Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy How can you tell?

"The lower cannot see the higher".

It's an intriguing idea that seems obvious on the face of it. Two people have an argument, one knows more about the subject matter that the other, the more knowledgable person is right, right?

But how can they tell who knows more? One says, "You don't understand", the other says the same. "I can see that you don't understand, because I do, and the lower cannot see the higher".

Such a dilemma... is there any solution?

No. Because people are entrenched in what they perceive to be truth.

Sometimes. Sometimes it makes no difference;however, because they have an interest in the "truth"- skin in the game, dog in the fight, etc.

WHAT IS TRUTH? I suppose it depends upon the who is pointing the gun at your head (metaphorically speaking).

It depends on what they are discussing. There are facts and there are opinions and there are opinions based on facts.
If the discussion is solely based on opinion (without facts) then it is impossible for either to be "right".
If the opinions are based on fact then usually the one whose opinion comes closer to real fact is probably closer to the truth (right) - I don't like the word because it sounds as if there is an absolute right.
The reason someone may suggest that the other doesn't understand something is not because she/he believes that they know more, but, rather, because there are objective facts that support one and not the other. This usually stems from a deeper understanding of whatever the subject is.
The ultimate test will always be reality and fact.
Now, there are issues and problems that cannot be solved in that way, and then, all you have are theories that either conform closer to observed reality or not (keeping in mind that observed reality can be deceptive).

So, in answer to your question, if I need surgery I'm going to seek out a surgeon not a street sweeper. And then, I would look for a surgeon whose expertise and practical knowledge are the best one can find. Remember again, the best is relative to some finite group from which one can choose and not all possible surgeons.
In the end, if your hypothesis conforms closer to reality than any other, all things being equal, and even if you can't PROVE it, the odds are that it is correct. And sometimes, a probability is all we have. We have to learn to live with uncertainty.
Another thing to keep in mind is that knowledge is dynamic: what we knew 100 years ago is not interchangeable and cannot be measured by the same metric that you would use today.

Interestingly, what seems obvious is not necessarily true.
"Knowledgeable" people make mistakes all of the time for a whole variety of reasons. I have had Doctors tell me things that I knew to be incorrect. And of course there are innumerable financial experts who were totally wrong about risks before the 2008 collapse.

Over all, we tend to be best off putting our fate in the hands of "the best and the brightest." There seems to be no reliable alternative methodology available. But it is also a good idea to do your own research, and to use good ol' common sense.

'
There should be nothing surprising in that.

'
Everything is infinitely fine, and any opinion is somehow coarser than the texture of the real thing.
---John Updike

The following have been in my armamentarium of apophthegmata for decades :

Consciousness will always be one degree above comprehensibility.
---G. Ehrensvard

The more observers are made similar, the more they can agree upon.
The less similar observers are, the more complex and subtle must be the language in which they converse.
---Ahem! Modesty forbids!

Logi, the point you are trying to make was dealt with in a very satisfactory manner by Zhuangzi, more than 2300 years ago :

Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" -- which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth, there must be death; where there is death, there must be birth. Where there is acceptability, there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability, there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right, there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong, there must be recognition of right.
Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he, in fact, no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the Hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness, and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is Clarity.
Only the man of far-reaching vision knows how to make them into one. So he has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the Constant. The Constant is the useful; the useful goes forward; going forward leads to success; and with success, all is accomplished. He relies upon the Constant alone -- relies upon it and does not know he is doing so. This is called the Way.
But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same -- this is called "three in the morning." What do I mean by "three in the morning"? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, "You get three in the morning and four at night." This made all the monkeys furious. "Well, then," he said, "you get four in the morning and three at night." The monkeys were all delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called Walking Two Roads....
The torch of chaos and doubt -- this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things, but relegates all to the Constant. This is what it means to use Clarity.

"The behavior of One Who Wanders Beyond becomes Wu-wei : sensitive and responsive without fixed preconceptions, without artifice, responding spontaneously in accordance with the unfolding of the inter-developing factors of the environment -- of which one is an inseparable part."
---Steve Coutinho

'
Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category, or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!

THE ONE WAS COMPELLED TO DO WITH THE TWO,
THREE WAS THE SEER, AND WHO WAS IT FOR ?
---Ahem! Modesty forbids!

'
The Way has never known boundaries; speech has no constancy. But because of [the recognition of a] "this," there came to be boundaries....
The Great Way is not named; Great Discriminations are not spoken; Great Benevolence is not benevolent; Great Modesty is not humble; Great Daring does not attack. If the Way is made clear, it is not the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. If benevolence has a constant object, it cannot be universal. If modesty is fastidious, it cannot be trusted. If daring attacks, it cannot be complete....
Therefore understanding which rests in what it does not understand is the finest. Who can understand discriminations that are not spoken, the Way that is not a way? If he can understand this, he may be called the Reservoir of Heaven. Pour into it, and it is never full; dip from it, and it never runs dry; and yet it does not know where the supply comes from. This is called the Dark-Light....