Play along here. Just because something is true doesn’t mean that it is TRUE. Start with an example. In the middle of the eighteenth century Christian Goldbach suggested that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers. So, 8=5+3; 14=7+7; 22=11+11. I know what you’re thinking. Eight is also the sum of 4=4; 14 is the sum of 6+8, and 22 is the sum of 10+12, and all those latter examples show even numbers as the sum of even numbers. By thinking what you did, you make one of two points. The first is that just because something is true, it isn’t necessarily true in all instances. The second point that I would make is that just because something is true, it isn’t necessarily TRUE. What?
Let’s go back to Goldbach’s suggestion. You can start today and run sums until you are exhausted, and you won’t likely find any even number that isn’t the sum of two prime numbers. You can say that as far as you are concerned, Goldbach hit on something. But you might never be able to prove that suggestion is correct. Merely running through an indefinite series of sums isn’t a proof. What if, upon your complete exhaustion, you fall short of going to the very next even number, that key number that isn’t a sum of two primes? See what I’m getting at? Just running the sums isn’t a proof of the principle. Just finding things that are true isn’t necessarily finding things that are TRUE.
It doesn’t matter if we want all even numbers to conform to Goldbach’s suggestion. We can never know whether or not there is an exception. When it comes to culture, we run into the same kind of conundrum: How do we know that what is “true” is “TRUE”? We take anecdote, limited data, and hearsay as TRUE when they might be, in fact, merely “true.” Indefinite examples aren’t proof of anything.
For almost everything in our lives, we are stuck with the “true,” and not the “TRUE.” That makes predictability a problem, especially when it comes to behaviors. That predictability problem makes life both more dangerous and more interesting. Somewhere along the number line of life there’s an even number that isn’t the sum of two primes, or everywhere along the line all even numbers conform to the rule. Until we know what is “TRUE,” we have only what is “true.”
Let’s go back to Goldbach’s suggestion. You can start today and run sums until you are exhausted, and you won’t likely find any even number that isn’t the sum of two prime numbers. You can say that as far as you are concerned, Goldbach hit on something. But you might never be able to prove that suggestion is correct. Merely running through an indefinite series of sums isn’t a proof. What if, upon your complete exhaustion, you fall short of going to the very next even number, that key number that isn’t a sum of two primes? See what I’m getting at? Just running the sums isn’t a proof of the principle. Just finding things that are true isn’t necessarily finding things that are TRUE.
It doesn’t matter if we want all even numbers to conform to Goldbach’s suggestion. We can never know whether or not there is an exception. When it comes to culture, we run into the same kind of conundrum: How do we know that what is “true” is “TRUE”? We take anecdote, limited data, and hearsay as TRUE when they might be, in fact, merely “true.” Indefinite examples aren’t proof of anything.
For almost everything in our lives, we are stuck with the “true,” and not the “TRUE.” That makes predictability a problem, especially when it comes to behaviors. That predictability problem makes life both more dangerous and more interesting. Somewhere along the number line of life there’s an even number that isn’t the sum of two primes, or everywhere along the line all even numbers conform to the rule. Until we know what is “TRUE,” we have only what is “true.”
RSS Feed