Q&A: Syntheticity
Syntheticity
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I just finished chapter 16 of Truth and Not Stable. There’s something I didn’t fully understand (maybe it’s clarified later in the book). The Rabbi said that we can rely on our intuitions, since in a certain sense they do recognize reality. But one has to be careful, since this is not as certain as sensory certainty.
Later, in the examples the Rabbi gives, he speaks about cases showing that relying on induction alone can mislead us (testimony). But as I understand it, this doesn’t show us that the rule of induction is not always correct; rather, that it is always correct, except that we don’t always have enough details to know what the cause is in each case. Because from what I understood from you, the rule of induction is not “certainly” true, but appears to us as true to the intellect. And the fact that sometimes there are mistakes in this is shown by the examples brought about “assuming based on what is familiar.” But again, in the examples there is nothing that shows that induction is incorrect in some cases; rather, quite the opposite: there is always a reason for the cases, but because of lack of information we sometimes make mistakes in our understanding.
And also in science—when people change their insights and advance to more general laws, we are not canceling induction; on the contrary, out of confidence in it we find broader laws. If so, then our certainty in induction is not probability but certainty. Only the content of the laws changes according to our knowledge of reality.
And similarly regarding values—I don’t think there is morality based on observing the world with the eye of the intellect and making a plausible inference that such a thing exists. I know that such a thing exists, and if there is behavior that seems to me to contradict it, I will explain it within the moral context. Or there may be different moral theories—but they all fall under the definition of morality. That is, I have no doubt about the value itself, only perhaps about its implementation there can be disputes.
Answer
I don’t see a difference between the formulations. I’m willing to accept that usually (though not always) there is a correct generalization, but the generalization we make in many cases is not correct. Neither of these things is certain.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, correct.
So I still don’t completely understand whether, through syntheticity, I recognize at all that there are certain truths in reality (cause and effect, induction, morality), and these are not 100% certain; or whether the intention is that these are indeed certain, but what exactly describes them in reality is not certain—that is, there will be arguments about what is moral, which law better explains a series of experiments, and that is what has to be examined in a “synthetic” way, and therefore certainty cannot be reached.
That is, is it possible that the principle of induction in general, and the principle of causality, are themselves not correct (even before specific theories like gravity), because these principles were revealed to us through the eye of the intellect?