User:Agnese marino basc/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar)/Group 8/Truth

Truth in Science: Unrestricted Validity

- Ordinarily, take true statements like: “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west"; "I live a half-mile down the road"; and "the book is on the table” “true” in that they correctly state the facts of the case

-If we are concerned with reliability, we may call statements which fail us even once "invalid" and perhaps reject them, or else attempt to specify the conditions under which they are valid or not. But we may also be satisfied with general reliability, thus accepting as true generalizations which do not permit rigorous standards of deduction

- A "true" statement in ordinary language is true only insofar as quite minimal demands are placed upon it.

-In science, however, we often seem to place unlimited demands on our statements. Strict rigor demands that we consider them to be indefinitely precise, utilizable in an indefinite number of different circumstances. A true scientific statement must satisfy every relevant demand.

-The vagueness and lack of precision that protect ordinary statements from being falsified are considered faults to be eliminated in science. And the price to be paid for the elimination of such faults is that when taken to be perfectly precise virtually all general scientific statements are actually false- that is, they have been disconfirmed in some instances. In the face of the expectations of science, even well-known scientific laws (much less complex theories and partly formulated hypotheses) are false in the sense that they fail to be satisfactory under some conditions (as, for example, Ohm's Law fails to hold under conditions of extremely low temperature

-Example: the statement "the acceleration of gravity at sea level is approximately 32 ft/sec2" it becomes scientifically trivial due to the presence of the altogether vague word "approximately."

-A "true" statement in the usual sense is one capable of being taken for granted (or asserted) in ordinary circumstances, capable of satisfying ordinary demands. These are not the same as the conditions present in scientific investigations. The strict demands of science are much stronger than the rather vaguely defined expectations of everyday life.

-A scientific statement is valid (in science) if it is capable of satisfying the conditions and expectations placed upon it as a scientific statement. The statement is unrestrictedly valid in science if it is capable of satisfying every legitimate demand that might be placed on it throughout an indefinite future of scientific investigation, and it will not ever be proven false or lead to its rejection

-Unrestricted validity is the final goal of science, and perhaps may be thought of without great harm as "scientific truth." A scientific law or theory is "true" (in this sense) if it is capable of remaining acceptable in any appropriate application whatsoever, if it is able to satisfy every scientific demand placed upon it.

-Such a definition rests on the methods and procedures of science, on the nature of rational inquiry, rather than on the ties between propositions and the world. In doing so, it reflects the intimate tie between asserting and asserting the truth of a statement, for assertions may properly be understood only in a context of rational investigation within which they function as assertions. A scientific assertion is properly an element of science, and its validity can be determined only by the utilization of scientific methods.

Taken from: Truth in Science: Unrestricted Validity by Stephen D. Ross, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 1970), pp. 46-57

Summary of some different ontological positions

Realism there is a distinction between the way the world is, and the meaning and interpretation of that world held by an individual. There are several different variants of realism: naive realism propounds that reality can be observed directly and accurately whereas in cautious realism it can only be known approximately and imperfectly. According to depth realism: reality consists of different levels: the empirical domain that we experience through our senses, the actual domain that exists irrespective of whether we can observe it or not, and the real domain which contains the mechanisms and causal powers that produce the events that we see/don’t see.

Materialism variant of realism which recognises only material features, such as economic relations, or physical features of the world as holding reality. Values, beliefs or experiences are ‘epiphenomena’ – that is features that arise from, but do not shape, the material world.

Idealism reality is fundamentally mind-dependent: it is only knowable through the human mind and through socially constructed meanings, and no reality exists independently of these. According to collective idealism, the social world is made up of representations constructed and shared by people in particular contexts. Whereas in relativism, there is no shared social reality, only a series of different (individual) constructions.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M.N. and Ormston, R. (2018), Qualitative Research Practice: a Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, SAGE, Los Angeles.

"Truth in Physics against Truth in Theology"

This contribution aims to explain the fundamental differences in what is considered to be truthful or certain concerning life and our universe from a scientific point of view contrary to a theological and religious one. Physics, axioms and constitutional physical theories enable us to understand the various phenomenas which our world is based on and explain how it works as a whole whereas Theology approaches those questions in a more spiritual way. Physics as a discipline is based on empirical research and applying the obtained knowledge and although there is no such thing as undoubted certainty it operates on proof and is therefore considered crucial in perceiving the workings of our world. Opposed to this, Theology works on beliefs and facts which cannot be verified and consequently vary from person to person.

- Camilla

• Truth in Physics:

Physics as its own academic discipline was officially established and separated from the other natural sciences in the 4th century BC. It was derived from the natural sciences and served the purpose of explaining various natural phenomena which were formerly widely believed to be a form of divine intervention. Its background in natural sciences implies that the concept of truth in physics is heavily intertwined with truth in the sciences in general. The concept of truth applied to physics can be defined in various ways. It should not be confused with evidence or proof. Physical theories help us understand how and why things work and predict outcomes. However, they do not answer the fundamental question if the way we interpret results and data is actually a universally true representation of their meaning. We can verify and validate theories if we gather enough evidence in experiments but we can only carry them out under conditions that we are able to induce. Subsequently in order to prove anything as the absolute truth in physics we would have to view our world from the perspective of an outsider and therefore completely unbiased and objective. We can describe our universe with the help of physics as it can be quantified, but that does not validate our interpretation. Further, experiments would also have to gather the same results under any given circumstances. Taking this into consideration one could say that the way physics describes our world is only true in a phenomenological sense, since it is loosely based on the way humankind sees our world, which would then support the consensus theory of truth. Immanuel Kant’s famous principle states that we can only view an object in its true nature if we take it out of the context of space and time. If we apply that to physics in general, could we say that physical theories work to describe the universe as we perceive it and not as it is in a universal sense? An example would be axioms which are fundamental understandings that theories can be derived from. They could be considered as coming the closest to a certainty that could then be interpreted as the absolute truth. If we follow their rules we can derive true and evidently proven statements from them. But that again depends on how we view nature. If we consider our view of nature as the complete knowledge of it then we could assume that physical theories are tools to describe the absolute truth. Nevertheless, the question arises if our comprehension of the workings of our world is even approximately close to a universal one. If we take the principle of falsification we could never speak of truth in regards to physics. It states that a hypothesis is only reputable and scientific if it can be proven wrong. Yet if we do not have the means and cannot induce the necessary conditions to falsify the given hypothesis we would never know if it is accurate and true. The way physical laws describe our world is truthful as long as they are not falsifiable which could hence always be the case. Another example for a contradictory claim to truth in physics would be quantum physics. If we take the concept of superposition, which allows objects to be at two different places at the same moment, or consider the particle and wave duality regarding light we cannot see what is actually “true”. Consequently, the concept of truth in quantum physics is very vague and contradictory.

- Camilla

• Truth in Christian Theology

Theology is the study of the nature of the divine and of religious belief more generally. There are different categories within this discipline, and truth is obtained in different ways for each.

For instance, exegetical theology aims to critically explain a religious text, uncovering the authour’s intended meaning and therefore relying on uncovering the truth of the original reading and examining the authenticity of the nook. This method is mainly based on three sources of material which are used to detect changes made upon the original text: written copies of the Bible, translations into modern languages and remaining writings of the early exegital theologists who have quoted original texts. Truth is therefore obtained via writings and earlier studies. There is however an order on what should be referred as a more truthful source. Ultimate truth is seen in the most ancient writings followed by independent witnesses, both of these sources are categorized as objectivists. Subjectivist sources are considered secondly, namely the corrections and changes made upon original texts, the choice of one text over various others and the incapacity to make a unanimous thought on a passage.

On another hand, historical theology studies the history of Christian doctrine and aims to understand the evolution of the beliefs and how theologists can correct mistakes made by former professionals in their field. As this subdiscipline is usually considered as a historical one, truth is found to be non-absolute but rather based on perspective. This is interpretive truth and is based on socio-historical and cultural mechanisms that allow theological ideas and statements to arise.

As another example, practical theology is to be discussed. This department of the discipline is the one to which truth is most essential as it focuses on the relation between theological theory and theological practices. The key questions in this subdiscipline, which are what is going on? Why is it going on? What ought to be going on? How might we respond? Are each respectively answered by empirical, interpretative, normative and pragmatic truths.

- Ines

Truth in Scientific Research

While reports made by scientists are readily received as "scientific", the readers must keep in mind the "social" factors that can come into play during the construction of scientific knowledge when assessing the validity of the report.

"For example, the assertion that

X observed the first optical pulsar

can be severely undermined by the use of the following formulation:

X thought he had seen the first optical pulsar, having stayed awake three nights in a row and being in a state of extreme exhaustion" (Latour & Woolgar, 1979)

In the second scenario, "social" factor has distracted the reader's attention from the observation and made the scientific observation seem less scientific.

If a scientist is explaining a phenomenon to a person who is completely ignorant in that area, the scientist is likely to explain in more simple terms to make sure the basic idea is comprehended. However, due to the different use of words and perhaps different social and cultural background, it is likely that the receiver would interpret the concept differently than the actual concept meant by the scientist.

The attitude ot the scientist towards his audience can largly be determined by the background of the audience. For example, if the audience is an outsider in that field, the scientist would approach him in a more openly and friendly manner. However, if the scientist is being approached by another scientist working in the same field, he is more likely to talk about his observations in a more concealed way to avoid unnecessary competition.

As in the case of Cambrige scientists discovering the pulsars, other scientists in the field blames the Cambridge team for not publishing their discoveries soon enough for others to use. However, the Cambridge team replied that it is a longstanding tradition in science to not force researchers to publish their results immediately.

This conflict shows that social factors on a larger scale can and will affect the discoveries and conclusions made by scientists.

Taken from Laboratory Life : the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, N.J. :Princeton University Press, 1986.

- Nikki

Truth in Politics

The subject of these reflections is a commonplace. No one has ever doubted that truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other, and no one, as far as I. know, has ever counted truthfulness among the political virtues. Lies have always been regarded as necessary and justifiable tools not only of the politician's or the demagogue's but also of the statesman's trade. Why is that so? And what does it mean for the nature and the dignity of the political realm, on one side, and for the nature and the dignity of truth and truthfulness, on the other? Is it of the very essence of truth to be impotent and of the very essence of power to be deceitful? And what kind of reality does truth possess if it is powerless in the public realm, which more than any other sphere of human life guarantees reality of existence to natal and mortal men-that is, to beings who know they have appeared out of non-being and will, after a short while, again disappear into it? Finally, is not impotent truth just as despicable as power that gives no heed to truth? These are uncomfortable questions, but they arise necessarily out of our current convictions in this matter.

Although the politically most relevant truths are factual, the conflict between truth and politics was first discovered and articulated with respect to rational .truth. The opposite of a rationally true statement is either error and ignorance, as in the sciences, or illusion and opinion, as in philosophy. Deliberate falsehood, the plain lie, plays its role only in the domain of factual statements, and it seems significant, and rather odd, that in the long debate about this antagonism of truth and politics, from Plato to Hobbes, no one, apparently, ever believed that organised lying, as we know it today, could be an adequate weapon against truth. In Plato, the truth teller is in danger of his life, and in Hobbes, where he has become an author, he is threatened with the burning of his books; mere · menqacity is not an_ issue. It is the sophist and the ignoramus rather than the liar who occupy Plato's thought, and where he distinguishes between error and lie-that is, between "involuntary and voluntary y;evoos "-he is, characteristically, much harsher on people . 'wallowing in swinish ignorance" than on liar.

When I said that factual, as opposed to rational, truth is not antagonistic to opinion, I stated a half-truth. All truths-not only the various kinds of rational truth but also-factual truth-are opposed to opinion· in their mode of asserting validity. Truth 'Carries within itself an element of coercion, and the frequently tyrannical tendencies so deplorably obvious · among professional truth tellers may be caused less by a failing of character than by the strain of habitually living under a kind of compulsion.

Statements such as "The three angles of a triangle are equal to two angles of a square," "The earth moves around the sun," "It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong," "In August 1914 Germany invaded Belgium" are very different in the way they are arrived at, but, once perceived Rs true and pronounced be so, they have in common that they are beyond agreement, dispute, opinion, or consent. For those who accept them, they are not changed by the numbers or lack of numbers who entertain the same proposition.; persuasion or dissuasion is useless, for the content of the statement is not of a persuasive nature but of a coercive one.

Irina-Taken from "Between Past and Future" by Hannah Arendt (1967)

3 Different Types of Truth

Correspondence Theory of Truth: 

A statement (a “proposition”) is true only if it corresponds to reality. For example, the statement “It is snowing” (the proposition) is true only if it is really snowing outside (reality). This further begs the questions, then “What is reality”? Our empirical senses often deceive us, so what is reality really like? This complex issue has long existed amongst philosophers whereby we wonder if reality really does exist and or is it just a human assumption as a product of our minds. Movies like The Matrix play into these theories about the existence of our reality.

Coherence Theory of Truth: 

A statement (a proposition) is true if it is consistent with other things that are considered true (and don’t contradict it). The most important factor to note is whether a proposition “fits into the system”, if so then it is true. Unlike the correspondence theory, whether the statement reflects reality or not is of secondary importance. For example, I hear a pencil falling to the ground. A second person also hears it, and the pencil that was just on the table is now missing. As these 3 observations fit together: me hearing it, a second person hearing it and the missing pencil, a proposition such as “the pencil hit the ground” is coherent and therefore true. But, did the pencil really fall to the ground or can something else explain these observations? Truth in the natural sciences i.e. scientific theories are often based on coherent observations, e.g. Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment in quantum mechanics.

Schrödinger wrote: “... In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive".”

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth: 

Something is true if it is useful, and such utility naturally is subjective between people. It doesn’t matter whether or not it reflects reality. For instance, Person A may believe that money is the most important thing in one’s life. This belief is therefore a truth and very useful for Person A, whose actions will be guided by this belief. However, Person B has a different view and believes friendship is the most important thing. Similarly, this belief is useful and also deemed a truth to Person B. In contrast to the correspondence theory which assumes truth is absolute, the pragmatic theory takes a relative approach to truth.

By Katarina

Truth in Anthropology

Large scale atrocities throughout history have been studied by anthropologists in the form of witness accounts. Although anthropologists evaluate the methods and legal assumptions of the courts well when studying events, they have been criticised to poorly evaluate the plausibility of evidence that is given, or the legal procedure in relationship to the events that have occurred. There have been many discussions in anthropological journals on ethnographic authority, but they do not clarify what makes knowledge claims valid in the occasion of reports and interviews or even documented ‘facts’ from an event. The problem of language barriers is also prevalent in this field as the anthropologists often do not fully understand the people they are researching and so assumptions may be made as well as errors in understanding and pre-existing biases.

By Millie

Truth and Journalism

In the era of mass media it is now time to question how we access information. Over the last years, our main sources of news have changed from newspapers to television, radio and eventually internet. Titles and articles have become shorter and shorter to satisfy our new way of consuming journalism : quickly and for free.

• Since decades, to attract and keep an audience, and thus money, newspapers play on sensationalism with incredible breaking news...

It leads for example to a misrepresentation of many events because journalists would rather insist on sensationalism rather than the quality of their article. A phenomenon which is often seen in war reportages for instance. Reporters from the West are sent by their companies to war zones to capture blood, death etc…, only, often dismissing the true context of the conflict and generating different stereotypes about foreign regions and their inhabitants.

In this case truth is perceived as a consuming good and marketing rules apply to it : the more trendy and spectacular, the more saleable it becomes. The pursuit of an objective truth and reality disappears to satisfy the market.

• Politics and media have very special relationships. Throughout history (and still nowadays, even in the West, even though we claim a great freedom of speech, it became simply more subtle) citizen have faced whether censorship or propaganda from their states spread over in their news. On the other hand, news have also the power to influence their consumers in the political way they want.

Recently, events such as the brexit or trumps election have been heavily criticized for their bad news coverage.

• Nowadays though, people have started to increasingly disbelieve and criticize news. Citizen are more sceptic in the traditional absolute medias truth. Mainly because news agencies have lost their monopoly and social media became a new important source of information. The propagation of fake news is rapidly spotted and discussed at a globalized scale on twitter, facebook, news websites comments, etc. The truth of journalists is constantly questioned on internet and since internet users have access to unlimited resources, it is easier to support their opinion massively no matter how true it is. The public understanding of how news agencies collect our data to tailor the news which might interest us, giving us then a very biased and self-focused truth, rose and made citizen even more doubtful.

The contemporary overconsumption of news makes it also harder for truth to find its way to our limited attention, whereas sensationalist breaking headlines do it much easier. News, used to be consumed in a scarce way, are now the center of our realities, threatening our democracies and our personal happiness.

We are maybe today in a need of redefining journalism and its relation to truth.

References (if not already quoted):

Le Monde Diplomatique, Media, a necessary critic, 2019 available at: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossier/critique-medias

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1967

Philippine

Truth in International Relation (Pei & Louise)

In international relations (IR) exist what can be called « fundamental truths ». These, are coming from observations and assumptions that are shared by every scholar. For example, realists and liberalists, even though have different theories for explaining international relations, share a similar vision of how the world is generally constructed. For example, they both agree on the existence of a society organized by states.

But truth in International relations is also subjective. Indeed, different theories exist in International politics, each of them interpreting in certain ways relations between states. In consequences, depending on the movement (liberalism, realism, etc) to which one person belongs, this last will have a different vision of truth in International Relations. For example, a realist will hold for true that IR can be explained by Humans' need for power when liberalists will argue that international politics are based on the belief that Humans are good and can work together towards peace. These two statements are both true to some extent.

Other claims on truth in International Relations are positivist claims of truth as the study of IR is mainly based on theory. Scholars try to explain the running of the world and the organisation of international relations according to them. International politics scholars try to find the theory that could correspond the best to the countries' behaviour. This work is therefore mainly based on analysis and objective work and not on one individual perception.

The truth, philosophy

Nina: The truth Philosophers, linguists, jurists, scientists have always sought the truth. When asked the following questions: "Is the truth accessible to man or is it illusory? "What truth can man claim? We start admiting that the truth exists. Since it has always been sought after, it seems clear that it is only a principle and not a reality. If there are truths (scientific, historical, legal, philosophical, religious), it is perhaps that the truth does not exist.

For skeptical philosophers, it seems that we can not know the truth. Skepticism is a method of examination and a philosophical school according to which it seems that nothing is true.

Skepticism is not only ancient According to David Hume, we have no proof that the representations of the world provided by the data of the senses constitute a reliable knowledge of this world, our knowledge stopping with the data of the senses. Hume thus integrates skepticism in order to reinforce empiricist theories, by invalidating any possibility of classical metaphysical reflection. He is the founder of empiricism. According to Kant: our perception takes place in space and time, transcendental structures of our mind, so we can never "know" the world in itself (timeless and non-spatial), but we can nevertheless think of objects by transcending experience (the regulating ideas of knowledge).

For Plato, the truth is not relative to our speech. The world in which we live, the one we perceive, the sensible world (that we know by our senses) is peopled with copies of the world of Ideas, which is above our in space. It is up there that lies the truth (and also the reality). It is absolute. It can not be changed: it is immutable and eternal. We have access to it only at the cost of a great deal of work on ourselves, on our speech. And the more we think, the more we understand that we do not know anything.

Saint Thomas: truth is a match between thought and things St. Thomas Aquinas takes up the idea of ​​Aristotle who argues that truth is an adequation between thought and thing or rather between what is said (statement) and reality. It is precisely this conception of truth that is taken up by contemporary philosophers. Truth is above all a matter of speech, of language. And linguists are interested in it. We have seen that according to the theory of truth-correspondence, truth is considered as a relation of correspondence between a statement and a thing. An utterance is true only if it corresponds to the thing to which it refers in reality. But each one of us approaches, apprehends the reality differently. We know it through our reason or empirically (by our experience of things). coherentism Coherentism is the set of theories defining truth as a systematic coherence relation of a theory composed of multiple statements. A statement is true only if it is part of a coherent system of statements. As a theory of truth, coherence limits "true" sentences to those that are consistent with a certain precise set of sentences. One's belief is true if and only if it is "consistent" with all or most of its other (true) beliefs. The terminology of coherence is then said to correlate with the truth

Non-scientific truths - Science does not answer everything. If our knowledge is determined by the structure of our mind (Kant), the domain of thought remains open beyond. This thought, surpassing experience, must elaborate metaphysics, since it consists only of pure ideas. Scientism claimed that science is the only discourse that can provide us with truths. On the contrary, we can admit that a place is reserved for other truths: moral, religious or metaphysical.

- Opinions and dignity of thought: To be respectable, these non-scientific truths can not be simple opinions, unjustifiable and likely to refuse any contradiction: they also need a coherence or an agreement with behaviors. When Kant postulates the existence of God, of the immortality of soul and freedom, it is precisely to confirm the global coherence of morality and the world. Since no empirical verification is possible in metaphysics, these postulates respect the requirements of formal truth.