It was the Greek Sophist Protagoras who first hypothesized that there were two sides to every question.

Anything and everything can be proven. That’s relativism, taken to its extreme.

Nothing can be proven and everything can be disproven. That’s skepticism, taken to its extreme.

And if that doesn’t grab you, consider that both propositions and systems can actually both be true as well as contradictory.

When we’re in political season, people tend to forget the very training that they had as college or professional students, namely that there are always two sides of looking at everything, and the very arguments of the ancients, the relativists like the sophists, and the skeptics, of very smart fellows like Protagoras, to take a relativist example, or Diogenes of Sinope, to take a skeptical example, seem to get lost.

And yet even science, in which I am trained, is not exempt from this. Hume dissected the causal argument a long time ago, and the modern empiricists like Popper and Reichenbach were reduced to arguing that scientific laws were no more than immense probabilities of the next thing happening in association with the previous–if I drop this ball the 5,001st time, it will fall to earth as it did 5,000 times before.

And then you have Thomas S. Kuhn, with his deconstruction of empiricism with the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, claiming that everything is just a paradigm, or that the reigning theory is just an agreement to agree.

That’s a kind of weird way to explain science, if you think about it–it’s a kind of Matrix way of explaining reality. After all, as the sci-fi/philosophy question goes, if we all agree this is reality, and it actually isn’t, and we’re all dreaming this, and it’s just the matrix, a computer program, then it’s not empirical at all, is it? That’s not satisfactory in terms of Kuhn and his paradigms.

Kuhn’s theory would have us believe that the reality of the Matrix was real because everyone agreed it was real–without any independent method of verification test added.

So I’ll just retreat back, if you don’t mind, to the sophists and skeptics, and say that I don’t really buy into paradigms as much as a lot of modern scholars do–give me some experimental verification any old day and maybe then, I might buy into your theory.

After all, the reality is this. There is no spoon.

–art kyriazis, philly

HOME OF THE WORLD SERIES CHAMPION PHILLIES

9 Responses to “Two Sides to Every Question”


  1. so Sophists see more than one side to things – and they are not relativists – hmm – I agree but I think it’s more complex than that – their positions on either side are argued out and they include being aware (hopefully) of their own assumptions – as you point out Hume thgt on that – if they are transparent abt their own assumptions, does that exonerate them from relativism? how?


  2. It is nice to definitely dig up a blog where the blogger is sophisticated. Thanks for creating %BLOGURL%.

  3. panama Says:

    I am new to blogging and actually enjoyed your website. I am going to bookmark your web site and keep checking you out. Thanks for sharing %BLOGURL%.


  4. I really like the fresh perpective you did on the issue. Really was not expecting that when I started off studying. Your concepts were easy to understand that I wondered why I never looked at it before. Glad to know that there’s an individual out there that definitely understands what he’s discussing. Great job

  5. Brady Nitz Says:

    I’m so glad to have found your web page. My pal mentioned it to me before, yet never got around to checking it out until now. I must express, I’m floored. I really enjoyed reading through your posts and will absolutely be back to get more.


  6. Definitely agree with what you stated. Your explanation was certainly the easiest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irked when folks discuss issues that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail right on the head and explained out everything without complication. Maybe, people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

  7. Reiko Bickle Says:

    This is my initial visit and I like what I’m viewing. Your blog is so great to read, pretty entertaining as well as beneficial. I’ll surely recommend it to my buddies. Yet, I did have a certain amount of difficulty with the commenting. It kept giving me an problem whenever I tapped on publish comment. Hopefully, that can be resolved. Many thanks!


  8. Go Saints! Become a fan of facebook page here: Colts Will Lose Super Bowl 2010!

  9. pedrofeliz3b Says:

    Two Sides to Every Question
    November 4, 2008

    It was the Greek Sophist Protagoras who first hypothesized that there were two sides to every question.

    Anything and everything can be proven. That’s relativism, taken to its extreme.

    Nothing can be proven and everything can be disproven. That’s skepticism, taken to its extreme.

    And if that doesn’t grab you, consider that both propositions and systems can actually both be true as well as contradictory.

    When we’re in political season, people tend to forget the very training that they had as college or professional students, namely that there are always two sides of looking at everything, and the very arguments of the ancients, the relativists like the sophists, and the skeptics, of very smart fellows like Protagoras, to take a relativist example, or Diogenes of Sinope, to take a skeptical example, seem to get lost.

    And yet even science, in which I am trained, is not exempt from this. Hume dissected the causal argument a long time ago, and the modern empiricists like Popper and Reichenbach were reduced to arguing that scientific laws were no more than immense probabilities of the next thing happening in association with the previous–if I drop this ball the 5,001st time, it will fall to earth as it did 5,000 times before.

    And then you have Thomas S. Kuhn, with his deconstruction of empiricism with the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, claiming that everything is just a paradigm, or that the reigning theory is just an agreement to agree.

    That’s a kind of weird way to explain science, if you think about it–it’s a kind of Matrix way of explaining reality. After all, as the sci-fi/philosophy question goes, if we all agree this is reality, and it actually isn’t, and we’re all dreaming this, and it’s just the matrix, a computer program, then it’s not empirical at all, is it? That’s not satisfactory in terms of Kuhn and his paradigms.

    Kuhn’s theory would have us believe that the reality of the Matrix was real because everyone agreed it was real–without any independent method of verification test added.

    So I’ll just retreat back, if you don’t mind, to the sophists and skeptics, and say that I don’t really buy into paradigms as much as a lot of modern scholars do–give me some experimental verification any old day and maybe then, I might buy into your theory.

    After all, the reality is this. There is no spoon.

    –art kyriazis, philly

    HOME OF THE WORLD SERIES CHAMPION PHILLIES

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s