I am thinking about one array which is holding some numbers. These number can be anything, money, pears, stars, number of people. 12, 15, 32, 11, etc. Only by looking at these data, we can not conclude what these data represents in reality.
If we know some information about context in which this array is used, we can start guessing what these numbers in array can be. If the now that context is agriculture (for example) we can narrow our presumption to that context, and remove (for example) stars, an leave money, pears, and looots more which all can be put into context of agriculture.
So, it means that if we know more about context, we should be able to guess more easily what these facts are. But, the question is - how much we would need to know about context that we were able to give a meaning to these facts? Is this question correct? Or maybe the question would be - which model we would use to represent our reality(context) and our facts and how we can find line where these models and facts meet.
Why I started to think about? Because I asked myself - can we trust the facts if we do not understand the context? Can we take facts seriously (or should we trust them), if we do not know about context? And, since we can not know to the details about many contexts, does it mean that we should only believe (trust) the facts, which are coming from the context we absolutely know? Does context can affect the "truthfulness" of some facts? Are facts context independent, and they represent the truth regardless of context in which they are used? Is it possible to alter the facts by manipulating context in which these facts exist? What is the name of the discipline (science) which can help me finding answers to these questions?
If we know some information about context in which this array is used, we can start guessing what these numbers in array can be. If the now that context is agriculture (for example) we can narrow our presumption to that context, and remove (for example) stars, an leave money, pears, and looots more which all can be put into context of agriculture.
So, it means that if we know more about context, we should be able to guess more easily what these facts are. But, the question is - how much we would need to know about context that we were able to give a meaning to these facts? Is this question correct? Or maybe the question would be - which model we would use to represent our reality(context) and our facts and how we can find line where these models and facts meet.
Why I started to think about? Because I asked myself - can we trust the facts if we do not understand the context? Can we take facts seriously (or should we trust them), if we do not know about context? And, since we can not know to the details about many contexts, does it mean that we should only believe (trust) the facts, which are coming from the context we absolutely know? Does context can affect the "truthfulness" of some facts? Are facts context independent, and they represent the truth regardless of context in which they are used? Is it possible to alter the facts by manipulating context in which these facts exist? What is the name of the discipline (science) which can help me finding answers to these questions?
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар