Prior knowledge can be described as the understanding that derives from prior experiences or knowledge resulting from awareness which is necessary for ones interpretation and comprehension of current events. Even the law of identity which states that an object is equal to itself, for example A = A – had to depend on prior knowledge to be observed and studied before this law was totally accepted.

Even one of the best philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell “said that philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule is known to be true". Now, this example should indicate to us, even this theory that I have developed is relative to prior knowledge. This is a view that many philosophers have shared. Since I’m not a full blooded philosopher, I’m somewhat struggling to explain my theory, but the understanding that all truths are relative to prior knowledge, is derived from the prior understanding that there are no absolute truths.

It wasn't until later in the essay that I discovered even if there were absolute truths; those truths would still be relative to prior knowledge. Since prior knowledge is necessary for one's interpretation of the truth, absolute or not does not change the fact that people's understanding and awareness is a result of prior knowledge.

Since there are no absolute truths, all truths are relative to prior knowledge. First, before goring any further, I think it's necessary to distinguish my observation with Plato's theory of knowledge which implied that truths are relative to ones experiences. In Plato's theory of knowledge, he stated that in order to know whether or not a figure on the blackboard is a circle, one must first have the figure of a circle in his mind. This of - course is completely different from my observation.

Plato's theory is based on individual experiences whereas my observation is based on prior knowledge. There is a difference between the two because to know whether or not a circle is a circle, we must rely on prior knowledge which adds to our understanding of the circle. Plato focused his attention of individual experiences; the problem with that relates to the fact that we cannot admit that everyone has had the same experiences.

For anything to be considered true, they must be evidence of the facts. In this case regardless of anyone previous experiences, the facts must be in consistency with the happenings in order to have what is considered truth? But in Plato's assertion, since the truth depends on individual perception, what one perceived to true maybe different from the other person.

Absolute truth however is different in the sense that it entails a sort of truth that must be accepted without any reasonable doubt. The fact that most philosophers consent to the claim that there are no absolute truths, revealed the understanding that in every truth, regardless of the facts presented before us, some degree of reasonable doubt exist. And it is because of that doubt we say that there are no absolute truths.

My concern is not with ones understanding of a circle via prior experiences, but with the prior knowledge that exposed the understanding of a circle which leads one to experience the meaning of a circle. In order to accept the idea of a circle, one must first understand the knowledge that leads to the acceptance of the idea of a circle. It is until then we can accept the idea of a circle as being a circle.

Now let us assumed that there are absolute truths, would it mean that all truths are relative to prior knowledge?

Asked by my subconscious mind – Emanous

James: Yes, if that was the case, all truths would have been relative to prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is any types of information that comes before the comprehension of the current observation being studied, and this information most often enhances the understanding of the truth.

James: Now, since absolute truths is considered to be a kind of truths that must be accepted without any reasonable doubt, the indisputable truth, which we look to refer as the absolute truth, would have had to be proved with the most certainty. That is to say, the absolute truth would have had to be proved without any reasonable doubt.

Emanous: Well, what would you say then if I retrieved the law of identity that you’ve described above, and say to you, base on the law of identity; this orange is equal to itself. Would that be an absolute truth or you simply were not aware of your own reasoning.

James: Ok, well you may have a point there, let me see. In order for any object to be equal to itself, they must be no reasonable doubt for even a slight possibility that can disprove or doubt the object to be a true representation of itself.

James: My argument for this challenge lies in the slight possibility that the object may not be equal to itself, because they is too much that we do not yet know about the world, and its dimensions to accept the law of identity as the absolute truths. If scientist discovered that there are eleven dimensions, who to say that the world we know as the planet earth is not just part of the many dimensions that comprised the universe.

James: Let suppose that was the truth, although some can argue that it is, and then the orange you mentioned earlier would simply be to our perception part of an orange on this planet earth, meanwhile the orange can only be equal to itself when taking in account all the dimensions we know nothing about. Perhaps the orange tree is part of the truth, but what was there before the orange tree or what will be in its place in the future are the components that makes the orange equal to itself. Thus without knowing these information, we cannot say that the orange is equal to itself. Is this not a reasonable doubt?

Emanous: If you can believe that, I rest my case because you’re certainly going mad. As a friend, I asked that you do me a favor.

James: What is it?

Emanous: Take some times off, free your mind, go to the beach or try getting laid somehow, because you obviously not in reality. I should remind you that this is planet earth we’re on, not Jupiter, not Mars, the earth. I suggest you go search yourself in your eleven dimensions and while you’re there, tell Dr. King I said hallow.

James: The example that I will give below will illustrate the understanding of the prior knowledge concept. It is a comparative between the visual characteristic of things, and the prior knowledge which helps the understanding of that thing. This example is as follow: your eye does not tell you the truth about this paper being on the table. Your eye is guided by your mind the tunnel which helps you understand the truth about the paper being on the table. To know the truth you must understand that the table is composed of the smallest invisible particle of matter when bounded together create a density that can hold the paper.

The event we’ve come to accept as “fact” can only be factual to us because of our interpretation of the truth. For example, a mango that has fallen from a mango tree is only “true” to those who have witnessed it. The fellow passing by who happens to pick the mango that is beneath the tree has witnessed only a possibility.

The reason why the mango fallen from the tree is a true occurrence to the guy who picked it up, is because he grew up witnessing the effect of the law of gravitational force. Although, he has no knowledge as to how it applies, but he knows “whatever goes up must come down.” And since the mango is lighter than air, the most probable outcome would be for the mango to go against gravity and fall. As you can see, some of the evidence that detail the reason for the mango fallen are relying on prior knowledge for the occurrence to be accepted as a truth. But by no way can we say that there are no existing doubts in this event.

Emanous: What is truth?

James: Truth is a conceptual idea that is relative to prior knowledge. Since prior knowledge can be questioned, any truth that is associated with it becomes questionable as well. Absolute truth on the other hand, suggest that it must be factually true without any doubts. In order for one to have absolute truths, one has to remove doubt from absolute truth. I can never be absolutely sure that there are no absolute truths, for the simple fact that if I was, my answer would have been absolutely true. Then again, since I’m not sure why do I say that there are no absolute truths?

Emanous: Can uncertainty be accepted as being factual?

James: Absolutely not – if that was so, it would have been a contradiction?

Emanous: Then why do we say that there are no absolute truths when we’re not sure ourselves whether or not this statement is true?

Emanous: If a position can be doubted, is there enough reason to question its attributes even though we’re not sure of its possibilities? If during a basketball game one group of individuals witnessed a player scores a point, is this occurrence an absolute truth for everyone in the gymnasium?

Emanous: What about those who are not sure of the point, what if they argued that the player committed a foul before scoring but did not noticed by the referee, would this occurrence still be an absolute truth, that the player did score a point?

James: It maybe counted as a point because the referee did not noticed the foul but that doesn’t make it an absolute truth. On the other hand, those who did not noticed the foul will argued that the occurrence is absolutely true. We know that It's reasonable to say what is true is true regardless of individuals perception. But what we cannot say with the most certainty, is that individual’s perception does not contribute to this confusion we now faced for deciding on what is to be considered absolutely true.

Although what is true is true regardless of someone else perception, what is true to one person maybe questionable by another? Thus it is prior knowledge plus our perception which conveys to us what is true. We can say that without oxygen, we will all died and consider that as an absolute truth, when in fact the counter argument proposed - if we were all dead, they would be no one left behind to witness whether or not anyone survive. And since the presumable assumption is that we wouldn’t have any witness if we were all dead, how can we say with the most certainty that without oxygen we would all be dead.

We can also admit to the fact that gravitational force do exist, but we will always ponder on its gravitational field g = 9.8 m/s² = 32.2 ft/s^{2. -} No one can say that this measurement is an absolute truth and that it is doubt free.

Emanous: - hey! Nut head, can I have your attention for a minute. However, there is one law that questions the claim that there are no absolute truths. And that is Newton's laws of motion which among the tree is the one that state “For every action, there is an equal and apposite re-action ".

Emanous - Having given it enough thoughts, I came to the understanding that this law is a challenge to the claim that there are no absolute truths, because even if the re-action was not necessarily opposite, the fact that every action would have created an effect is enough evidence for us to accept it as an absolute truth. If you can think of any action that did not create an effect you can get back to me, otherwise case close and you lose. You must also remember that not every effect is noticeable with the five senses. Therefore you must have carefully researched your reasons before getting back to me.

James: Well, Ok - I can't think of anything right at the moment, but if in time I came across a reasonable doubt, I will surely let you know about it - smart A$$.

James: You may have won this one, I looked into Newton’s law of motion and so far I have not yet able to disclaim your position. However, you are aware that by suggesting that not every effect is noticeable by the five senses can be doubted. It implies that if the five senses cannot detect every effect that we produce, than machines can be considered as an alternative to detect those effects that are not detectable by our five senses. And if an effect cannot be detected by machines, your proposition suggests that the effect is there, we just haven’t manufactured a machine that can detect it.

James: One more thing I should clarify to you, the idea of “cause and effect theory” did not derive from Newton. It was first introduced by Black Egyptians Hermes. Hermes to the Egyptians represents the mind, they never gave credit to self, and they saw the mind as being separate from self. The Harmonic teachings thought us that hot and cold are the same energy, except that they're separated by different degrees, it maybe possible that at the end of extreme hot, we’ll experience coldness, and at the end of extreme cold, could exist the hottest temperature.

To clarify that for you, let us assume for example someone who is fearful to the most extreme. At the very end of that fear, you’ll find courage. This is why an experience robber, whose intent is not to kill, will always give his victims some sort of assurance that their lives are not at stake, because if the victim realized that his life his at stake, the fearful victim would then become the most courageous, and the robber would then be motivated to use deadly force to achieves his goal. Therefore, Newton third law of motion is a law that is derived from prior knowledge.

Emanous – Bravo, I can see that you have done your research, and you have explained well, but you shouldn’t forget to mention that there were also Greek Hermes who studied with the Black Egyptians. And by the way nut head, your prior knowledge theory seems to be working so far, but you have lost the battle for attempting to prove that there is no absolute truth. And as a friend, I will also try my best to see if I can disprove your prior knowledge theory.

Emanous - hey nut head, I got good news for you. I new it all alone, I new it was too good to be true. Your proposition 'all truths are relative to prior knowledge' is not a new idea. There is a French philosopher who goes by the name of Pierre Simon de Laplace, he proposed that all events are connected with previous ones by the ‘tie’ of universal causation. Through careful observation, Laplace derived to the determination that any belief that things come about independently, or by chance, is simply due to our ignorance of the causes. He insisted that human actions too are all part of the deterministic system of the universe.

Emanous - the reason why I brought that up is because one of his point somewhat simulate your proposition that all truth are relative to prior knowledge. Laplace claims that all events are connected with previous ones by the tie of universal causation. Looking at these two statements side by side, one can say that “all events” is the same as “all truths”, because any event that is current or that as come to past, is the truths. When we think of the truth, we often think of current event or things that came to past. Any event that is set to happen in the future, is not yet an event, it’s a possibility. With that said, we can now replace ‘all events’ with ‘all truths’.

Emanous: Now, what can we say about universal causation?

James: Well, according to the online free dictionary, the meaning of universal causation can be described as the theoretical or asserted law that every event or phenomenon results from, or is the sequel of, some previous event or phenomenon. Now the question is can universal causation be replace for prior knowledge, absolutely yes. All events that produce cause and effect had to be studied and observed to accept the effect. And since all events require our background understanding and awareness to comprehend the cause, it would appear to me that prior knowledge and universal causation shares some similarities.

Emanous: Having accepted this explanation, I am now honored to say to you that your proposition “all truths are relative to prior knowledge” is equivalent to Laplace theory that “all events are connected with previous ones by the ‘tie’ of universal causation. Perhaps your thinking is connected with that of Laplace through universal causation because how is it that you had never heard of Laplace and you come to the same conclusion as him. That is something to be considered - Bravo!

They is nothing that says what is true “now” will remain “true” indefinitely, although all truths are relative to prior knowledge, no one can truthfully say that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted, So because of that, we can say what is “true” today can only be validated by our current interpretation of prior knowledge. Had it been possible that all of our prior knowledge were rightfully interpreted, than we would not have had to worry about errors that are not solvable?

Descartes famous quote is “I think therefore I am” Moore on the other hand suggested that what is wrong with philosophical skepticism is that it is inevitably trapped in a self - refuting paradox. He argued that the fact that some philosophers have called into question the existence of the earth proved that the existence of the earth cannot be denied.

If it can be proven that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted than Descartes would have been right about his observation as it relate to the existence of the earth. But the fact that it's not possible to proved that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted leaves plenty room for errors. This planet we call earth has many dimensions and so far human intelligence have only been able to access three.

Scientist argued that they could be as much as eleven dimensions, among which maybe six we know nothing about. And we have the nerve to say the fact that we question the existence of the earth proves that it cannot be denied. Well, this was said long before our times, and I'm sure if Descartes had lived to witness the technologies we've developed for experimental purposes, he would not have said what he said, because even if he did, it would not have been an absolute truth.

As Tom stated, a writer on both hub pages and helium indicated that "There are probably eleven dimensions, but people tend to think of the world in only three." In addition, it is a fact that many scientist have agreed that there are more than tree dimensions. And it is because of that fact that Tom examples are as follow; “the fourth dimension that is within the grasp of common people is the dimension of time. For us to see something, it must have height, width, and depth, and it must exist presently. The trees that once stood where your house now stands have three of the dimensions, but lack the dimension of time.

Likewise, the trees that will one day stand where your house now stands also lack the dimension of time. A fifth dimension is one of light; it must be visible during the negative cycle of light particles. If something has height, width, and depth, but those measurements are less than zero, we will not be able to see it. Eyes filter reality, as do all our senses."

I think we should have every reason to question the existence of the earth. For the simple reason that there is too much that we do not yet know. And the reason for not knowing these things is related to our misinterpretation of prior knowledge. Some of our mathematical theories may not be that accurate, our periodic table maybe missing some important elements. E= mc2 may have fault in it because of the misinterpretation of prior knowledge. After all, if we were all that smart, why is it then we haven't been able to figure out how the pyramid was built.

The above illustration is based on the same conceptual idea as Thomas Kuhn, from his essay, the structure of scientific revolution. Although I did think of this concept before becoming acquainted with Thomas Kuhn, does not make it an original piece. One must always give credit to the original thinker when ever one becomes aware that his work shares some resemblance with the original idealist.

Kuhn argued that all scientific theories are formulated through compilation of scientific data, rules and standard and preexisting laws. Kuhn proposed that these scientific data, rules and standard or preexisting laws are all part of the paradigm. Paradigm can be best describe as the foundation of building blocks that holds a building stand. In which case the building blocks are the paradigm that uphold the building like it uphold the value of the theory. If any of these building blocks shows cracks along the wall, these cracks then can be represented as anomalies.

Kuhn argued that when scientific data, rules and standard or preexisting laws have been found to have errors, the paradigm is considered to have anomalies. And anomaly is what I described in this essay as the misinterpretation of prior knowledge. Had I read Kuhn before, I probably would have referred to this concept of errors as anomalies, but fortunately I did not, because if I did, his philosophy would have influenced my thoughts.

However, one thing that Kuhn said that I'm not sure if I completely agree with is that "a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place." In my chain of thoughts, I can foresee how it maybe possible that a scientific theory could be proven invalid because the paradigm it depended on has been proven inaccurate, but yet no one is able to come up with a different theory to replace the one with the anomalies.

The reason for not having a replacement could be that the anomalies that are found in the paradigm are not yet fully understood, but we know that they don't correspond well with the theory. Or new scientific discovery contributes to the background of which the paradigm stands. But trough experiment, we have found out that this new discovery conflict with the data that are found in the paradigm to the point where the data from the discovery gives more of an accurate solution to the theory. Since a theory depends on accurate data to uphold its value, to have anomalies in them would cause the theory to be doubtful. In which case, because of more accurate discoveries, the anomalies that were found in the paradigm, has now caused the meaning of the theory to be questioned by other researchers. But by no way should we say that the paradigm hold firm because of new discovery.

To have accepted this concept from Kuhn would be like accepting a partial truth. If the paradigm that the theory depended on has been found to have anomalies, then this theory therefore has been devalued. In which case, whether or not we have a replacement, the scientific theory is still invalid to some degree. It is invalid because our reasons do not permits us to accept any theory that contains partial truths as being valid.

Even if we were to argue that there is no absolute truth, it would still be hard to swallow this idea from Kuhn. Although we may not have an alternative, the truth of the matter is that the theory is doubtful because of the anomalies, not because we haven't found new data that are accurate enough to sustain or replace the paradigm that the theory depends on.

This could be more accurate given a different example. Let say I spoke to Jim over the phone and during our conversation, I announced to him that he can come retrieved these tree avocados he paid for yesterday. Meanwhile, there are only two avocados in the basket for Jim. Therefore, my statement is not accurate; there is an anomaly in that statement, just like in scientific theories scientist makes claims that are not there or claims that holds no value.

Likewise, since Jim doesn’t know about the missing avocado, he regards my previous statement as the truth. Now if I call my friend Brett and ask him to bring one avocado over before Jim gets to my place, can we agree that my prior statement to Jim that there are tree avocados in the basket accurate? Since the truth is pending on one more avocado for it to be accurate, can we accept my previous statement to Jim as the truth.

The above analogy is similar to Kuhn proposition that state: a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. From this understanding, if Brett never shows up with the third avocado, my previous statement to Jim is still valid. Because according to Kuhn, if Brett hasn't showed up with the missing avocado, my previous statement would still be valid. As you can see, it’s not logical to accept a partial truth as being the sole truth even if the solution for the anomaly is not yet comprehends. What makes the theory doubtful is the fact that we become aware that there is an existing anomaly in the theory, although we haven't found a replacement, the theory is not completely valid.

Now, I will give you a handful of examples to back up the above statement. However, before I do that, I’d like you to understand one thing. As stated in various scientific sites, they are a big difference between what is a “theory” vs. what is a “law”. But according to my interpretation of the two, I have come to realized that a theory is a set of logical interpretation that has not yet proven meaningful enough to become “law”, whereas, a “law” is based on a set of logical reasoning that has been scientifically or logically proven to be factual. But by no way does it mean that a law may not have fault in it.

Karl Popper which to most represents a landmark figure in the philosophy of science recognized that scientific theories provide some sort of uncertainties that can be refuted. And it is because of this uncertainty that scientific knowledge rest on the doctrine of falsifiability. Popper proposed that “only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observation and experiment are properly open to scientific evaluation”. Therefore, any theory that is not refutable is not scientific.

Now according to Popper, the claim that all truths are relative to prior knowledge would be considered an inductive reasoning. Now according to Wikipedia, the premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. I can certainly argue that the statement all truths are relative to prior knowledge is not base on inductive reasoning.

There are many examples that have proven to have derived from prior knowledge. For example I couldn’t write the word knowledge if I didn’t know the alphabet. I wouldn’t know how an orange came about, if I didn’t know a tree produces it. There are a lots of examples of prior knowledge that are adaptive, information that are past on to us from birth, through genetic molecular structure. That information too is part of our prior knowledge.

However though, what the statement all truths are relative to prior knowledge is aiming for is a complete rejection from being considered scientific. As Popper mentioned, Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory but a vice. Which mean if the claim that all truth are relative to prior knowledge does not permit refutation, than this claim is not scientific.

However, some have noted that "just because falsifiability was the essential and necessary criteria for what Popper considered science does not mean that Popper thought non-falsifiable things were useless, just that they were not scientific". According to Popper, for my claim to have been confirmed, it should allow some type of risky prediction. But does it not allow it, after reading up to this point, can anyone say with the most certainty that they haven't thought of one example which to them can disprove that all truths are relative to prior knowledge. Well, if you have then by Popper’s definition, my claim should be granted a ticket to be studied by people of high knowledge for confirmation.

According to my claim, since no one can truthfully say that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted, even those theories that became laws can have fault that are not yet detectable. So it is because of that reasoning that we can say what is factual today can only be validated by our current interpretation of prior knowledge.

The only way I can be wrong, is if there is no case in history where a law have been demoted to a theory because of its inaccuracy. As long as the possibility for error in our current laws exists, no one can say what is true today will remain true with the most certainty.

Well, maybe I should rephrase that; because someone can argue if a law as been proven to have mistakes, than it wasn’t true to begin with. In that case we have misinterpreted the facts and accepted false knowledge as truth. The confusion here is that any information that is accepted as law possesses every merit to be accepted as truth. The problem in this case is what happens to the mind when the paradigm which supports the law had been proven to have anomalies.

If we predict an even to have occurred in 2012 in it doesn't happen until 2666 - it’s not always because of our misinterpretation of the laws in astrology, it could also be because of our misinterpretation of the information that produces the laws that are found in astrology. Pierre Simon de Laplace also realized like I've noticed that "the human mind, in the perfection which it has been able to give to astronomy, presents a feeble shadow of this intelligence".

Laplace goes on to say, since the mind has discovered mathematics, mechanics, geometry plus universal gravity, all of which have brought the understanding of the universe within the same analytical formula. He also pointed out by applying the same analytical principle to various other objects deriving from the same root of knowledge, the mind has manage to reduce the observed phenomena to general laws. And from these general laws which are derived from prior knowledge, the mind has manage to predict results from almost any given set of circumstances.

My point exactly is that there are numerous amounts of theories that have been misinterpreted. And it is because of this notion that I can say there is nothing that says what is “factual” today will remain “true” indefinitely. And beside, the amount of new scientific laws that is yet to be discovered may disprove prior laws while providing us with new ways of traveling through time. New laws may help us to discover how to travel between dimensions. We may discover new scientific formula that partially or completely disproves our current ones. It could also be possible that some of our current scientific laws may have kept our mind in captivity; we relied on them too much, as if they were the only way, while some derivatives of their prior knowledge have been misinterpreted.

For example, according to the history of science, as stated on darwinconspiracy.com “Darwinist has tried very hard to produce an Evolution Formula. But no scientist ever succeeded. It was not the fault of the scientists. It was the fault of the theory. The theory is false. You cannot create a working formula for an invalid theory.” Darwin introduced his Theory of Evolution in 1859; it was accepted worldwide by scientists during the 1930s. Until now no formula has been proven to explain evolution - there are different theories but none are laws.

Darwin theory of evolution states that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Which mean the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers – all are related. You may now wonder how anyone could have believed that, well they did and until this day some still do. I often wondered if they ever thought how uncreative we would have been had we been offspring of one speeches.

And to invite wind to the fire, I also wondered did Darwin theory came before the loving God or did God’s proposed method came before Darwin’s. They seem to be a bottle between God’s word and Darwin’s - I don’t know about anyone else, but I'm with God words.

Let us not forget our beloved father of discovery, Christopher Columbus. Not only did this distinguish gentlemen discovered America, but he also was the first to figure that the world was flat. Until his theory was disproved by studies that proved that the Earth is actually in spherical structure. What I don’t understand is that if the ancient Greeks who were thought by the black Egyptians as far back as Pythagoras knew the earth was a sphere, why than did the Europeans accept Columbus explanation that the earth was flat? - Something to think about.

What about our sacred periodic table, how accurate is it hun? For example, “the periodic table and the theory behind it were not shown to be "wrong" with the discovery of six new elements since 1994.” I know you might be thinking this is a conspiracy. I will assure you that it is not – anything that can be proven is not a conspiracy. The element 112, discovered at the GSI Helmholtzzentrum in Darmstadt, has been recognized as a new element by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

My point exactly is, as long as we continue having new discovery that influence our thinking, they will always be new opportunities for someone to disprove prior knowledge, even those that are scientifically proven. And since we accept this notion, we can now say that there is nothing that is “true” today that can not be proven “false” tomorrow. This analogy goes hand and hand with my prior one that states “Since society is not stagnant we can’t expect our values to be”. In order to evolve, we must redefine our thinking, otherwise we stay stagnant.