If something is true, it's not a belief, it's a certainty. If something is a belief, one cannot know that it is true, one just thinks so.
...(culture does not include the private languages of psychotics).
Your question is also a good way of getting them to consider the provisionality of their theory.
The numerical value cited for the velocity of light has been established by dead and living white male Europeans and Americans. Not one of the nine digits in that number would be changed if the velocity of light were approached from the perspective of American Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic, or Pacific Island geocultural groups; or from a feminist theory of knowledge.
Let us consider other facts: 2.01588 grams of hydrogen combine with 15.9994 grams of oxygen to produce 18.01528 grams of water. Another example: a molecule of hemoglobin has a mass 64,000 times that of an atom of hydrogen. These numbers were also primarily established by dead white males of European and American ancestry. In what way would cultural affiliation change these facts?
One observation from the life sciences may also be appropriate. The ingestion of one ten-thousandth of an ounce of saxitoxin, a substance that occurs naturally in certain Pacific mussels and clams, by a wealthy, capitalist, white Euro-American male results in death. Is it likely that the effect would be different in an impoverished, socialist, black Hutu female?
--Irving M. Klotz, The Scientist Magazine, July 22, 1996
im interested in knowing whether we can or can not have knowledge or belief independent of culture. in specific, i wonder if areas of knowledge have something to do with this or ways of knowing
Very good Wandeljw. We need to remember the "objective" dimension of Nature when it comes to such gross facts as measurements. But we must remember also that even though such measurements remain constraining phenomena the forms (cf. Fido) they take ARE our inventions and serve to relate us to each other when it comes to the physical world. We must also remember that the vast majority of our conceptualizations about life rest on culture, on our social constructions of reality. Remember that mathematical theorists also use their notational schema to communicate with one another. That's profoundly social.
I tend to emphasize (perhaps overemphasize) the relative and socially constructed nature of our perceived reality and play down the "objective" aspect of reality. But I think that objectivists often do not take sufficient account of the cultural dimension of human reality.
Remember that mathematical theorists also use their notational schema to communicate with one another. That's profoundly social