On Reasonable Extrapolations

Building a Philosophical Basis

I read recently the idea that as long as we don't know absolutely everything, therefore we can not be absolutely certain about anything. While we may be reasonably certain to the degree that we lack absolute knowledge there exists a measure of deny-ability. Though must we have absolute knowledge to in order to be reasonably certain or is there a sufficient amount of knowledge that is necessary in order to be reasonably certain?  We tend to be more certain about corporeal reality which consists of matter, motion, space, and time than we are with anything else, therefore we must start with that which can be observed through the senses for there exists nothing in the mind that did not first exist in the senses.

One might propose that reality merely consists of matter, motion, space, and time since it can be verified empirically. However, to propose that only that which can be verified empirically exists is not provable by empiricism and therefore is not a conclusion from a postorior demonstration but must be assumed a priori. It is an assumed belief reasoned from higher levels of certainty. Higher levels of certainty contributes to verifiability. At the more developed end of our thinking are rather strong conclusions, and reasoned elements that approximate these conclusions seem more supportive. On the lower end we find that we are not as certain although they comprise basic building blocks for what seems more certain. By the means of syllogisms we have deduced conclusions from premises, most of which are conclusions from more under-developed aspects of our thinking.

Since our conclusions are only as certain as our premises we must be reminded that although in practice we highly esteem our more developed thoughts, in fact, at the very base of this string of syllogisms are premises which are less certain. Since we do not have absolute knowledge, and since our knowledge and understanding is limited, we can not set out an infinite regress of proofs, and therefore at some point at the base of our thinking are elements found in fundamental premises that are assumed to a higher degree than others. At some point we must presuppose one factor or another in a way we are not willing to grant in more developed forms of argumentation. In order to accept philosophical naturalism we must make the assumption that reality consists only of matter, motion, space, and time because we can verify it empirically, that is we can observe and confirm it through our senses. It seems more reasonable to be more certain about this method than to suppose by mere assumption any other proposed realities. However, it would not be reasonable to object to extrapolations and developing a postiori arguments where we reason from that which can be observed to higher principles where that which can be seen ultimately points to that which can not be seen.

In practice we do this all the time when criminal investigators attempt to piece evidence together in order to reconstruct a crime. Although reconstructions are by no means absolute they nevertheless point to that which is more certain than not, and to one degree or another approximates reality in a way that mere assumption can not, and even if it could there would be no way of being certain of it. Cosmologists who think that string theory and M-theory as the most reasonable explanations for the weakness of gravity among the other fundamental forces of the universe are extrapolating into more speculative ground because although the theory itself accounts for this fact, it nevertheless is missing evidences. These evidences are not in and of themselves necessary in the manner that it will disprove the proposition but there can be no empirical evidence for the existence of as many as 11 different dimensions. What seems like religion and blind faith to some should be more developed as the product of rational thought, not as an aberration, although this could be the case in the minds of some. 

I personally like this quote by Huxley: “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. . . . Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.”

In a positive manner I find it very reasonable to follow the arguments for God in the form of an a posteriori perspective. Reasoning from what can be seen to what can't be seen is not a matter of delusion any more than a cosmologist who believes M-theory is the most cogent explanation for why gravity is so weak, even though there is no evidence for 11 different dimensions. We reason from what can be seen all the time without falling into any kind of delusion. Detectives piece together crimes even though they did not witness it themselves. We can deduce a necessary cause for contingent causes or a series of causes that is itself contingent simply because we understand causation from what we observe. Logical abstraction is part of how we learn and process thought. Whatever can be said of faith, it must not contradict reason. In any area of science there are evidences which can be verified empirically and then there are more speculative domains of the field that are less certain but nonetheless possible given the evidences that do exist. If by religious one means anything other than this then nor am I religious, if by faith one means nothing other than blind foolishness then nor do I have faith.

Taking Reason as Far as Reason can go

Imagination... can be seen as an extension of reason where we utilize what can be seen in order to assist in giving images to that which is without an image in much the same way that symbols are employed in mathematics to convey abstract concepts. Part of what one considers faith is our ability to imagine a possible cause or reality which assists and supplements our interpretation of sense experience. Perhaps only when such imagining is the most reasonable extrapolation of the evidences that we place our confidence (con – meaning with; fide – meaning faith) in that image. That we are confident in anything would not be a test of veracity any more than merely stating a proposition determines its validity. However, it is more reasonable than not to extend such confidence to concepts which appear to be valid extrapolations of sense experience. A parent who does not know with absolute certainty that their child is guilty of an act does not negate that they may have a reasonable amount of certainty which is sufficient enough to be confident that despite certain preferred evidences they can reasonably approach their child with the premise that they might be guilty. The parent would still be wise to remain tentative enough to be honest with themselves concerning the lack of evidences, but not enough that they would be easily swayed into doubt due to manipulation attempts from the child to diffuse the parent's confidence in their position.

Intuition... is a basic cognitive process that results from the impressions received through observation of reality. Such impressions result in a vague notion or suspicion that there is more than meets the eye, that there is more than what has been observed by the five senses. Perhaps it can be further qualified that intuition not only concerns that which has not yet been observed by the five senses, as in the case of something visible but not yet seen, but also that which can not be observed by the five senses, such as in the case of something invisible which can not be seen, with or without the assistance of instrumentation, since it exists in a manner other than what is casually observed within the realm of matter, motion, space, and time. In either case what we understand as intuition should be applicable to both since the process of imagination does not require visibility beyond the impressions already in the mind filtered through the senses.

We are certainly prone to trust what can be empirically verifiable in a manner greater than we are willing to extend to extrapolations into more speculative territory. The further we reason into speculative territory the more agnostic we are concerning our conclusions. Although some are more inclined to reject anything that lies in speculative territory others are more accepting of concepts that lay just beyond the border of empirical verifiability. It seems as if some are more naturally predisposed to be suspicious and skeptical which leads to the preference for things of a more certain nature according to the order of knowledge. Though that something is observable is not usually the end of our reasoning but we tend to reason from what is observed to that which has not yet been observed or is not observable at all (due to great distances, as is the case with planets and other phenomenon in the universe, or due to the possibility of substances that exist in a manner beyond the observable physical realm).

While those who deny the physical realm are considered highly objectionable those who affirm the possibility of a realm beyond our own are considered highly delusional. Cosmology, once referred by Steven Hawking as a kind of faith for atheists, is often granted more validity in its more speculative concepts of alternate realities, parallel universes, or multiple dimensions in a manner different than extrapolations concerning a realm that may be claimed by a religion in its proposal of theism as the most reasonable explanation; that there is a non-corporeal realm or reality we might call God which exists beyond the confines of the physical realm. What some Cosmologists may be peering into when they speculate concerning the why behind the weakness of gravity in our universe is the fact that it is not self-explainable and that there is possibly something beyond our realm that exists. Theists hypothesize in the same manner when they ask similar questions of the universe that concern the ideas of meaning, purpose, and morality. Every field of science eventually wades through speculative waters in an attempt to answer the more difficult questions but none do so without the aid of reasonable extrapolation. The fields of philosophy and theology have functioned in much the same manner when they reasonably extrapolate from what is observed to that which is not empirically verifiable such as truth, love, and beauty. The discipline of an area of study is to theorize and make inferences concerning all possibilities while not limiting prospective conclusions. Discovery and innovation has been the result of free thinkers willing to follow their reason as far as it would take them, without regard to any other consideration.

For example, Galileo confidently maintained the Copernican theory of the Heliocentric model of our solar system (the idea that the earth circled the sun) despite the fact that most scientists of his day favored an alternative theory. Although Galileo arrogantly insisted that he was correct and published works which spoke of his theory as fact he nevertheless was willing to follow his science where ever it may have led him unlike the narrow-minded bishops who condemned him for refusing to speak of his theory as a mere hypothesis until proven through collaboration. Galileo was willing to envision the solar system in a manner inconsistent with the prevailing science of his day but yet he did not do so without reasonable extrapolation. He spoke confidently of the theory because he was convinced that the Heliocentric model of our solar system was the best explanation for his observations. This example may only concern scientific progress as it relates to observable phenomena but it reveals a deeper principle that we must follow reason where ever it may lead, without regard to any other consideration.