Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00184)

Dallas, 

Thanks for your latest comments at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/7769

I see in two of your statements, you write:

". . . But this is where I say WE DO NOT KNOW for a 100%
certainty. So I state that. And it does not bother me one
bit to be so obviously uncertain. . . . "

". . . This is an assumption we make without any verification,
and it is normal to do so, but it is not 100% verifiable. . . . "

100% certainty? 100% verifiable?

In most matters of history, are we ever 100% certain?

Marcello Truzzi, the sociologist, writes about science:

"Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom
if ever absolutely conclusive. . . . Both critics and proponents [of 
truth claims] need to learn to think of adjudication in science as 
more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying 
degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute [100%] truth, like absolute 
justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to 
approximate them."

The same can be said about history.

And the same with HPB's teachings. Can we ever know with 100% 
certainty whether any of HPB's claims are true or not? That is
not to say that we cannot weight the claims and evidence and come to 
some approximate view of "truth" whether it be historical or
metaphysical. 

I would be happy with 90% certainty or 70 % certainty.

The use of 100% should be erasered from our vocabulary.

Daniel

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm

"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.