But down to business!
There's been a great debate taking place in the comments box. I thought it was a pretty straight-forward question. I wanted to define some basic terms so that as discussion proceeded and someone said "that's not true" we would all know what the statement meant.
It has been suggested that perhaps "What is truth?" should have been the last qestion on the blog, rather than the first. Becuase if we can answer that, we've figured everything else out. There may be some truth in that. (!) Perhaps it will be the first and last question, the alpha and the omega, and at some point we shall all come full circle. But not today.
Here is a synopsis of some of the responses:
- Lardy big bot listed some characteristics of truth, but did not put forth a definition
- Violet for the Moment suggests it is that which can be proven objectively with evidence
- Mangonel brings up the critical question of empiricism
- LBB than reminds us that there are different kinds of truth (physical, spiritual, etc.)
- Simon says that truth is what is real, but points out the difficulty in defining reality (at which piont my brain implodes like Neo in the Matrix)
- B, mathematical genius that he is, states that verbal languages are inherently ambiguous and it is therefore not possible to define truth in a language such as English, but that the language of mathematics is much more able to manage such topics.
- Simon counters that in any system your definition of truth depends on the rules that define your system (i think)
- First Nations is in the reality camp
- Homo Escapeons put forth "truth is something which can be tested under any conditions and always presents the same conclusions."
- Keith couldn't find my email address under the "Fine Print" heading at the bottom of the page, and feels that the question is irrelevant and worrying about it is making us unhappy and/or neurotic.
- Tim Footman feels that truth is little more than shared community values
- and Simon finally concludes that truth is faith.
A lot of things really struck me in this discussion, but the idea that surprised me most was how many people think truth is a relative concept, dependent upon the mind constructing it. I expected to see more words like "fact" and "proof," but these were conspicuous by their paucity. I was reminded of the line from 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' where Pontius Pilate sings "But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths -- are mine the same as yours?"
Surely there must be some things which are objective, provable, factual truth? Our entire society is based upon it.
2+3=5 That is a fact. It is provable. It is regarded as truth.
Leaves are green because the chlorophyll in them reflects green light and absorbs all other wavelengths. This is a fact. It is proven. No one disputes it. It is regarded as truth.
Our criminal justice system provides me with a good analogy. It's whole set-up is designed to establish truth, and people's lives are deeply and irrevocably affected by the outcomes of the judicial system's tests of truth. As a society, we almost universally accept the decisions of the criminal justice system; true anarchists are very few few in number.
In America the criminal justice system is based around 2 fundamental precepts:
1. You are innocent until proven guilty, that is, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense
2. Proof of guilt is defined as that which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I like this system. I like it a lot. The actual application of the criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but the above named precepts are very sound to my mind. It all revolves around that word, "reasonable."
It leaves room for rediculous, outlandish alternative theories of a crime ("But it could have been shape-shifting aliens taking the form of my client; you can't prove it wasn't!") and at once dismisses them. It calls on people to use reason and judgement, to ask not what is possible (because shape-shifting aliens are theoretically possible), but what is likely. And we accept the rigorousness of this test. We accept it every day when we are willing to lock people up for their entire lives based on it.
So that is the definition of truth I propose for this blog:
Truth is that which is factually demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is always doubt. For any given question one can always concoct some alternative scenario or explanation, but we must ask ourselves, is that alternative reasonable? If you take truth to be whatever you believe in your own mind, than there can be no agreement, no consensus, no action can be taken. If I say to you, "but I think it's this way, and since that's what I believe it's as true as what you believe," civilization comes to a grinding halt. That way madness lies.
12 comments:
Yes, CB, the rules we contruct are for the practical purpose of conducting a civilisation within the limited capacities of our brains.
A wasp cannot perceive glass so it constructs rules which work on a practical level.
But these rules not only protect us from chaos and madness, they also create their own form of madness (see Kafka).
Imagine the wasp who is in court accused of being late for work, who has to explain to his jury of 12 fellow wasps that he got "stuck behind some solid air". The jury wasps could only conclude "beyond reasonable doubt" the accused wasp must have wilfully conspired in his own lateness as there is no such thing as solid air (as they personally have never experienced it and the wasp brain is incapable of comprehending glass).
In my opinion, our system of crime and punishment (where the individual is held accountable for his own actions) is absurd. But is is nevertheless a practical, if crude, solution to varying degrees of extreme anti-social behaviour.
you said:
" If I say to you, "but I think it's this way, and since that's what I believe it's as true as what you believe," civilization comes to a grinding halt. That way madness lies."
but that's exactly the way it is. things are always falling towards the pit, and human defined 'truths' are always changing in order to keep that from happening. if there is one 'truth' it's FLUX.
I agree with first Nations , you only have to look at the 'Truths' floating around causing all the problems in the middle east.
My theory points towards laziness ...people will believe on the whole what is the easiest and least challenging 'truth' , and doesnt require an individual to stand alone
I am late to the cocktail party -- but can I add one more element to how something is regarded as truth?
I think it has something to do with time and how we perceive it as an agent of proof. If something remains beyond the moment in that it continues to be something one can prove then it is true.
Interestingly enough this does not hold in our justice system because although eye-witness accounts are often judged as truth, accounts of an event that happened quickly or was traumatic in some fashion are often inaccurate. The witness believes them as true -- and yet they are flawed to the point of being false or at least incomplete.
Time helps us formulate the truth.
That's true . . .
Simon: "In my opinion, our system of crime and punishment (where the individual is held accountable for his own actions) is absurd."
?????? Are you kidding? You don't believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions? This is a tangent topic, but we're DEFINATELY coming back to this later on.
FN: that may be the way things are now, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to be that way. We create the world we live in. That's the whole point of this exercise: to get people thinking about the way the world is and how it could be better.
Beast: again, we must make a distinction between truths and beliefs. that's my whole point: just because you believe something doesn't make it true, no matter how hard you wish it so.
mutha: betta late than neva. the problems associated with eye-witnesses are well-established, because (as simon likes to remind us) we have limited perceptive abilities. but that is exactly why i am arguing that what we percieve cannot be taken as truth. for example: prestadigitators, illusionists, and magicians all build their stock and trade on the fundamental notion that what people observe with their eyes is rarely true.
but difficulty in perception does not mean that the truth doesn't exist.
as for time, hmmm. must think about that. are you saying that things which are true are immortal, that they are true regardless of time? if that is so, does that mean truths are unchanging, unnafected by time, ie, once true = always true?
mango: fnar fnar.
isn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' subjective? Are you saying it's true if it's beyond reasonable doubt for the majority? And isn't the majority usually a minority of the whole.
I don't think that just because the majority (who are just the largest minority) believe it is so, it is. We may all see green differently.
once true = Always true?
No -- I am simply saying that time allows us to discern what is true.
And I think truth will always be intertwined with perception. No way to divorce it. Science, numbers and the lot all have their point of breaking down. Always a "beyond" in which imagination must be used to understand.
You don't believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions?
In a practical sense, we need to use this system. In a philosophical sense, if you do not believe in souls or spirits, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Everything I do can be reduced down to a function or process in my mind. But I have no control over how my mind functions, so how can I be held responsible?
Our crime and punishment system is set up this way because, in practice, it works (if you want to live in a society relatively free from murder, theft etc). Peoples' behaviour can be controlled if you set up rewards for "good" behaviour and punishments for "bad" behaviour.
Prison is useful as a punishment and also as a way of removing malfunctioning humans from society (ie: they are not functioning as society wishes them to function).
To blame a malfunctioning individual for his own malfunction is like blaming my car for not starting yesterday morning (the bastard).
But this is for another post...
Wait though...
Kohlberg talked about how Moral judgement was a developmental process, something one does have a measure of control over, just as much as any other developmental task. The level of moral judgement in which aversion to punishment is the only motivator is described as the lowest level of development. Because humans are capable of abstract thought and the coordination of muliple perspectives, much greater understanding is not only possible but considered a hallmark of adulthood.
In other words, if your car had free will and was of age it would be responsible for getting it's shit fixed at the mechanic.
How can anything mechanical, be it a car engine or a human brain, have a "free" will?
It was a joke.
Post a Comment