it just a case of changing the circumstances changed the truth? Clearly the students had the potential always, making that true, but it wasn’t always the case that they had obtained said skills. Perhaps it’s just extrapolating an example out too far, but I’m curious to see if he will use an example like this one again.

Caring about truth for the sake of truth is what helps keep the mathematical and scientific communities afloat, and I definitely agree with Lynch on this point. Searching for truth for its immediate value is nothing if not shortsighted. It is through the search for the seemingly impractical that sometimes greater truths and discoveries are unearthed. Even if there is little practical benefit, the intrinsic value of discovering truth needs to keep value in society, just as music and art are of value to us despite their lacking the practicality of other jobs such as retail.