Comments on: Four Types of ‘Truth’

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.

By: lazyzombie

lazyzombie — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:42:02 +0000

Actually, the second paragraph above was meant to be a question, I think I forgot to type a sentence there. I meant to ask if my assumptions about the theories were correct or not.

Sorry for the confusion.

By: lazyzombie

lazyzombie — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:28:39 +0000

Interesting summaries, and if I may, here are a couple questions:

1. I notice there is an apparent lack of quotations and references, can I assume that all these are your own original interpretations? Or are they merely summations of commonly accepted theories, and you omitted quotations for simplicity’s sake?

2. Assuming that those definitions are only summations, I tried to equate them with major theories, here is what i came up:

social truth = a combination of constructionist theory and consensus theory;

human truth = Correspondence theory

I can’t quite pinpoint the bases for personal and universal truth, but I think it is obvious that they really don’t need one.

Again, thanks for the concise summaries, I think they would really be a help when trying to explain philosophies in simple terms.

By: Ramkumar

Ramkumar — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:10:04 +0000

Truth always is permanent and not transient. Whereas perceptions are limited by knowledge and time and hence are transient. I regard that perception is not truth rather reality is. Truth can only be understood but cannot be changed whereas perceptions easily get changed.