When is there enough evidence to believe something is true? Why is further evidence not required?
Where do we draw the line on something of which we have no idea? That is, how can we limit the
method of approaching or arriving at the truth without begging the question at issue?
Consider object A, we have evidence that it has properties Xy does this mean we know object A? Yet
given temporal, technological and other advancements it turns out that object A actually has
properties Xyz. What connotations do the concepts 'the real' and 'actually' imply? Continue this
process ad infinitum and the object changes with ever increasing rapidity. What is the object? Do we
know it apart from our multifarious observations of it? ....in other words, where can the thing-in-itself
Evidence is sufficient for the belief that something is true when it is convincing and this does not beg
any questions as long as we understand what we take to be true to be what we are sure of.
Physicists continue to investigate the world and come up with findings which dispute evidence we
have and we adjust our knowledge of the world accordingly. If it was thought that objects changed
with ever increasing rapidity this would be pointless. So it is supposed that there is a way things are in
themselves which is stable and that we can further our knowledge. This is not to say that there is
hope that we gain an absolute, non-perspectival knowledge of the way things are because this is
impossible. It may be that things change constantly and there is no stability in the way things are
beyond our perceptual abilities but what we take to be true has to be what we can know and this must
be within human capacities and perspective. Human beings cannot transcend their conceptual
scheme and the truth and knowledge belong within this.