A Social History Of Truth

Review of The Social History Of Truth by Steven Shapin Chapter 1 When someone says that something is true,they are usually stating that it corresponds to the facts of how things really are. Academic philosopher’s distiningish what is true and what is taken to be true by a process of sorting?No single being can constitute knowledge. All one can do is offer claims, with evidence, arguments and inducements to the community for its assessment.Knowledge is the result of the communities for its evaluations and action. Trust and the order of society went hand in hand.Richard Rorty believed that if epistemological differenting motion of the truth occurred. Then an “inforced'; agreement should be reached. Popper pointed that most of what we know about the world is based on the observations and communications of others. Trust is a great force in science. It is an unending means for the extension and modification of knowledge. Communication of the world around us through reports is very important in our understanding. Reports may vary because individuals are differently situated in time and space. What one man sees may not be what the others see because they have different points of view or perception of the same scene. Trust is the power of the social world. Trusted persons make some set of their future actions predictable when they make promises and they agree to forgot a certain amount of free action. It is this recognition of free action is at the center of the culture that justifies trust and allows trust to b accomplished and social order to be built and sustained.Chapter 2 Gentlemen were the only ones that possessed the quality of truthfulness. This quality was grounded in his placement in social, biological and economic circumstances. According to Sir Thomas Smith England was made up of four estates: king, major and minor nobility, gentlemen and yeomen. All were considered gentlemen except the yeomen. Gentlemen made up one to five percent of the English population. This small percent held all of the wealth and political power and spoke on behalf of the rest.Gentlemen were characterized according to their wealth. Much of their income came in the form of rents and agricultural land tilled by the unfree. The gentleman was under no obligation to work and was free of want. Aristotle characterized gentlemen to have ancient riches and virtue. The gentleman could also be characterized by their idleness.