Comments on: Four Types of ‘Truth’

By: Sandy Rothman

Sandy Rothman — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:14:04 +0000

Even though “facts” may not be incontrovertible, the concept of a fact seems to me more fundamentally objective than “truth,” which is more easily filtered through our individual thought processes and beliefs. Again: not that facts, too, cannot be changed, but that they have more solidity than personal preferences (“personal truths”). It could be said that factuality (such as it may be) is closer to an “objective reality,” but at the same time it’s possible to mean the same thing by the term “universal truth” as some have used it here.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:40:04 +0000

Graham – I applaud your astute reading and intelligent commenting to my “four truths” post. Admittedly, I hadn’t thought about it for awhile, though roughly a year ago I reposted it on my new “360 Degree Skeptic” blog, asking for comments before I revised it. (Crickets over there). Still waiting to get back to it.
I am not afraid to admit that my ideas are a work in progress. There are a few things about the “four truths” hypothesis that need clarification, if not revision/amendment. For one, the word “truth” is troublesome. It seems much too . . . absolute. In my opinion, facts are the most solid and trustworthy element of thought. Meaning data: individual and collected observations and measurements. Given the same tools, facts should be fully verifiable.
But then there are propositions of the sorts of hypotheses and theories. These elements of idea are one step removed from the more solid data they are based upon, when they are. Anyway.
Returning to your point, I do have reservations about making a “truth” universal in the absolute fashion, particularly if that truth is a proposition rather than a fully verifiable “fact.” The gist of the article, however, is that with different types of truths (for lack of a better word), we have a wider circle of individuals that can or could potentially perceive them as “it is so.”
My brief ditty makes that point fairly well, I believe. But it certainly needs further development.

By: Graham p

Graham p — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:11:14 +0000

Andrew, you have made a distinction between universal truth and absolute truth.

Because you didn’t refer to any distinction in your discourse I did assume that you held universal truth and absolute truth to be one and the same. I presumed that if a truth, was a universal truth, there couldn’t be anywhere in the universe where it was false.

Does this differentiation indicate that absolute truth is a 5th form of truth or, that you don’t accept the existence of absolute truth? For example, could Pi be considered an absolute truth as well a universal truth?

In your original definitions you stated that “A universal truth is the only type of truth that is not relative to the person or group making the claim.”

Now it seems, in your latest response where you state:

(“I think his truth could still be considered universal if we take into consideration his methods and variables. Meaning any other person so equipped with the methods and variables would come to the same conclusion.”)

you are qualifying that definition. You now seem to be making a universal truth ‘true’ whilst linking it to human ‘methods and variables’ something I felt you discounted in the above definition.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:23:45 +0000

Graham -
Sorry it took so long to respond. I think this discussion has gotten a bit side-tracked by the conflating of “universal truth” with “absolute truth.” In my original piece I said nothing about a universal truth being valid for all time. (I referred to a truth as the perception or conclusion “it is so.”) So, in the case of Ptolemy, I think his truth could still be considered universal if we take into consideration his methods and variables. Meaning any other person so equipped with the methods and variables would come to the same conclusion. As for social and psychological truths, the same would not be true. Given the same methods of evaluation and the same facts, people will disagree on, say, whether or not Israel has a right to “its homeland.” Does that make sense? Also, as you have said, a scientific understanding is provisional. But this doesn’t mean it is completely relative and/or incapable of making real progress. I would point out that science is a fairly recent invention and is just getting going. But not without hiccups.

By: Graham p

Graham p — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:25:39 +0000

Andrew, I think that the only ‘truth’ that we know for certainty to be true is that which we experience – which fits into your ‘Belief 1’ definition. All other truths, I surmise, must be considered hearsay. You may for example believe, as I do, that H2O represents a molecule of water, and you may believe that that is a universal truth. But at the end of the day we believe it is truth because we believe in science. Even though we might have a reason for believing it is true – for example, “science has never lied to me yet” it is none the less just a belief.

It may be that you accept the ‘truth of science’ and that you conclude that “all sufficiently intelligent and educated observers …. would conclude (it) to be so” But I disagree with you on that.

I suggest that all ‘truth’ is true only within the boundaries of people’s reality. Would you agree that Ptolemy fits your definition of an intelligent educated man? Would you agree that Aristotle was an intelligent man? If you had been writing this article then, you would have been quoting their truths as examples of universal truths.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:22:43 +0000

Graham – “All scientific truths are eventually proved to be wrong.” Ah, first, “proves” is the wrong word. What science does is use data to confirm and disconfirm hypotheses and theories. Proof belongs in the domain of mathematics. Second, I wonder when the truth of water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen will be proved wrong. Or the truth that hemoglobin transports oxygen in blood. Or that … (insert millions of examples here from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, geology, etc). Sure theories can be overturned and will be. But what happens a large percentage of time is that at the advancing fringe of science (not the core of it), we have revisions to theories and additions to theories as we encounter anomalies. So we find that while the Earth does orbit the sun, it doesn’t do so in a perfect circle, as first thought. As for the E=MC2 bit, ah, I would hold your horses on that one for awhile. Even if it does turn out to be correct, what it will do is not “prove” that Einstein’s equation is wrong, but that it has its limits as to where it can be applied.

By: Graham p

Graham p — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:01:18 +0000

Andrew -your statement “I believe a universal truth must be replicable. Not via logic.” seems very limiting; it seems to be more a definition of Science in the ‘Creationism is a Science’ argument.

In your blog you use E= MC2 as an example of a 100 year old Universal truth but recently that truth is being challenged in the laboratory see ‘www.inquisitr.com/…/scientists-say-emc2-might-be-wrong-say-neutri…,’ (there are a number of entries in Google.) I would suggest that history has shown that eventually all scientific truths are eventually proved to be wrong.

Science is the attempt to find the truth. Scientists never claim that they have found the truth, just that ‘it is the truth until it is disproved’. If universal truth is a reflection of scientific knowledge then it also must only be Universally true until proved otherwise.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:04:15 +0000

Graham – I’m not sure belief in a god, however defined (or not), fits into the “personal” truth category. Most notions of gods are cultural phenomena, although individuals tend to claim them as their own.
Second, I believe a universal truth must be replicable. Not via logic. That game is too easy to abuse. For example, if “God” is an idea that human minds hold, then both 1 and 2 can be true for some random sample of people. Etc.

By: Graham p

Graham p — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:32:44 +0000

A very interesting discussion.

I would like to pose a question around Universal truth in relation to the existence or not of God. From what you have written Andrew I think that the belief in God could fit into any of the first three truths.

Any individual can have a personal belief in God.

Any society can have a collective belief in God eg Christian Vs Muslim

At least 4 Billion people believe in a God of some sort and the other 3 Billion have a belief that there is no God. I think that a belief in a God of some sort is a human belief or need.

But you argue that a Universal truth must be replicable. If you accept that one of the following statements:

1 God exists
2 God doesn’t exist
must be true by virtue that both cannot be true and that there is no other alternate premise to srgue, either God does exist or God doesn’t exist then one of these statements must be true, and, it must be true universally.

So one of these statements must be a unversal truth even though it doesn’t fit your difinition of a universal truth. I have more to add, including a possible solution to this quandry but, I would like yours or someone elses feedbsck on this first.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:38:23 +0000

Lazy – The content consists of my own arm-chair philosophizing…influenced by countless others, I’m sure, but not directly so. And thus the lack of citations.
Thanks for the info about the different theories involved. At some point in the future I will be checking them out. For the topic is important and I intend to revisit it.