The Truth about Truth – 2020
G.
Donald Allen
December 31, 2020
Truth does not become more true
by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if
the whole world disagrees with it.[1]
MAIMONIDES
NOTE. This report has been updated, with additional explanation of quasi-truth.
See, this update at this link.
What is Truth has to be one of the big questions of life? Look
it up. Use Google or consult any of the
countless volumes on truth. Truth is one
of the biggest subjects in all of philosophy, religion, the law, and science. It is one of the most important words in any
language one can apply to a given statement.
The word “truth” confers
understanding, authority, and consensus.
Truth is a power word; probably none are stronger. Get a
colleague to agree with your truth, not the logic or righteousness of your
case, and you have a follower. It is the word. This implies its meaning must be addressed.
It is used by all
instructors, clergymen, politicians, and your friends - all the time. “It’s the
truth, I swear,” is an expression known to all, and used by most. All promote their views or truths. Hard
discussions allow us to understand this, and not be so easily swept up into the
truths of others, and not to be conflicted by moronic conversations about truth
vs belief. As well, truth can be fleeting. It is everyone’s unrequited lover.
Rejected the next day. Forgotten the next week.
You can find dozens of variations and philosophies
of truth. It implies an elusiveness of
definition as it varies according to situations. So many shadings exist, it is unlikely a
universal definition will ever obtain. The notion of truth is relative, needing a
context and categories in which it holds. Indeed, most of the categories below imply types
of restricted theories of truth. Such
truths have a restricted validity whether to a social, geographical, political,
religious setting, or others. On the
other hand, most truths are restricted in some way, including through coherence,
correspondence, pragmatism, or others.
The opposite type, unrestricted, implies a universality or absoluteness. Many are the truths of an individual or group
sandbox, but few are the truths for the entire schoolyard.
We may say that if a truth is a proposition
with the perception that “it is so,” there are different types. All of these co-mingle, making any sort of
consistent and coherent, much less universal, definition nearly impossible. Moreover, if you begin with the proposition,
"If there is no absolute truth, there is no truth whatever," you will
come away greatly disappointed.
The subject of truth intertwines with the
theories of knowledge, reality, and beliefs in subtle ways, so much so that it
becomes very difficult to separate them – as the following paragraphs suggest.
An interesting question is whether truths are invented or discovered.
The concept of truth is somewhat based on the bivalence
of knowledge. A statement or proposition
is either true or false – the law of the excluded middle. However,
philosopher-logicians and mathematicians have been busy, giving us multiple
logics, some deprecating the excluded middle, and giving us the powerful notion
of undecidability. The latter tells us
some truths can never be proved using standard logic. In the types of truth
section below, we see that humanity has informally or implicitly anticipated
undecidability with variations of truth applicable only to special
circumstances.
The expression, “This is true for thee but not
for me,” should not be unsurprising nowadays. Skip ahead to Types of Truth section
if your preference is to review the vagaries and faults of the truth concept. Almost
certainly, one of the types will fit within your wheelhouse of importance.
Theories of Truth
The big three in the philosophy of truth are
the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories, with the semantic (language
issues) and deflationary (maybe “truth” is not needed) theories held in abeyance. We have added a few corollaries to these, and
as well a legal theory of truth, being such a flawed human system with vague
rules and so very much open to interpretation.
Yet, it comes without the emotional baggage of other types of truth. The
legal theory of truth is essentially a fully-closed, strongly human system, with
logic mixed with the full panoply of human emotions. In practice, it comes with an ultimate arbiter.
The legal theory is my personal favorite. At least, I understand it.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth. Here the correspondence is to reality. A proposition, such as “It is sunny outside”
becomes true if it is subsequently verified that indeed it is sunny. This is one of the strongest forms of truth,
and essentially irrefutable unless one wishes to delve into the very meaning of
reality. Propositions true within this
theory often have a limited scope as they pertain to the phenomena of
observable reality. Nonetheless, the
matter of inference is also connected with observable reality. No one has actually seen a quark (i.e.
observed one), yet there is inferential proof they are there. We are guided here by the statement by
twelfth-century philosopher and theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, “Veritas est adequatio rei et intellectus[2],” meaning “Truth is the adequation of things
and intellect.” Here, the word “adequation” can be read as “equivalence,” or
“commensurability.”
B. Coherence Theory of Truth. In any
system in which you live or entertain, there may be some items that are
considered within the system as true.
For a proposition to be true by coherence it is necessary that it not
contradict or be contradicted by the other truths. This basically implies internal
consistency. It “fits” within the system,
perhaps logically. However, given a body
of truths, it is relatively routine to construct a proposition that satisfies
these necessity and sufficiency criteria, yet would not be regarded as true. For example, consider the truths accepted by
any body of knowledge. If we say, “The
elves that live on the one hundredth nearest planet from Earth are purple,” this
proposition clearly doesn’t contradict anything, but few may accept it as
true.
a.
Transitive
Theory of Truth. There is a variation of coherence theory which
involves with multiple sets of truths within the domain of various neighboring
spaces. A proposition in one space is
considered true if it is also true within the transition zones of neighboring
spaces. This is essentially the idea of
new physical M-theory, where the neighboring zones are defined by the scales of
magnitude. For example, in physics there
are various truths within the atomic scale not apparent or even relevant at the
macroscopic level, but many are when the atomic scale widens. A
specific example is the double slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) which indicated interference at the photonic
level but is utterly unsupported even at the cellular scale. There is current
evidence that interference has been observed at the molecular level. Transitive theories of truth are most suitable
to hierarchical systems. In this there
is some connection notion of absoluteness in mathematical logic, but for the
fact that for this model theory a truth must be true within all structures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absoluteness) We are requiring agreement only in the zones
of transition.
C. Pragmatic Theory of Truth. This
theory states that a proposition is true if it is (1) believed, and (2)
useful. Pragmatic truths are usually
limited to individuals, but can also be applied to whole societies. The individual may believe, “It is important
to study hard,” and so orders personal activities. Another individual may have no such belief
and may in fact observe something quite different. The society may believe “Obeying the statutes
is important,” and so orders its activities in concordance with this truth. This
makes notions of anarchy so visible – and feared. Also, a society can believe
that “We must land upon the moon.” Or “We
must construct an interstate highway system.”
And some, but not all, societies have done so and acted upon them. Importance,
therefore, is not a factor.
a.
Consensus
Theory of Truth. This
variation of pragmatic theory allows a truth of a proposition to be formed if
all or most all agree it is true. The basis
of village superstitions falls among these.
None can be established by any other means. Religious sects have a similar body of
truths. Rituals are similar. As
well, science has enjoyed many such truths over the millennia. Consider for example, the theories of
phlogiston or the validity of bloodletting.
Both were once solid scientific truths. Astrology has furnished a large set
of truths, although varying between practitioners. As a subject, it is still followed widely and
believed by millions – even by educated persons. The maxim of Maimonides speaks
against consensus, implying truth is not an aspect of a plurality of assent.
b.
Social Theory
of Truth. These
truths are pragmatic, though not always, and are somewhat similar to
consensus-type truths. They usually pertain
to a particular social setting. They might be propositions about customs,
rites, planting, hunting, dressing, courting, housing, and most everything
pertaining to living and social relations.
Social truths, some of which may be quite unpopular, maintain societal stability. Entire civilizations, tribes, fraternities,
or simply clubs have social truths. Currently,
in the USA and Europe, we see efforts toward the deconstruction of many social
truths. These may or may not have
destabilizing effects. The notions of post-modernism seem to allow social
truths, which co-mingle logical with emotional reasoning, to contribute to what
may be the actual truth.
D. Semantic
Theory of Truth. This
theory of truth involves the language used to make the proposition. It involves tautological implications,
contingency, and several other linguistic artifacts. It deals with the issues of some propositions
having no truth or falsity, and those which cannot be decided at all. The semantic theory is also concerned with
the nature of the language and the types of statements allowed within it. The
questions and issues are complex. (See, https://iep.utm.edu/s-truth/#H4.) One of
the original goals of semantic theories was to eliminate paradoxes caused by
self-reference. Example: This sentence
is false. You see, if it is true
then it is false. If it is false, then it is true. Hundreds of similar paradoxes obtain. Alfred
Tarski (1902-1983), who originated the rather complicated semantic theory, required
another, secondary or dual, language toward this end.
E. Legal Theory of Truth. Currently under development for the past four
millennia in many societies, there is a corpus of statutes, constitutions, case
law, and the like that has a truth value for the society. Dating from antiquity,
these include contract, constitutional, probate, criminal, and property laws
(i.e. the truths). Partly owing to their
legal complexities and vagueness, different legal scholars and lawyers may give
(assign) different truth values to particular situations. Typically, the
prosecutor argues the accused have violated some law while the defense argues
this is not so. Then the judge or jury decides. Authority plus plurality at
work. In consequence, most societies
have an entire legal system to adjudicate and interpret any given situation based
on this corpus. Naturally, with an
appeals process, there becomes an element of coherence and correspondence
theories within the system. In most of
these systems, there is a supreme decision-making body, in whose decisions
there is a general consensus to abide.
Such a system is clearly pragmatic, though exotically complex, horribly
convoluted, and with tones of correspondence.
Precursors to legal truths are principles
and commandments. You can live by principles, such as “Love thy
neighbor,” or “Theory A works every time.” Principles lead to laws, virtually
the axioms in every type of endeavor. You can also live by commandments,
such as “Thou shall not kill.” As well, you can live by maxims, aphorisms, and
sayings, all speaking of truth, while resonating within us in some natural
sense on board at birth, as it were. It is always best to understand the
differences between these and actual truth.
The legal theory of truth is a most excellent example of a truth theory. It illustrates
what happens when very serious, intelligent, and well-intended thinkers gather
together to form a workable framework for deciding the true from the false in our
totally human environment, all in a logical, consistent, and coherent manner. It
shows wisdom in allowing an ultimate decision-making body – flawed as it may
be. It even allows the resolution of contradictions and paradoxes. For example,
an alert judge may dismiss outright a paradoxical argument as inadmissible. One
dangerous happenstance occurs when a legal theory becomes influenced or
corrupted by politics.
Combination
Theories. When a given truth is
both coherent and correspondent, it is stronger. And if also it is pragmatic, it becomes
stronger still. Hence, it is of some
value to study such combinations from at least a philosophical viewpoint. This leads to levels of truth, for example
with probable truths (see below). It is
curious whether a single truth can be contradictory as to having memberships in
two different theories or types (below)!
Philosophers have battled with the concept of truth for centuries,
showing all the tricky twists and turns of the topic. Indeed, the fact that
many theories compete even today, leads us to truly pragmatic versions or
definitions of the truth, those of type. For most types, however, coherence is
important. We live, it seems, in a world with different truths for differing
aspects of living.
Truth,
therefore, is something like a quilt, whose patches we seamlessly traverse
with little worry of transcendent inconsistencies.
Type of truths
Many types of truths persist even though they
are unsupported by any particular theory per
se; they exist and form the great guideposts in normal human behavior in
social systems, science, business, engineering, and even in philosophical
discourse. On the other hand, many types
of truth are perversions of the ideal of genuine truth achieved by changing
logic, confusing criteria, delimiting details or facts, or otherwise
convoluting common sense.
The progression of and then toward truth should not be
surprising. Occasionally, a truth emerges in the mind, fully formed and ready
to serve. More often and beginning with a mere mental glimmer or an insight, a
truth develops by adding some evidence, facts, or feelings toward becoming an
idea or concept. Its formation requires
craftsmanship and polish to eventually survive.
It proceeds toward acceptance and then adherence coming to belief, clear articulation, and entanglement with
others, and finally becomes a truth. Through such a maturing process, the truth
generates a pedigree. Most simply do not pop out of the factory. Finally,
many truths have something like a half-life eventually becoming a
pseudo-truth. These are covered below.
In our extensive list of more than two dozen types of truth, some
types overlap. Yet, each has its particular position in the full gallery.
Absolute
truth. The most elusive of
truths, defying even definition, yet always the goal, are absolute truths. An absolute truth is something true
everywhere and anytime. No circle is a square. The absolute truth is discovered, not
invented. It can be derived, but not
created. A possible conjecture is an
absolute truth when adhering to coherence, correspondence, and pragmatism. But
even this will not do. Many clerics (e.g. Martin Luther) argue that truths not
absolute are not truths at all. However, there is little apparatus available
except our inner senses that can make such a decision. Consider the axiom, formerly
an absolute truth, that two lines are parallel if when extended indefinitely
do not meet. Yet, the term “extended indefinitely” is not operational in
the sense it cannot be done. Formerly an
absolute truth, the parallel lines axiom, if denied, allows the rather useful
concept of non-Euclidean geometry.
In the
modal theory of logic, there has been defined as a type of absolutism, the view that
facts are absolute rather than relative. Absolute truths are often, if not
always, about facts. In the past, the statement that “God is good” was
an absolute truth. No longer. Such have fallen from favor in our modern age as almost
everything is subject to charges of relativism or even outright denial.
Empirical truth. Empirical
evidence is information received through the senses, particularly by
observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
Empirical truths are among our most reliable.
Empirical truth is precise with conformity as learned by
observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally
existent things in their actual status and relations — called also a posteriori, actual truth, and contingent truth. For comparison, we have rational truth known prior to
evidentiary confirmation – also called a priori truth. A classic example
is the electromagnetic theory developed by James Clerk Maxwell, who tried so
hard to give it an empirical or at least an analogical flavor. Eventually, he
gave up in favor of pure mathematics. It
took decades to understand, and our entire electronic world lives by his
fundamental set of equations, quantum applications excluded. Another turned out poorly. In medieval times it was a
truth that a vacuum was rationally absurd and
hence one couldn't exist. This truth has been disproved.
Emerging
truth. These are “truths” purported
that at their proposal are neither coherent nor correspond with extant truths,
but have a compelling nature and give an alternative interpretation or
explanation to extant information. An
important geological example is plate tectonics. In the beginning, it was rejected, but now it
is accepted as though “how could it be any other way?” “Vaccines work,” is a
truth few deny today, but it took decades to emerge, following the work of
Pasteur. Similarly, at the beginning of the 20th century, quantum
theory was rejected by many physicists.
Yet the new breed of physicists persisted, showing how classical and
quantum physics intertwined, how quantum physics explained many problems
non-resolvable or incorrectly resolved by classical theories. This theory and its body of truths emerged
and became both coherent and corresponding. By the way, both quantum and
classical theories now have a happy coexistence, both used effectively within
their scales of consideration, quantum for the atomic scale and classical for
the macro scale. Though not discussed
here, the notion of scale is important in many types of truth. For example, sociologists often use the
interaction between actors (people) to generalize interactions between groups,
and this can lead to serious problems.
False truth. All too often, false truths occur owing
to invalid or false assumptions but are regarded as valid and true. For example, interviewing candidates for some
positions, the interviewer makes assumptions that the candidate having
qualities such as height and deep voice will become an excellent leader. This
presumption is called false truth. With
a more political tone, it seems many believe by repeating a narrative over and
over again, it becomes a truth. The
basis of “re-education” camps is nothing less than false truths imposed until believed.
When any false narrative tunnels into your belief system, you may accept false
truths. False truths are similar to quasi-
and pseudo-truths.
Many of us use false assumptions leading to
false truths daily. College recruiters make lasting mistakes owing to (personal
and corporate) false truths. Your boss makes false assumptions about staff
competencies and makes promotions incorrectly.
Presumed validity of assumptions fall partly
under the aegis of political truths when politics are involved, but also under
underlying other assumptions of an interviewer in business situations. Such
truths also apply to religious heresy where a cleric purports some
propositional violation contravening church law. Other examples naturally
conflate with legal truth, which of course is "defined" with a
measure of consensus. False truth is often logical truth derived from false
assumptions. How many leaders have used false truths to take actions that have
led to disaster? Many Chinese books on
leadership highlight these as examples for study for prospective leaders. Read
Michael Pillsbury’s The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to
Replace America as the Global Superpower.
Emotional
truth. Here we are convening
directly upon a proposition combined with a belief, a proposition that partly
makes its case upon striking an emotion with the reader. These are numerous, probably one for every
emotion, traumas included. See the examples
below, which most of us have used.
a)
A convenient/inconvenient truth is … .
b)
The sad/happy truth is … .
c)
The naked truth is … .
d)
The hard truth is … .
Demagoguery is no stranger to this select
list. Accepting an emotional truth is but a step preceding to changing one’s
beliefs.
Human
truth. Such truths are unique to
humans because they are so human, some in aesthetics, some in morality, some in
psychology. Example: “Humans are the
only thinking and self-reflective species.”
As one author has observed, “Many things that we consider to be
inherently true probably reflect distinctive features of human psychology.” For
instance, because human beings are primates that readily establish and
acknowledge dominance hierarchies, the human individual may be predisposed to
feel that there is or could be some entity ‘greater than me.’” See mammalian
truths below.
Mathematical Truth. This is a logical proof, usually based on axioms,
postulates, and other proofs, from Aristotelian logic but often using other
logics (yes plural), particularly about sets.
Zermelo-Fraenkel logic is one example.
The list of axioms has grown. Much of mathematics follows the program: Define
some axioms and objects. Develop theorems relating the objects to be proved
logically from them. Of course, there are many applied or physical problems
that create the scene, which then mathematicians develop. Scientifically, there
had been no discipline so richly developed by this paradigm. But can everything
be proved. Well, no, there are many open
problems – those unsolved by anyone yet. There are even undecidable
propositions, most important for advocates of a complete theory. In brief, a
proposition is undecidable if it can be proved not to be provable within the
given logical system. Even more
confusing are self-referential propositions, statements, and questions, which
are sources for many paradoxes.
Scientific Truth. Based on facts and good empirical practices,
scientific truths are derived without the benefits of emotion, religion, or
politics. Also, there are prescribed
methods for truth discovery, the scientific method, omitted in this edition. Let us just say, scientific truths are
achieved carefully and are always subject to review. Always new scientific
truths are greeted with skepticism, scorn, and doubt. Many are simply wrong. Consider that false Ptolemaic astronomy
persisted for thousands of years before by Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1987) deduced
a correct, verifiable theory from which predictions became routine. But now,
Newton’s elegant theory is under attack from the relativistic upstarts, like
Albert Einstein (1875-1955).
As long as logic, instruments, even facts, and rigor are in flux,
there can be no closed science.
That all science must be reproducible, verifiable, and observable forms the
foundation of scientific truth. However,
there is some science, emerging science, that doesn’t meet these stringent
requirements. For example, the standard model of modern physics has components
that haven’t been fully confirmed. There are competitor theories. That is the
way science proceeds. The demands of
rigor and correctness are always on the table for changes or elimination. Even
now, the nature of the science of gravity is changing with some regularity. Scientific
truth is the lingua franca the softer sciences seek to emulate but all
too often come up short.
Mammalian Truth. To better
understand this idea, consider the concept of mammalian truth, a truth that
applying to all mammals – because they are mammals. One example is, “It is dangerous to stare at the
sun.” Another is “Avoid prolonged
exposure to extreme temperature conditions.” This is but one of countless
specific truths applying to segments of every category.
Personal
truth. These are truths valid
only for the individual. “For me, Fords
are the very best cars on the market today” is an example. Personal truths reflect the physiological,
psychological, experiential, and environmental qualities of the
individual. For many, religious beliefs
furnish a large supply of personal truths. Lutherans, Catholics, Muslims, and
even Atheists are included. Personal truths, particularly of a spiritual
nature, tend to be secret to their holder. See Religious truth below.
Practical
truth. (similar to pragmatic
truth) – a proposition that when regarded as true leads to a successful
outcome. A practical truth may describe
a method for fishing, that while pragmatic, is likely to lead to a successful
outcome. The early settlers at
Jamestown were particularly pragmatic about survival but had no practical
truths for fishing during the winter season.
Prayerful truth. This is a truth obtained by using prayer or
pseudo-prayer to discover what is the nature of the exigency under review. I
pray and my prayer revealed to me this is the truth. It is used by religious folks as well as
politicians desiring you to favor them.
Of course, it is related to emotional truth but casts a spiritual light
upon said revelations. It lends gravitas to a situation when so invoked.
It could also be termed revealed truth or spiritual truth, as its
origin seems to be higher spiritual enlightenment. God is implied in some
applications, generic spirituality in others. The notion of “spiritual” must be
clarified, of course. However, this definition seems to work with most of them.
Political
truth. A proposition, usually in
politics, for which there is no supportable evidence, but one that could be
true. It just isn’t but its supporters
are often successful in convincing others of its truth. Demagoguery is a also close relative of this
type of truth. Another type of political truth involves a governing
body simply to declare some proposition to be true; no further examination is
required, wanted, and in fact, must be discouraged. For example, the Indiana legislature some
many decades ago voted that pi should be 3, not the value 3.14159… it
is. Stalin decreed the Lysenko rejection
of Mendelian genetics in favor of the theories of the inheritability of
acquired characteristics to be true.
Currently, the current climatic changes so very much studied are the
results of anthropogenic causes that have been declared true – the science
closed. Governments traditionally
endorse political truths owing to the power and simplicity the word “truth”
confers upon any proposition.
Relative
truth. A proposition that is
true relative to a given situation or circumstances. It may not be considered true in other
geometries, times, or settings. It can
be a useful truth for a given period or situation, thus making it possibly
pragmatic. One could argue that most
“working” truths of one era are posited (and proved) relative to the given
knowledge base, ethics, morality, and values of the time. The relative truth should fit within any of
the given theories or categories. Compare
with contingent truth (below).
Selected
truth. When a particular
situation arises, a particular reporting agency may honestly report within the
correspondence theory certain facts of the situation but ignore other facts
that mitigate or negate the actual or factual truth. The reporting press is particularly prone to
reporting selected truths, the goal being to establish as true events or
“facts” with another agenda in mind.
Concomitant with selected truths are so-called partial truths and half-truths,
both of which imply relating correctly some but not all of the facts pertaining
to the situation at hand. Demagoguery is
an associate of this type of truth. Children often engage their parents with
selected truths in their desire to warrant some object of desire. Selected truths form perhaps the greatest
perversions and distortions of truth. They border on the downright lie.
Temporal
truth. Many truths of one decade
or generation must be rescinded and discarded for the realities of a new set of
circumstances. This theory can fall
under the aegis of any of the above theories.
Facts may change, inconsistencies may arise, and the pragmatism of one
age may alter. History has shown us
that much of science has enjoyed temporal truths. Astronomy endured centuries
of temporal truths before Isaac Newton set it on a rigorous, sustainable,
mathematical foundation. Even now Newton’s theory has given way to relativity
and the quantum realm. As well, blood-letting, fatal to George Washington, was
the latest truth on curing disease – not that long ago. Hence
temporal truths are relative.
Universal
truth. Certain propositions
cannot be denied by anyone under any circumstance. Examples.
“The sun supplies the light and heat that sustains the earth’s life
forms.” “The circumference of a circle
divided by its diameter is the constant pi.” The second could be suspect if we found
ourselves living in a non-Euclidean geometry – which in fact may be the case in
other parts of the Universe. But for
now, these and other propositions come as close to absolute truth as we
have. Universal truths are generally
coherent and correspondent. In many cases, our repository of universal
truths rests with science and mathematics.
However, while the universal truth of a proposition may be
incontrovertible from a logical perspective, the premises upon which it was
derived are often the objects of criticism. Compare with necessary truths in the section
on contingent truths.
Negotiated
truth. A new type of truth constructed from former truths owing to
changing conditions and varied opinions is now on board. It is used to uncover
and handle trauma, wherein the patients may not be able to relate an incident
as a life narrative. It is bringing to
concordance or at least to understand the interplay between emotions and truth
production. Basically, it is an
application of emotions to give meanings and then to refer to the meaning and
further truth itself. For instance, one
application would be to apply the idea to “things we consider obvious” and
therefore do not require supporting evidence. Negotiated truth is similar to
emotional truth. Used in political
reporting, it permits making claims without the burden of fact-checking but with
reliance on emotional clarity.
Extensional truth. The notion that truth is conferred by a
plurality of people believing or accepting it. Alternatively, a small strong, and
vocal group may suffice. It is used substantially as a weak argument for
attaining something, typically with the predicate, “Everyone has/does/thinks
this …, and therefore… .” Despite the advice of Maimonides, this type of truth
is most important in social life, including politics. Indeed, it is a basis for
making preference polls, not just to determine information but to convince. In another
way, it is the basis of voting. Extensional truths, passionately expressed,
also form the basis of political movements.
Experiential truth. Different than
logical, related to outcomes, we find another variation of the truth verified
by experience. Example: You verify the fire burns flesh by thrusting your hand
into the fire. Before that, it was the truth
by declaration, concept, or theory. Experiential truth is personal and has
great strength, often greater than logical truth. If one believes he or she has
been visited by a ghost, an experiential truth, there is little logic can do to
override this. In sum, consider the conflicting statements, “Science says there
are no ghosts” and “I saw a ghost.” Compare with personal truths of which the
experiential type is a specific form.
Religious Truth. Religion is a
collection of beliefs connected with specific notions regarding the spiritual
aspects of humans or extensible to all intelligent life. It posits tenets about
God, who exists, but differences apply.
The tenets and stories are usually contained in a Holy book, or through
oral transmission. It tends to organize, more in proportion to its competitors
such as agnosticism and atheism. The organization lends itself to scripture and
volumes of rules. Almost all religious truths are sustained by beliefs.
However, many many seek physical manifestations such as revelations or miracles.
These amplify and intensify individual commitment to religious truth. Most
religious truths are extensional by nature, thus depending on a group of
similar believers. Some religions have room for science, the law, teaching, and
in fact seem to engage a whole universe – with specific incontrovertible rules
demanded.
Undecidable truth. Into the range
of impossible problems where no methods apply, some decisions are partly
practical, partly logical, and partly best guess. This also happens when so many facts are
associated with the truth, it becomes impossible to reconcile a particular
statement. Thus, we generate undecidable truths. They are closely related to the
so-called wicked problems. Example. What
is the best way to build a bypass around the city? Please note that many of the
ideas of truth and solutions intertwine. Many paradoxes are similarly
undecidable, and this drives us away from bivalence in our many logics. In
mathematics, there are true statements that cannot be proved true (Gödel’s work).
See Mathematical truth.
Reproducible Truth. Similar to scientific truth, a reproducible
truth is a verifiable truth expressed in a manner that can be concluded or
verified by the method prescribed. It
does not require the method has been validated or verified. When a truth is
posited on some basis, the question arises about whether this truth can be
verified by other observers using the same methods and axioms. If it can in a consistent manner, then the
truth is reproducible. It could be a legal decision. It could have a religious
nature. For example, suppose a person has been affirmed by an ecclesiastical
committee to merit the rank of sainthood, then a second committee using the
same methods must confirm the finding. This does not imply the existence of
saints or criteria for saints be accepted other than the body designating the
rank. On the other hand, suppose some chemist evaluates the specific heat of
some molecule to be some value. Then all other chemists should also make the
same evaluation applying the same methods. This type of reproducible truth
carries more weight when such methods have been validated by all. What about the age of the earth? The age we
accept now is far different from the assortment of methods offered, some even
by distinguished scientists. Here we see
the scientific method under evolution as to how or what methods have the greater
merit. Truths evolve, we know, but so does methodology.
Post-Truth. When circumstances allow a lower reliance on
objective factions in favor of more reliance on emotions or personal beliefs,
we call this post-truth. This notion has
emerged in recent years. It allows those without specific knowledge to venture
their ideas based on other factors such as emotion, religion, and politics.
This is a risky form of truth, mixing fact and fiction with a “truth”
imprimatur attached. It equivocates reality and fantasy. We see this currently
with various business and school shut-downs owing to COVID-19. A common situation
wherein post-truth is invoked is in times of crisis, where the facts, science, and
tradition are insufficient to make clear choices or solve problems.
Textbook truth. This is the kind of truth you learn
in college, mostly in liberal arts courses. The author argues some viewpoint,
using evidentiary facts (that you don’t know), and very smooth, subtle, and
seductive language. The result is that
you come away to believe some positions you scarcely understand to be true. It
has been used for centuries to sway readers to believe in some course of
action. If you don’t understand the premises or even know what they are, and
you accept the conclusions, you become the victim of this form of convincing.
Hard science textbooks are generally immune as facts given are generally
established in the laboratory. This type
of truth also applies to various school curricula. One example is the 1619 Project,
whose basis seems to be with a modernistic political explanation of history.
Legal truth. Such truths are those
which are derived from case law, statutes, and settled law, but modified by
representatives of the law, the judges. Mostly, the arguments are logical and
deductive but mixed with measures of common sense, and the vague concept of
justice. The legal code forms the axioms of legal systems. The Hammurabi[3]
code of laws was a collection of 282 rules to regulate the foundations of
commercial and personal justice. These were declared true by fiat – a regal
truth. See the Legal Theory of truth, above.
Quasi-truth. (taken after quasi-memory*). The quasi-truth
is a truth the listener believes but did not conclude, verify, or validate.
Similar to a belief, the quasi-truth is a proposition that someone accepts if
and only if it is believed or accepted by someone else also with little or no
justification. Sometimes they take on
the cloak of an aphorism such as “When the wind is from the East, the fish bite
the least; when the wind is from the west the fish bite the best.” Or, “Red sky
in the morning, sailor take warning.” Quasi truths are among the weakest
logically but have large followings within the population.
*S. Shoemaker, Persons and their Past,
American Philosophical Quarterly, 1970.
Pseudo-truth. Akin to
pseudoscience, a pseudo-truth is a proposition that people believe without
sustained validation and even in the presence of falsification. Indeed, falsification often serves as further
justification. The old adage, “the exception proves the rule” is well worked
here. Pseudo-truths include many more specific types of truth already
discussed. Of the objections, there are concepts of unwarrantable versus
untestable. The latter is often excused
and the former subsumed as insignificant.
Some pseudo-truths can be derived from a false doctrine such as in
conclusions from scripture, which themselves are often of dubious origin.
Mathematically, if we set several errant axioms, and concluded theorems from
them, we could generate pseudo-truths in quantity. Indeed, non-Euclidean
geometry was derived in this way, and to some extent, it could be considered a
branch of pseudo mathematics – as many others have been. But this one works in
many, many applications including general relativity. Such outcomes often
justify other applications.
Contingent truth. A contingent truth is a true
proposition that could have been false. Example: Stop signs are circular. As we
know stop signs can be circular, but often they are octagonal. Similarly, John married Jane on Saturday is
contingent, because for a variety of reasons the marriage may not have taken
place. Similarly, a contingent falsehood is a false
proposition that could have been true. This is sometimes expressed by saying
that a contingent proposition is one that is true in some
possible worlds and not in others. This should be compared with the concept of necessary
truth (e.g. one plus one equals two), which must be true in all worlds, at
all times. Thus, a necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise.
Political truths as discussed above are similar to those conditional, but more
precisely they can be fictional made to sound or ring true. The difference is
between “could” and “should.” Notions of contingency are important in any
discourse where alternatives are possible. Most planning is done with
contingencies built-in.
Probable Truth. Probable truth is based on the notions of
explanation. And the explanation method
we have in mind here is abduction, as follows.
Abduction idea
Given evidence E and candidate
explanations H1, …, Hn of E,
infer the truth of that Hi which best
explains E. aka - Best guess!
Thus, we cannot
say that the inference Hi is absolutely true, even in the sense of the discussion
area. Many warrant this inference should be called the probable truth
of the best explanation, others that it warrants an inference only as the approximate truth
of the best explanation, and still others that it warrants an inference only as
the probable approximate truth.
You may have experienced creating a probable truth when in the study of some
issue at hand, your mind suddenly leaps to a conclusion or truth. That “Ah-ha” moment. You may know it is not precisely true, but it
is the best you can do and seems to fit the situation. All of us entertain
probable truths more often than we realize. Abduction, a cousin of deduction
and induction, is no stranger to scientists, as it often helps form the
foundation of new ideas and theories. During an epidemic or war, it is apparent
that medical experts and generals leap from explanation to explanation as the
event progresses. At no time has any truth
or correct explanation been discovered. Viewed as such, even the word
“approximate” is a stretch.
Is it ironic
that physical truths, once the iron clad messengers of physical truth, through
the lens of quantum theories, have become probabilistic, and now the notion of
truths themselves have a probabilistic aura?
Concluding remarks. If you’ve
read this far, you are thoroughly saturated with notions of truth. You know
when some swears it’s the truth, you can believe them, but still not know what type
of truth is applied. Yet, you are curious and now possibly doubtful about
whether any truth beyond the tautological is possible. We mostly try to be
truthful while understanding the many variations of truth we use. We find even the lie is needed at times. Nonetheless,
we all want the truth. We crave the truth. We believe in truth. It’s just hard
to find - maybe impossible.
Indeed, when confronted with nearly thirty
varieties of truth, each competing for space and each abundantly used, one is
led to question whether a unified measure of truth is even possible. Perhaps “truth”
should be abandoned, as has been suggested.
But no. Just the sheer number of
varieties suggests the great importance of the concept even though the field of
candidates is vast.
The first part of
this essay is about how scholars think about truth, while the second part shows
how we use the concept. It is suggested applied philosophers turn their
attention upon the exigencies of how the term is used. Pure theory is not
enough.
This has been a
difficult conversation about truth. Yet having such conversations about an
important topic are worthwhile. For me, it was the recognition of the
ephemeral and tricky nature of truth. It helps me understand how different
people can propose opposite views, each believing they have spoken the truth. From
our beginnings, truth has been posited to us as the last word on a subject, the
finality we must accept. Finality is the keyword. As best, it is the end of the
journey. At worst, it is used to silence further discussion.
A singular
missing form of truth is the notion of future truth, or just plain
predictions. Sometimes based on solid,
time-tested science, and other times
merely educated guesses, and now centuries after Newton’s grand success, many
predictions are based on “models,” statistical or mathematical. They lend gravitas, but just having a
formula does not imply anything about its correctness. Future truth is the
playground of futurists (this will happen), clerics (heaven or hell), prophets
(note Cassandra and Nostradamus), and politicians (we will protect you if …).
It is used by the body politic toward hopes that conditions will improve. As
well, meteorologists serve but one purpose, the prediction (future) of weather.
Many predictions fail notoriously, such as the time and location of the next
earthquake. The acceptance of future truths combines desires, beliefs, hopes,
and authority. Concomitant with future truth is the future of truth, as
affected by our universe conjoining with the new digital universe.
Much of what has
been said is covered by Danish philosopher and theologian Søren (1814-1855) with,
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't
true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
―
To
Teachers. I believe that every student everywhere
should be asked to write an essay or theme on the truth. Just a little
research will open their eyes, but the topic’s details will reveal how
deceptive the concept can be. Yet, achieving a measure of truth in their lives should
always be their watchword, guidepost, and goal.
References
a)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
b)
http://evolvingmind.info/blog/four-types-of-truth/, by Andrew Bernardin
c)
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/introducingphilosophy/10-truth-r26
by Paul Newall.
d)
http://www.toktalk.net/2008/11/09/three-different-types-of-truth/ by Oliver Kim
e)
Newton C. A. da Costa and Steven French, Science
and Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning, 2003,
Print ISBN-13: 9780195156515, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February
2006, DOI: 10.1093/019515651X.001.0001
----------------------------
Final Note. We are already at work on next year’s edition
of The Truth about Truth - 2021.
You may have noticed we have never discussed just what truth is. Namely, is it a process, object, concept,
property, attribute, state, or sense? Is it measurable? A remarkably thorny
question, answers have been proposed by many philosophers. On the next update, we’ll take a closer look,
always on the objective side.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.