Truth
PAGE IN PROGRESS
This is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. I am currently working on it, and it is going to be finalized soon. Thank you for your patience!
This is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. I am currently working on it, and it is going to be finalized soon. Thank you for your patience!
Whenever we disagree, it is about truth.
Whenever you feel that you are right and I am wrong, it is about truth.
Whenever my kids (6 and 8 years old) say to each other, "You called me [some silly word], and I did not like it!" -- "No, I did not call you that!" - it is about truth.
Probably as soon as children are able to have simplest conversations, they argue about it. And as people grow up, truth-related conflicts only get more intense. It turns out that you do not need to say the word "truth" to clash about it.
But, of course, truth is sometimes also expressly names as a value to strive for, as a solution to our problems: "We need to find out the truth. We need to make sure that everybody knows it."
Mission of The New York Times: Our Mission
We seek the truth and help people understand the world.
https://www.nytco.com/company/mission-and-values/
Truth = knowledge = reflection of reality in human mind. It’s an an assumption to think that such a reflection is even possible. Or… truth is precise reflection of reality. Precise in this case is a spectrum. It might be precise enough to help us do something (functional truth) but not absolutely precise.
Whether we realize that our concerns are about truth or not, certain assumptions remain unexamined. Individuals, communities, groups, and even whole countries entangled in bitter conflicts about truth have little hope of sorting their problems out unless they understand what beliefs are hiding behind their disagreements.
The bloodiest conflicts in history, just as the most trivial ones, have been about truth: "I see things the right way, and you see them the wrong way! My way is the only right way because I (unlike you) know how things really are!" (Of course, the bloodiest conflicts in history have also been about power, but power and truth and intertwined, which I explore elsewhere.) So what are the assumptions here?
Say, we have two people arguing about an issue (to make this more specific, you can imagine yourself engaged in a conversation with someone whose political views are different from yours). There are two surface assumptions guiding this interaction:
1) One of us can understand the issue we are arguing about = one of us can know the truth about it. (Each person usually thinks they are the one who knows the truth.)
2) If we disagree, only one of us understands the issue correctly. This person is right (this usually translates into "I am right"). The other person is wrong. This other person does not know the truth.
These are surface assumptions. They are fairly easy to notice, especially when pointed out. However, there are also deeper beliefs that are more difficult to see and even to talk about. Those assumptions are about the nature of truth, knowledge, and reality itself. It is challenging to notice and discuss them because this requires getting more abstract and philosophical. Nonetheless, if we want to get out of entrenched conflicts, we need to get to this level. Let's look at these deeper assumptions:
1) One can know the truth = one can understand the way things are.
2) Truth is what corresponds to reality. Reality is the way things are. Knowing the truth means understanding the way things are.
3) Reality exists.
For the purpose of this conversation, I am not going to tackle the third assumption at all. I am just going to say that this can be done and has been done in some philosophical and esoteric traditions, and in some artistic narratives (for example, in the Matrix series).
Deeper assumption #2 actually reflects the common definition of truth. Indeed, if we want to be able to talk about truth we need to separate reality (how things are) from reflection of this reality in people's heads (knowledge about or understanding of reality). These two things exist independently, and it is no trivial matter to assume that there is or can be a correspondence between them.
I insist that this is an assumption; however, for some people this, in itself, is an unquestionable truth, together with the first belief in the list of deeper assumptions above. Many people feel this way: "Of course, truth is something that corresponds to reality. Of course, one can know the truth. The problem is that some people cannot understand the truth or cannot handle it." What would mean to question this assumption? In essence, it would me to question that our perception of reality in fact corresponds to reality, or, in a more radical approach, to question that this correspondence is even possible. Reality exists, but is it knowable to the human mind?
This question has quite a long history. In the Western tradition, it has been first clearly formulated (as far as we know) by the ancient Greek philosophical school known as skeptics. Although there are different flavors of skepticism, most skeptics pointed out limitations of human knowledge and advocated for what they called suspension of judgment. All the main objections to this stance have already been formulated in the ancient world. First, how can one claim to know the fact that knowledge is impossible? One making this claim refutes their own claim, and their argument falls flat. Similarly, how can one claim that it is essential to suspend judgment? Isn't this itself a judgement? In a more practical sense, skeptics were criticized for making suggestions that simply were not feasible for the everyday life. We have to make judgements, we have to proclaim some courses or actions to be the right ones. Otherwise, we would have to engage in endless navel-gazing and remain passive in the face of life's challenges.
Ancient skeptics influenced such seminal European philosophers as Descartes, Hume, Locke, and Kant. In European philosophical tradition, ideas of skepticism were sometimes used to support the authority of the Church, which was presented as the only entity that could interpret God's ways. As a powerful reaction against the Church, thinkers and scholars gradually moved towards the opposite of the idea that human beings are incapable of knowing the universe. As a result, the belief in the supreme power of the human mind prevailed during the Enlightenment and turned into a new dogma that was impossible to question for a few centuries.
The twentieth century ushered in the era of new doubts in the human rationality. These doubts were explored not only in postmodernist philosophy, which might seem too enigmatic to be useful. Limitations of the human brain and of its ability to understand the world have been discussed by various scholars who explore society and human behavior. For example, we now know that multiples cognitive biases are an intrinsic aspect of out brains' functioning. Social and behavioral scientists do not use the term "truth", but it is hard to deny connections between their discoveries and the conversations about the (un)attainability of truth that philosophers have been having among themselves for centuries.
All right, you might say. So what if some scholars and thinkers claim that truth is unattainable. Maybe this claim is even valid in some obscure sense. But it is pretty much useless for practical purposes. Look at the the social progress: science, medicine, and law have developed to their current state exactly because we did not let ourselves be guided by any abstract and vague considerations about truth. Any social problems that still exist will gradually be solved the same way. If we encounter any injustices along the way, we must simply determine who understands the matter correctly and make sure the side that's right prevails.
International relations: do country have a right to interfere in other country's conflicts? Who decides that it is better not to interfere because the price can be high for the county that is interfering and those whose conflicts being interfered with? Should a country focus solely on protecting its interests or should it try to spread its values to others?
Opposing idea to acknowledging the complexity of truth: this might prevent from determined action. While we sit around considering the complexity, somebody else will act and shape the situation. They will win and we will so. So we cannot afford to consider the complexity of truth. The problem with this is that danger that we ourselves will become those who actions make the situation worse. If we choose crushing certainty about a specific truth, we run the risk of hurting other and ourselves. Political leaders who chose actions that hurt others often were absolutely sure that they are doing the good thing, that it's the right way to act. They were absolutely sure about their truth.
To truth: misinformation can be dangerous
https://www.theedgemedia.org/manufacturing-outrage-one-pet-at-a-time-disinformation-hyper-partisan-media-big-tech/
Read this article. Note in this story how people can misuse the idea of the relativism of truth.
How can we still sustain the argument that understanding the complexity of truth is important?
From Why Buddhism Is True:
“Still, ultimately, natural selection cares about only one thing (or, I should say, “cares”—in quotes—about only one thing, since natural selection is just a blind process, not a conscious designer). And that one thing is getting genes into the next generation. Genetically based traits that in the past contributed to genetic proliferation have flourished, while traits that didn’t have fallen by the wayside. And the traits that have survived this test include mental traits—structures and algorithms that are built into the brain and shape our everyday experience. So if you ask the question “What kinds of perceptions and thoughts and feelings guide us through life each day?” the answer, at the most basic level, isn’t “The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that give us an accurate picture of reality.” No, at the most basic level the answer is “The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that helped our ancestors get genes into the next generation.” Whether those thoughts and feelings and perceptions give us a true view of reality is, strictly speaking, beside the point. As a result, they sometimes don’t. Our brains are designed to, among other things, delude us.”
“Though these feelings—anxiety, despair, hatred, greed—aren’t delusional the way a nightmare is delusional, if you examine them closely, you’ll see that they have elements of delusion, elements you’d be better off without. And if you think you would be better off, imagine how the whole world would be. After all, feelings like despair and hatred and greed can foster wars and atrocities. So if what I’m saying is true—if these basic sources of human suffering and human cruelty are indeed in large part the product of delusion—there is value in exposing this delusion to the light.
Sounds logical, right? But here’s a problem that I started to appreciate shortly after I wrote my book about evolutionary psychology: the exact value of exposing a delusion to the light depends on what kind of light you’re talking about. Sometimes understanding the ultimate source of your suffering doesn’t, by itself, help very much.
…
And that’s true of many sources of delusion that I’ll discuss in this book: they’re more about illusion—about things not being quite what they seem—than about delusion in the more dramatic sense of that word. Still, by the end of the book, I’ll have argued that all of these illusions do add up to a very large-scale warping of reality, a disorientation that is as significant and consequential as out-and-out delusion."
Hoffman, D. (2019). The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. W. W. Norton.
Musser, G. (2023). Putting ourselves back in the equation: Why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
"Originally published in German in 1935, this monograph anticipated solutions to problems of scientific progress, the truth of scientific fact and the role of error in science now associated with the work of Thomas Kuhn and others. Arguing that every scientific concept and theory—including his own—is culturally conditioned, Fleck was appreciably ahead of his time. And as Kuhn observes in his foreword, “Though much has occurred since its publication, it remains a brilliant and largely unexploited resource.”
“To many scientists just as to many historians and philosophers of science facts are things that simply are the case: they are discovered through properly passive observation of natural reality. To such views Fleck replies that facts are invented, not discovered. Moreover, the appearance of scientific facts as discovered things is itself a social construction, a made thing. A work of transparent brilliance, one of the most significant contributions toward a thoroughly sociological account of scientific knowledge.”—Steven Shapin, Science"
We need to see the paradox of truth-seeking. It is something very important, but we should do it while always keeping in mind that absolute truth might be ever-elusive. Truth is a paradox because, while debating on an issue, we can be simultaneously right about some of its aspects and wrong about others. So can our opponent. Through a respectful dialogue, we might both refine our understanding.
Obviously, we need to look for truth in a sense of better understanding of things because this understanding will help us make better choices in our actions. There are real problems that society is facing, and we cannot just say that we cannot do anything because we cannot know the truth. My belief is that skepticism our ability to gain truth can actually help us move forward achieving our goals in a move efficient way.
This is a popular strategy in modern political and cultural debates. It probably has always been popular. SOLUTION B, on the other hand, starts with accepting that truth is complicated and no one really has full access to it. In this sense, in many arguments, there is no "right" side and "wrong" side. I believe in this second solution, but formulating my ideas has not been easy.
I have previously tried to capture my understanding in the essay "You Are Not Wrong, You Are Incomplete" and in my book Media Is Us (for instance, in the section "The Worlds We Live In" (pp. 41-45)). However, I have to acknowledge that whatever I have written so far (including this very page) is merely my attempts to solve this conundrum. The question of truth is perhaps one of the most difficult and important ones humanity has grappled with, because it is essentially about understanding the world and ourselves; it is probably, to borrow from Douglas Adams, the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. And no, the answer is not 42. It is also not "I am right, you are wrong", not even "we are all right and we are all wrong" or "nobody is right or wrong" or some concise variation of those statements. There is no simple answer.
In Media Is Us, I wrote that when we think about the contradictory nature of truth, "[a] well-known Indian tale about three blind men and an elephant comes to mind. According to the story, after touching the animal, each man came to a very different conclusion about it. They were all right, of course, but they were also wrong because every person argued that he was the only one who had found the truth. To understand what the elephant is, they would have needed to acknowledge the validity of each other’s experiences and to combine them, however contradictory those seemed to be" (p. 41). In this sense, I argued, we are all probably nothing more than "a bunch of 'blind men' studiously touching a rather indifferent 'elephant,' for the universe does not seem to care much what we think about it" (p. 43).
For a while I naively thought that the blind men and the elephant metaphor might help us make SOLUTION B real. I saw it this way: First, we acknowledge that everybody sees the world from different perspectives. Then we combine these perspectives (somehow), and voila! This did not seem particularly easy to accomplish. How do we combine everybody's perspectives in practice? But I guess it made me feel better to think that the ultimate Truth is kind of one big puzzle, and everybody holds a piece of it. And if we just manage to put these pieces together somehow, we will finally understand how things really are! But something in this solution was not clicking.
So I found another metaphor, an even less optimistic one this time: Rashomon. Rashomon is the name of a film directed by Akira Kurosawa, and it is based on a short story "In a Grove" by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. In this story, we hear different people presenting their versions of dramatic events that involve betrayal, violence, and death. If the reader (or viewer of the film) hopes to piece together the truth by the end of the narrative, she will be bitterly disappointed. The story is teasing and frustrating: no matter how much you try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, you might have to admit that is no ultimate answer, no all-encompassing truth to grasp, no way to understand what happened in the grove.
But something must have happened there! And if we work really hard, we should be able to find out what it was. Or, to bring back the first metaphor, the elephant does exist, so no matter how difficult it is for us to understand it, with the right tools it can be done.
This logic seems to make perfect sense. In an ordinary world that human being inhabit (not the quantum one, so let's put Schrödinger's cat aside for now), a specific glass either stands on a specific table, or it does not stand there. Both cannot be true at the same time. A Sun either revolves around the Earth, or it doesn't. And if you accuse me of slapping you, either I did it or I did not. Hence, if you argue that I slapped you and I argue that I did not, one of us must inevitably be right and the other one must be wrong. This simple logic explains why SOLUTION A outlined above has always been so attractive.
Indeed, in some cases SOLUTION A is the best one, and it works. If one of my kids says that the other one called him a silly word, and if I happen to have recorded their interaction, it is enough to listen to the recording to determine what actually happened. It could be helpful because then I can talk to the kids and explain the importance of not calling each other silly names that they don't like. Alas, most situations are infinitely more complex than that. (And I do not record my kids' interactions.)
It helps to distinguish between (a) reality = the way things are (and they certainly are some way!) and (b) truth = reflection in our minds and words of how things are (and this is where it gets tricky). I do not suggest questioning the existence of reality. The glass is either on the table or it is not; the Sun either revolves around the Earth or it does not; I either slapped you or I did not. In all these cases there is no third option that would somehow combine the first two. There is a reality that - theoretically - should be available for grasping. But I do suggest questioning human ability to capture actual complex reality through our mind and communicate about this reality using language. Because the actual reality is indeed infinitely more complex than a glass on a table. Reality = the way things are, where "things" are myriads of elements of the universe and their complex interrelationships.
Let's recap. When I argue with my political opponent and say (in essence), "You are wrong and I am right," what I am saying is, "I know the truth and you don't." It's good, first of all, to acknowledge the presence of the idea of truth hiding in this statement, as well as our assumptions about truth. And then it's good to wonder what it really means to know a/the truth about a topic or an issue. Because this topic or issue is likely to be much more complex than a question of whether there is a glass on the table, it is likely that each one of us has a grasp of some aspects of the topic or issue in question, but not all of the aspects. Each one of us has a perspective which is in some ways valid but is also incomplete, because it is after all a perspective: you see an issue from a certain point, meaning that you don't see it from other points. And this perspective is a certain truth, but not the whole truth. This is when the blind men and the elephant metaphor is helpful. In some situations we, indeed, could immensely benefit from learning to accept that our perspective/truth is partial and to combine it with our opponent's point of view in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.
But this strategy does not always work. In fact, it often does not work, and we find ourselves in the confusing Rashomon-like situations. Why is that? Because for the blind men and the elephant metaphor to apply, our minds need to accurately reflect at least some aspects of reality most of the time. So, say, if we are arguing about an issue that have N amount of aspects, we just need a person per each of these aspects, then we need to record their perspectives and put them together. And - boom! - we have a complete picture. Following this logic, we might argue that, if we cannot finish the puzzle, it's simply because some voices are silenced and some perspective are ignored. This can certainly be a part of the problem, but trying to make sure that all voices are included - that all possible points if view are represented - is probably not going to be an ultimate solution, no matter how important it is to do.
The reason for our inability to grasp the truth is that the human brain often does not accurately reflect reality, it does not even accurately reflect its aspects. Why is that? Are we stupid? Are we flawed? No, the reason is that our individual minds are just not made for that. And this is not even a particularly new idea.
As an old adage goes, we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. More specifically, each person sees things as this person is. And each person is a combination of human nature, individual traits, and all the circumstances of this person's life. There are some cognitive biases that we all share, but there are also individual ways of seeing the world that emerged as a reaction to our experiences; some of these ways of seeing the world are coping mechanisms that we developed to deal with less-than-ideal circumstances. You might think: "If only I (or my opponents) could get rid of all these biases and distortions, I (or they) can finally see the truth!" Unfortunately, it does not work this way. Cognitive biases are unalienable aspects of our brain functioning, and the line between insight and delusion can be surprisingly hard to find (and who's to say that people looking for this line are not somewhat delusional themselves?).
We might need to admit that our hope to be right (= to know how things really are = to grasp the/a truth) is nothing but a result of human hubris. For it's a sign of hubris to believe that because human beings are oh-so-special they can understand the world better than other (less rational or plainly irrational) animals; just as it is a sign of hubris for one human being to believe that this person has a way better view on the elusive elephant than their neighbor with, say, a different political affiliation.
The human brain, or a particular individual's brain, does not properly reflect reality not because this brain does not work well. Actually, our brains work perfectly fine most of that time, no matter how we live our lives. Our brain gives us access to the kind of truth we need, and that is not some kind of perfect absolute truth that the statement "I am right" presupposes. Our understanding of the world around us is supposed to be, first and foremost, functional. Which means that our "truth" is meant to simply help us survive as individuals and, most importantly, as a species.
Everything I have written so far is not meant to lead to passivity or despair: "If I cannot understand the world the way it is, there is no reason to try." Of course there is a reason to try, and to do the best we can. We should be curious explorers and tireless scholars. We should create new tools trying to understand the world as much as we can. We should compare our worldviews and disagree about them with passion. But we should also keep in mind that the truth we are dealing with is first and foremost functional.
From « good inside » : « Our ability to experience many seemingly oppositional thoughts and feelings at once—to know that you can experience several truths simultaneously—is key to our mental health. Psychologist Philip Bromberg may have said it best: “Health is the ability to stand in the spaces between realities without losing any of them—the capacity to feel like one self while being many.”*…. we are our healthiest selves when we can see that two (or more!) things are true.…We don’t have to choose a single truth. In fact, in most areas of life, we have multiple realities that don’t exactly add up. They simply coexist, and the best we can do is acknowledge all of them. »
difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to do the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
And even if we take a specific aspect of the universe, it is unlikely to be described by one specific "truth" - one statement about it. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but there are also a million and one truths that can describe the Earth and the Sun. So arguing whether can can grasp the truth about something is also not very helpful. We might be able grasp one of the truths that describe this something, but not all of them. Does it mean that we understand the object/phenomena in question, or that we don't?
Does questioning the existence of truth mean questioning the fact that things are a certain way, they cannot be several ways at once (like in Rashomon)? But things are changing all the time, things are multilayered. Things may be "one way" but this one way might be infinitely complicated.
difference between truth and lie; we think that other people are wrong; but they are not wrong if they don’t lie, if they have their own truth, even if it’s based on biases, on cognitive distortions. We cannot dismiss what that know, what they think, what they feel as wrong or not true. It’s their truth. It has a reason to exist. We need to understand this reason to take it into account, instead of dismissing it as unimportant or unreal. For example: a child says that there is a monster under his bed. This is not truth only when it’s lie, meaning when the child knows that there is no monster but still says there is a monster. If the child believes there is a monster, it is his truth, and it needs to be reckoned with. But even if it’s a lie, there is a truth behind it. There is a reason why the child is lying (maybe he is desperately needing attention?), and this truth needs to be reckoned with as well. We cannot just claim that the only way to determine and account for truth is to look under the bed to check if there is a monster underneath or not. It’s easy to say: if there is a monster, he is saying the truth. If there is no monster, he is not saying the truth. That’s only one part or aspect of truth. Truth in a bigger sense cannot be determined by simple checking. And the reason is that truth is not a binary (something is either true or isn’t). Truth is infinitely more complicated. That does not mean that we should not check under the bed, and should not point out to the child that there is no monster (if we don’t see one). But we cannot just stop there.
Truths are essentially meanings. Each object, and each situation, has many possible meanings in a sense that can be looked at from different perspectives, understood differently, prioritizing some angles over others. (Barthes's Mythologies)
All truths wait in all things.
--Walt Whitman
facts are considered truth but facts are also tricky. First, they are affected by language (how we formulate a fact matters, we can formulate fact differently- which of the versions is true? Fact is by definition limited. It’s like a frame to a little peace of reality. This piece is connected to many other things, directly and indirectly it is connected to everything else. Bot when you formulate the fact, you don’t show all these connections. Or you show some but no others. Fact is by definition incomplete (that’s why we want to say, “yes but” or “yes and”). Earth revolve around the sun. The sun revolves around around the center of our galaxy, so the earth has revolves around this center. Earth orbit is elliptical.
Both the Sun and the Earth orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system which is known as the solar system barycenter.
But if we look at it the other way around: saying that sun revolves around earth is clearly wrong, but this is what it looks like from our perspective. For practical reasons, we can (and sometimes have to) choose one truth but we should always remember that other truths are always lurking around. In social relationships, situation is infinitely more complicated. Like with power, truth works differently on micro and macro level of society. It’s easier to state a truthful statement when we are being specific: person A hit person B. But if we zoom out, situation becomes more complicated, and the more we zoom out the more complicated it is.
Escaping the binary there is truth vs there is no truth. We are now talking of situations when people see things differently, not when someone is lying. One thing is if I say they sun is yellow and you say it’s green because of how your eyes work. The other thing is when I know it usually appears yellow to human eye but I say green because I want to confuse you. Because of us/them mentality, we assume that people who disagree with are bad and prone to lying; but people honestly see things differently. So we will leave lying out of the question. Matters of interpretation are much trickier because interpretations cannot be just discarded. They hold their own truth. Say, if we have a disagreement and you think I said something to insult you. We argue about intent. I might have said it without the conscious intent to insult you but I was angry and used a phrase that I know can be interpreted as insulting. Or maybe I was honestly trying to be supportive but you interpreted it as insulting because you are depressed. examples/cases to discuss: my fear of flying; elephants and blind men; sun or earth at the center of solar system; my ring (looks different in different light). Truth and mental conditions (depression, anxiety). Arguing about whether you said something or not vs. interpretation of the phrase. A phrase is either uttered or not - there is no third option. But even thinking that you did not say something might be because you said it automatically (so it’s not a lie if you claim that you did not say it). Interpretation is another thing.
Challenges of logic: if you give five pieces of meat to a dog, how many pieces will the dog have? Is it logical to say 5, or 0 - because the dog will eat the meat?
from “we have no idea”:
” The quest to find a Theory of Everything is an attempt to do something we have never before accomplished in science: reveal the deepest, most basic truth of our universe.”
what does it mean to reveal the truth about the universe?
Do we even have tools for that (including language, which has not been very helpful)
the authors continue:
” So far, we have proven ourselves to be pretty good at building useful descriptions of the world around us. From chemistry to economics to monkey psychology, we’ve put a lot these descriptions to work improving our lives and helping us build societies, cure diseases, and get faster Internet speeds. That these descriptions are not fundamental and describe only emergent phenomena doesn’t make them any less useful or effective.“
there might be a difference between building useful descriptions and reaching the truth
we can have an explanation that the god of sun has the day begin when he starts crossing the sky in his fiery carriage. This will help us predict that every morning the sun will come up, but will it really be the truth?
By the same token, we can see particles as moving points in space or as excitation of the fabric of space (Quantum field theory states that particles are excitations of quantum fields that fill all of space) or as vibrations of tiny strings. Which one us truth?
A shared understanding of truth is important for the functioning of society. Examples: science and the justice system. We need to have this shared understanding for practical purposes. Having it does not mean that we cannot see its limitations.
Grannies from Bluey (fluidity/relativity of truth)
we live in the same physical reality, but interpretations differ
is the truth about physical reality or interpretations
Information: infodemic. Is the problem that somebody is trying to deceive others by pushing false information? Or is it that, because more voices can be heard, more information can be accessed, truth has become more contested, it’s more obvious that there is no one subjective truth?
We say "she is saying the truth" as if truth is something monolithic. Whatever a person is saying is made up of a combination of statements, some of them more or less factual, more or less colored by this person's opinions. When we read a book, see a film, listen to news, or talk to another person, we similarly encounter a mix of the three (facts, lie, opinion) or at least of the first two (admittedly, some people lie less than others). [scene from Inside Out where they say that facts and opinions get mixed up all the time].
Concerns about ChatGPT: it will make it even harder to get to the truth https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ezra-klein-show-2/episode/a-skeptical-take-on-the-a-i-revolution-210560921?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzKAAFMTcwtTM2MA&sseid=MzKAASMTI1MjAA&jobid=f3a7a616-9736-4693-9252-276da5a9d884
-not wars over truth but wars over meanings
truth, interpretation, perspective : same ring but I see different colors under different lighting. Is the ring really blue or purple? Or is it more important that the ring can be blue or purple depending on the light?
“Dharma is a potent Sanskrit word that is packed tight with meaning, like one of those little sponge animals that expands to six times its original size when you add water. Dharma means, variously, “path,” “teaching,” or “law.” For our purposes in this book it will mean primarily “vocation,” or “sacred duty.” It means, most of all—and in all cases—truth. Yogis believe that our greatest responsibility in life is to this inner possibility—this dharma—and they believe that every human being’s duty is to utterly, fully, and completely embody his own idiosyncratic dharma.”
From Oxford Handbook of the History of Anthropology, chapter by Irina Podgorny on fakes: "Fakes reveal the porosity of boundaries between the true and the false, and especially how these borders relate to the fears of the deceived."
Truth: we think we are special animals - rational beings - capable of grasping the truth about the world we live in. But what if we ca not grasp the Truth, what if all we can do is unveiling endless layers of meanings? Some of them help us live in the world, they are truths in their own right, but they are nothing like the Truth we claim to be capable to access.
It can be helpful to compare truths according to their functionality. Is the glass half full or half empty. Seeing it one way or the the other is a matter of perspective. But one of these perspectives might be more functional than the other under certain circumstances. For example, seeing the glass as half empty might prompt you to do something about it. Or it might take away enjoyment of life. But then we are getting to the connection with other truths: what is functional and under what conditions is other truths.
Truth: difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to to the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
So, truth is the way to grasp the way things are. If we dig deeper into the history of the word, we discover that it comes from a Proto-Indo-European root that meant "firm and solid". This root produced words that meant "security," "loyalty," "promise" and "faith" - something you can believe, rely on, trust. This might give us a hint why truth is so important for us. In the complex and often unpredictable world, it is important to have something we can absolutely believe it, something solid and firm in the chaos that surrounds us. In fact, having something to hold on is essential for our mental health for our happiness.
We can sometimes notice when other people hold onto their truth with an iron grip, with what Lawrence Wright (2013) calls crushing certainty. We might even feel the need (or the urge) criticize them for that ("How can't they see that they are wrong?"). But each one of us has something we deeply believe in, own own truth. I have it, and you have it too. It's not a bad thing, but it's something that I find important to name and acknowledge.
***
So, to sum it up, a tentative solution for truth-related conflicts should (in my opinion) include the following steps:
1) identify that a tension/conflict/disagreement/argument is about truth (if you feel strongly that you are right and your opponent is wrong, or that you do the things the right way and your opponent does them the wrong way, it is about truth)
2) notice your assumptions about truth (e.g., you think you know that truth and your opponent does not)
3) question your assumptions about truth (Is it possible for one person to know the truth of this situation? What might stand in the way of you or anybody else fully grasping the truth?)
4) complicate the conversation using humility (think about your personal biases and about general limitations of human brains; acknowledge that you don't know the truth before encouraging your opponent to do the same)
5) focus on finding functional truth rather than the absolute one
As human beings, we will not be able to access an absolute truth about any situation anyway. But we can settle down on a functional truth, which is the one that helps us do things together, and do them better. If we try to piece together some perfect all-encompassing truth, we will only find ourselves playing the frustrating Rashomon game. But if we replace this goal with an objective to achieve some specific positive results through collaboration, we might discover that piecing together some perfect puzzle or finding an ultimate agreement is not necessary. Or, to put it simply, it really does not matter who is right and who is wrong as long as we find a way to live in peace with each other, with the universe, and with ourselves.
From James Gee. Intro to discourse analysis, chapter 2,
"Humans are sure that out there in the world there are “things,” things like trees, bats, mountains, and houses. They are confident language that correctly describes these things. So, a statement like “Trees have green leaves” is “true” and a “fact.” However, while there are truths and facts, they are not “out there” in the world. They are products of how we humans as a specific type of being perceive the world and of how our brains operate.
The argument that there are really no “things” out there, but only a variety of experiences and interpretations of the world, draws upon insights from various disciplines including biology, physics, and philosophy. This perspective suggests that what we consider to be solid, independent objects in the world are constructs of our sensory perceptions and cognitive processes, rather than inherently existing entities.
...
Bats, birds, bees, cats, and humans perceive a flower in different ways. It has different sensual properties for each of them. Who is perceiving the “real” flower, the flower as it “really” is?
These differences in perception suggest that there is no single, objective way to experience the world. What we call “things” are interpretations of sensory data, constructed by our brains to create a coherent experience of the world.
Philosophical perspectives, particularly constructivism, argue that much of what we take for reality is constructed by our minds. According to this view our brains interpret sensory data and construct models of the world, which we then perceive as reality. Language and culture play significant roles in shaping how we categorize and understand the world, further suggesting that our conception of “things” is not universally shared or inherently correct.
Combining insights from biology, physics, and philosophy, the argument that there are no “things” out there, but rather a myriad of interpretations and experiences, gains strength. This perspective does not deny the existence of the physical world but suggests that our understanding and categorization of it are deeply influenced by our sensory perceptions, cognitive processes, and cultural constructs."
Even though perfect understanding is not possible, it does not mean that we should arrive for better understanding, always. If we see things from this perspective, it does not need to leave to paralyzing passivity, it should ideally lead the the mindset of humility and curiosity. Same with looking for/trying to achieve truth.
Relationships between truth and facts
Communication is so often not effective but it is also often working. The ineffectiveness is not a reason not to communicate. Same with searching truth.
We are afraid that if we suspects judgement this will paralyze our actions and people who do make judgements will take action and impact things
Truth = reality, but also past - what really happened
SOURCES:
Wright, L. (2013). Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief. Alfred A. Knopf.
Schrödinger's cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
Rashomon trailer
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
Oxford Handbook of Hellenistic philosophy
50 Cognitive Biases in the Modern World https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/
We Don't See Things As They Are: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/09/as-we-are/
ancient skepticism https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-skepticism/
The frame problem: meaning changes based on the context we include.
We can say that absolute truth is unattainable but it does not mean that we should not do our best to use functional truth, which might look like using best available tools to understand the would and communicate our understanding to others. Using accurate language is part of moving towards function truth (provide examples)
Knowledge does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be functional. And it is useful to acknowledge it it’s imperfection because this allows us to refine the knowledge instead of becoming paralyzed by certainty of dogmas.
particles traveling faster than the speed of light (examples of the trickiness of scientific truth "nothing can go faster than the speed of light")
Why other people don’t see/speak truth: they don’t see it or they lie (that’s what we assume if
Opposite to truth: lie or delusion; whoever does not know/say truth is inferior to whoever knows/says truth (value hierarchy)
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley
About this project: Start page
Whenever you feel that you are right and I am wrong, it is about truth.
Whenever my kids (6 and 8 years old) say to each other, "You called me [some silly word], and I did not like it!" -- "No, I did not call you that!" - it is about truth.
Probably as soon as children are able to have simplest conversations, they argue about it. And as people grow up, truth-related conflicts only get more intense. It turns out that you do not need to say the word "truth" to clash about it.
But, of course, truth is sometimes also expressly names as a value to strive for, as a solution to our problems: "We need to find out the truth. We need to make sure that everybody knows it."
Mission of The New York Times: Our Mission
We seek the truth and help people understand the world.
https://www.nytco.com/company/mission-and-values/
Truth = knowledge = reflection of reality in human mind. It’s an an assumption to think that such a reflection is even possible. Or… truth is precise reflection of reality. Precise in this case is a spectrum. It might be precise enough to help us do something (functional truth) but not absolutely precise.
Whether we realize that our concerns are about truth or not, certain assumptions remain unexamined. Individuals, communities, groups, and even whole countries entangled in bitter conflicts about truth have little hope of sorting their problems out unless they understand what beliefs are hiding behind their disagreements.
The bloodiest conflicts in history, just as the most trivial ones, have been about truth: "I see things the right way, and you see them the wrong way! My way is the only right way because I (unlike you) know how things really are!" (Of course, the bloodiest conflicts in history have also been about power, but power and truth and intertwined, which I explore elsewhere.) So what are the assumptions here?
Say, we have two people arguing about an issue (to make this more specific, you can imagine yourself engaged in a conversation with someone whose political views are different from yours). There are two surface assumptions guiding this interaction:
1) One of us can understand the issue we are arguing about = one of us can know the truth about it. (Each person usually thinks they are the one who knows the truth.)
2) If we disagree, only one of us understands the issue correctly. This person is right (this usually translates into "I am right"). The other person is wrong. This other person does not know the truth.
These are surface assumptions. They are fairly easy to notice, especially when pointed out. However, there are also deeper beliefs that are more difficult to see and even to talk about. Those assumptions are about the nature of truth, knowledge, and reality itself. It is challenging to notice and discuss them because this requires getting more abstract and philosophical. Nonetheless, if we want to get out of entrenched conflicts, we need to get to this level. Let's look at these deeper assumptions:
1) One can know the truth = one can understand the way things are.
2) Truth is what corresponds to reality. Reality is the way things are. Knowing the truth means understanding the way things are.
3) Reality exists.
For the purpose of this conversation, I am not going to tackle the third assumption at all. I am just going to say that this can be done and has been done in some philosophical and esoteric traditions, and in some artistic narratives (for example, in the Matrix series).
Deeper assumption #2 actually reflects the common definition of truth. Indeed, if we want to be able to talk about truth we need to separate reality (how things are) from reflection of this reality in people's heads (knowledge about or understanding of reality). These two things exist independently, and it is no trivial matter to assume that there is or can be a correspondence between them.
I insist that this is an assumption; however, for some people this, in itself, is an unquestionable truth, together with the first belief in the list of deeper assumptions above. Many people feel this way: "Of course, truth is something that corresponds to reality. Of course, one can know the truth. The problem is that some people cannot understand the truth or cannot handle it." What would mean to question this assumption? In essence, it would me to question that our perception of reality in fact corresponds to reality, or, in a more radical approach, to question that this correspondence is even possible. Reality exists, but is it knowable to the human mind?
This question has quite a long history. In the Western tradition, it has been first clearly formulated (as far as we know) by the ancient Greek philosophical school known as skeptics. Although there are different flavors of skepticism, most skeptics pointed out limitations of human knowledge and advocated for what they called suspension of judgment. All the main objections to this stance have already been formulated in the ancient world. First, how can one claim to know the fact that knowledge is impossible? One making this claim refutes their own claim, and their argument falls flat. Similarly, how can one claim that it is essential to suspend judgment? Isn't this itself a judgement? In a more practical sense, skeptics were criticized for making suggestions that simply were not feasible for the everyday life. We have to make judgements, we have to proclaim some courses or actions to be the right ones. Otherwise, we would have to engage in endless navel-gazing and remain passive in the face of life's challenges.
Ancient skeptics influenced such seminal European philosophers as Descartes, Hume, Locke, and Kant. In European philosophical tradition, ideas of skepticism were sometimes used to support the authority of the Church, which was presented as the only entity that could interpret God's ways. As a powerful reaction against the Church, thinkers and scholars gradually moved towards the opposite of the idea that human beings are incapable of knowing the universe. As a result, the belief in the supreme power of the human mind prevailed during the Enlightenment and turned into a new dogma that was impossible to question for a few centuries.
The twentieth century ushered in the era of new doubts in the human rationality. These doubts were explored not only in postmodernist philosophy, which might seem too enigmatic to be useful. Limitations of the human brain and of its ability to understand the world have been discussed by various scholars who explore society and human behavior. For example, we now know that multiples cognitive biases are an intrinsic aspect of out brains' functioning. Social and behavioral scientists do not use the term "truth", but it is hard to deny connections between their discoveries and the conversations about the (un)attainability of truth that philosophers have been having among themselves for centuries.
All right, you might say. So what if some scholars and thinkers claim that truth is unattainable. Maybe this claim is even valid in some obscure sense. But it is pretty much useless for practical purposes. Look at the the social progress: science, medicine, and law have developed to their current state exactly because we did not let ourselves be guided by any abstract and vague considerations about truth. Any social problems that still exist will gradually be solved the same way. If we encounter any injustices along the way, we must simply determine who understands the matter correctly and make sure the side that's right prevails.
International relations: do country have a right to interfere in other country's conflicts? Who decides that it is better not to interfere because the price can be high for the county that is interfering and those whose conflicts being interfered with? Should a country focus solely on protecting its interests or should it try to spread its values to others?
Opposing idea to acknowledging the complexity of truth: this might prevent from determined action. While we sit around considering the complexity, somebody else will act and shape the situation. They will win and we will so. So we cannot afford to consider the complexity of truth. The problem with this is that danger that we ourselves will become those who actions make the situation worse. If we choose crushing certainty about a specific truth, we run the risk of hurting other and ourselves. Political leaders who chose actions that hurt others often were absolutely sure that they are doing the good thing, that it's the right way to act. They were absolutely sure about their truth.
To truth: misinformation can be dangerous
https://www.theedgemedia.org/manufacturing-outrage-one-pet-at-a-time-disinformation-hyper-partisan-media-big-tech/
Read this article. Note in this story how people can misuse the idea of the relativism of truth.
How can we still sustain the argument that understanding the complexity of truth is important?
From Why Buddhism Is True:
“Still, ultimately, natural selection cares about only one thing (or, I should say, “cares”—in quotes—about only one thing, since natural selection is just a blind process, not a conscious designer). And that one thing is getting genes into the next generation. Genetically based traits that in the past contributed to genetic proliferation have flourished, while traits that didn’t have fallen by the wayside. And the traits that have survived this test include mental traits—structures and algorithms that are built into the brain and shape our everyday experience. So if you ask the question “What kinds of perceptions and thoughts and feelings guide us through life each day?” the answer, at the most basic level, isn’t “The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that give us an accurate picture of reality.” No, at the most basic level the answer is “The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that helped our ancestors get genes into the next generation.” Whether those thoughts and feelings and perceptions give us a true view of reality is, strictly speaking, beside the point. As a result, they sometimes don’t. Our brains are designed to, among other things, delude us.”
“Though these feelings—anxiety, despair, hatred, greed—aren’t delusional the way a nightmare is delusional, if you examine them closely, you’ll see that they have elements of delusion, elements you’d be better off without. And if you think you would be better off, imagine how the whole world would be. After all, feelings like despair and hatred and greed can foster wars and atrocities. So if what I’m saying is true—if these basic sources of human suffering and human cruelty are indeed in large part the product of delusion—there is value in exposing this delusion to the light.
Sounds logical, right? But here’s a problem that I started to appreciate shortly after I wrote my book about evolutionary psychology: the exact value of exposing a delusion to the light depends on what kind of light you’re talking about. Sometimes understanding the ultimate source of your suffering doesn’t, by itself, help very much.
…
And that’s true of many sources of delusion that I’ll discuss in this book: they’re more about illusion—about things not being quite what they seem—than about delusion in the more dramatic sense of that word. Still, by the end of the book, I’ll have argued that all of these illusions do add up to a very large-scale warping of reality, a disorientation that is as significant and consequential as out-and-out delusion."
Hoffman, D. (2019). The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. W. W. Norton.
Musser, G. (2023). Putting ourselves back in the equation: Why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
"Originally published in German in 1935, this monograph anticipated solutions to problems of scientific progress, the truth of scientific fact and the role of error in science now associated with the work of Thomas Kuhn and others. Arguing that every scientific concept and theory—including his own—is culturally conditioned, Fleck was appreciably ahead of his time. And as Kuhn observes in his foreword, “Though much has occurred since its publication, it remains a brilliant and largely unexploited resource.”
“To many scientists just as to many historians and philosophers of science facts are things that simply are the case: they are discovered through properly passive observation of natural reality. To such views Fleck replies that facts are invented, not discovered. Moreover, the appearance of scientific facts as discovered things is itself a social construction, a made thing. A work of transparent brilliance, one of the most significant contributions toward a thoroughly sociological account of scientific knowledge.”—Steven Shapin, Science"
We need to see the paradox of truth-seeking. It is something very important, but we should do it while always keeping in mind that absolute truth might be ever-elusive. Truth is a paradox because, while debating on an issue, we can be simultaneously right about some of its aspects and wrong about others. So can our opponent. Through a respectful dialogue, we might both refine our understanding.
Obviously, we need to look for truth in a sense of better understanding of things because this understanding will help us make better choices in our actions. There are real problems that society is facing, and we cannot just say that we cannot do anything because we cannot know the truth. My belief is that skepticism our ability to gain truth can actually help us move forward achieving our goals in a move efficient way.
This is a popular strategy in modern political and cultural debates. It probably has always been popular. SOLUTION B, on the other hand, starts with accepting that truth is complicated and no one really has full access to it. In this sense, in many arguments, there is no "right" side and "wrong" side. I believe in this second solution, but formulating my ideas has not been easy.
I have previously tried to capture my understanding in the essay "You Are Not Wrong, You Are Incomplete" and in my book Media Is Us (for instance, in the section "The Worlds We Live In" (pp. 41-45)). However, I have to acknowledge that whatever I have written so far (including this very page) is merely my attempts to solve this conundrum. The question of truth is perhaps one of the most difficult and important ones humanity has grappled with, because it is essentially about understanding the world and ourselves; it is probably, to borrow from Douglas Adams, the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. And no, the answer is not 42. It is also not "I am right, you are wrong", not even "we are all right and we are all wrong" or "nobody is right or wrong" or some concise variation of those statements. There is no simple answer.
In Media Is Us, I wrote that when we think about the contradictory nature of truth, "[a] well-known Indian tale about three blind men and an elephant comes to mind. According to the story, after touching the animal, each man came to a very different conclusion about it. They were all right, of course, but they were also wrong because every person argued that he was the only one who had found the truth. To understand what the elephant is, they would have needed to acknowledge the validity of each other’s experiences and to combine them, however contradictory those seemed to be" (p. 41). In this sense, I argued, we are all probably nothing more than "a bunch of 'blind men' studiously touching a rather indifferent 'elephant,' for the universe does not seem to care much what we think about it" (p. 43).
For a while I naively thought that the blind men and the elephant metaphor might help us make SOLUTION B real. I saw it this way: First, we acknowledge that everybody sees the world from different perspectives. Then we combine these perspectives (somehow), and voila! This did not seem particularly easy to accomplish. How do we combine everybody's perspectives in practice? But I guess it made me feel better to think that the ultimate Truth is kind of one big puzzle, and everybody holds a piece of it. And if we just manage to put these pieces together somehow, we will finally understand how things really are! But something in this solution was not clicking.
So I found another metaphor, an even less optimistic one this time: Rashomon. Rashomon is the name of a film directed by Akira Kurosawa, and it is based on a short story "In a Grove" by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. In this story, we hear different people presenting their versions of dramatic events that involve betrayal, violence, and death. If the reader (or viewer of the film) hopes to piece together the truth by the end of the narrative, she will be bitterly disappointed. The story is teasing and frustrating: no matter how much you try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, you might have to admit that is no ultimate answer, no all-encompassing truth to grasp, no way to understand what happened in the grove.
But something must have happened there! And if we work really hard, we should be able to find out what it was. Or, to bring back the first metaphor, the elephant does exist, so no matter how difficult it is for us to understand it, with the right tools it can be done.
This logic seems to make perfect sense. In an ordinary world that human being inhabit (not the quantum one, so let's put Schrödinger's cat aside for now), a specific glass either stands on a specific table, or it does not stand there. Both cannot be true at the same time. A Sun either revolves around the Earth, or it doesn't. And if you accuse me of slapping you, either I did it or I did not. Hence, if you argue that I slapped you and I argue that I did not, one of us must inevitably be right and the other one must be wrong. This simple logic explains why SOLUTION A outlined above has always been so attractive.
Indeed, in some cases SOLUTION A is the best one, and it works. If one of my kids says that the other one called him a silly word, and if I happen to have recorded their interaction, it is enough to listen to the recording to determine what actually happened. It could be helpful because then I can talk to the kids and explain the importance of not calling each other silly names that they don't like. Alas, most situations are infinitely more complex than that. (And I do not record my kids' interactions.)
It helps to distinguish between (a) reality = the way things are (and they certainly are some way!) and (b) truth = reflection in our minds and words of how things are (and this is where it gets tricky). I do not suggest questioning the existence of reality. The glass is either on the table or it is not; the Sun either revolves around the Earth or it does not; I either slapped you or I did not. In all these cases there is no third option that would somehow combine the first two. There is a reality that - theoretically - should be available for grasping. But I do suggest questioning human ability to capture actual complex reality through our mind and communicate about this reality using language. Because the actual reality is indeed infinitely more complex than a glass on a table. Reality = the way things are, where "things" are myriads of elements of the universe and their complex interrelationships.
Let's recap. When I argue with my political opponent and say (in essence), "You are wrong and I am right," what I am saying is, "I know the truth and you don't." It's good, first of all, to acknowledge the presence of the idea of truth hiding in this statement, as well as our assumptions about truth. And then it's good to wonder what it really means to know a/the truth about a topic or an issue. Because this topic or issue is likely to be much more complex than a question of whether there is a glass on the table, it is likely that each one of us has a grasp of some aspects of the topic or issue in question, but not all of the aspects. Each one of us has a perspective which is in some ways valid but is also incomplete, because it is after all a perspective: you see an issue from a certain point, meaning that you don't see it from other points. And this perspective is a certain truth, but not the whole truth. This is when the blind men and the elephant metaphor is helpful. In some situations we, indeed, could immensely benefit from learning to accept that our perspective/truth is partial and to combine it with our opponent's point of view in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.
But this strategy does not always work. In fact, it often does not work, and we find ourselves in the confusing Rashomon-like situations. Why is that? Because for the blind men and the elephant metaphor to apply, our minds need to accurately reflect at least some aspects of reality most of the time. So, say, if we are arguing about an issue that have N amount of aspects, we just need a person per each of these aspects, then we need to record their perspectives and put them together. And - boom! - we have a complete picture. Following this logic, we might argue that, if we cannot finish the puzzle, it's simply because some voices are silenced and some perspective are ignored. This can certainly be a part of the problem, but trying to make sure that all voices are included - that all possible points if view are represented - is probably not going to be an ultimate solution, no matter how important it is to do.
The reason for our inability to grasp the truth is that the human brain often does not accurately reflect reality, it does not even accurately reflect its aspects. Why is that? Are we stupid? Are we flawed? No, the reason is that our individual minds are just not made for that. And this is not even a particularly new idea.
As an old adage goes, we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. More specifically, each person sees things as this person is. And each person is a combination of human nature, individual traits, and all the circumstances of this person's life. There are some cognitive biases that we all share, but there are also individual ways of seeing the world that emerged as a reaction to our experiences; some of these ways of seeing the world are coping mechanisms that we developed to deal with less-than-ideal circumstances. You might think: "If only I (or my opponents) could get rid of all these biases and distortions, I (or they) can finally see the truth!" Unfortunately, it does not work this way. Cognitive biases are unalienable aspects of our brain functioning, and the line between insight and delusion can be surprisingly hard to find (and who's to say that people looking for this line are not somewhat delusional themselves?).
We might need to admit that our hope to be right (= to know how things really are = to grasp the/a truth) is nothing but a result of human hubris. For it's a sign of hubris to believe that because human beings are oh-so-special they can understand the world better than other (less rational or plainly irrational) animals; just as it is a sign of hubris for one human being to believe that this person has a way better view on the elusive elephant than their neighbor with, say, a different political affiliation.
The human brain, or a particular individual's brain, does not properly reflect reality not because this brain does not work well. Actually, our brains work perfectly fine most of that time, no matter how we live our lives. Our brain gives us access to the kind of truth we need, and that is not some kind of perfect absolute truth that the statement "I am right" presupposes. Our understanding of the world around us is supposed to be, first and foremost, functional. Which means that our "truth" is meant to simply help us survive as individuals and, most importantly, as a species.
Everything I have written so far is not meant to lead to passivity or despair: "If I cannot understand the world the way it is, there is no reason to try." Of course there is a reason to try, and to do the best we can. We should be curious explorers and tireless scholars. We should create new tools trying to understand the world as much as we can. We should compare our worldviews and disagree about them with passion. But we should also keep in mind that the truth we are dealing with is first and foremost functional.
From « good inside » : « Our ability to experience many seemingly oppositional thoughts and feelings at once—to know that you can experience several truths simultaneously—is key to our mental health. Psychologist Philip Bromberg may have said it best: “Health is the ability to stand in the spaces between realities without losing any of them—the capacity to feel like one self while being many.”*…. we are our healthiest selves when we can see that two (or more!) things are true.…We don’t have to choose a single truth. In fact, in most areas of life, we have multiple realities that don’t exactly add up. They simply coexist, and the best we can do is acknowledge all of them. »
difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to do the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
And even if we take a specific aspect of the universe, it is unlikely to be described by one specific "truth" - one statement about it. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but there are also a million and one truths that can describe the Earth and the Sun. So arguing whether can can grasp the truth about something is also not very helpful. We might be able grasp one of the truths that describe this something, but not all of them. Does it mean that we understand the object/phenomena in question, or that we don't?
Does questioning the existence of truth mean questioning the fact that things are a certain way, they cannot be several ways at once (like in Rashomon)? But things are changing all the time, things are multilayered. Things may be "one way" but this one way might be infinitely complicated.
difference between truth and lie; we think that other people are wrong; but they are not wrong if they don’t lie, if they have their own truth, even if it’s based on biases, on cognitive distortions. We cannot dismiss what that know, what they think, what they feel as wrong or not true. It’s their truth. It has a reason to exist. We need to understand this reason to take it into account, instead of dismissing it as unimportant or unreal. For example: a child says that there is a monster under his bed. This is not truth only when it’s lie, meaning when the child knows that there is no monster but still says there is a monster. If the child believes there is a monster, it is his truth, and it needs to be reckoned with. But even if it’s a lie, there is a truth behind it. There is a reason why the child is lying (maybe he is desperately needing attention?), and this truth needs to be reckoned with as well. We cannot just claim that the only way to determine and account for truth is to look under the bed to check if there is a monster underneath or not. It’s easy to say: if there is a monster, he is saying the truth. If there is no monster, he is not saying the truth. That’s only one part or aspect of truth. Truth in a bigger sense cannot be determined by simple checking. And the reason is that truth is not a binary (something is either true or isn’t). Truth is infinitely more complicated. That does not mean that we should not check under the bed, and should not point out to the child that there is no monster (if we don’t see one). But we cannot just stop there.
Truths are essentially meanings. Each object, and each situation, has many possible meanings in a sense that can be looked at from different perspectives, understood differently, prioritizing some angles over others. (Barthes's Mythologies)
All truths wait in all things.
--Walt Whitman
facts are considered truth but facts are also tricky. First, they are affected by language (how we formulate a fact matters, we can formulate fact differently- which of the versions is true? Fact is by definition limited. It’s like a frame to a little peace of reality. This piece is connected to many other things, directly and indirectly it is connected to everything else. Bot when you formulate the fact, you don’t show all these connections. Or you show some but no others. Fact is by definition incomplete (that’s why we want to say, “yes but” or “yes and”). Earth revolve around the sun. The sun revolves around around the center of our galaxy, so the earth has revolves around this center. Earth orbit is elliptical.
Both the Sun and the Earth orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system which is known as the solar system barycenter.
But if we look at it the other way around: saying that sun revolves around earth is clearly wrong, but this is what it looks like from our perspective. For practical reasons, we can (and sometimes have to) choose one truth but we should always remember that other truths are always lurking around. In social relationships, situation is infinitely more complicated. Like with power, truth works differently on micro and macro level of society. It’s easier to state a truthful statement when we are being specific: person A hit person B. But if we zoom out, situation becomes more complicated, and the more we zoom out the more complicated it is.
Escaping the binary there is truth vs there is no truth. We are now talking of situations when people see things differently, not when someone is lying. One thing is if I say they sun is yellow and you say it’s green because of how your eyes work. The other thing is when I know it usually appears yellow to human eye but I say green because I want to confuse you. Because of us/them mentality, we assume that people who disagree with are bad and prone to lying; but people honestly see things differently. So we will leave lying out of the question. Matters of interpretation are much trickier because interpretations cannot be just discarded. They hold their own truth. Say, if we have a disagreement and you think I said something to insult you. We argue about intent. I might have said it without the conscious intent to insult you but I was angry and used a phrase that I know can be interpreted as insulting. Or maybe I was honestly trying to be supportive but you interpreted it as insulting because you are depressed. examples/cases to discuss: my fear of flying; elephants and blind men; sun or earth at the center of solar system; my ring (looks different in different light). Truth and mental conditions (depression, anxiety). Arguing about whether you said something or not vs. interpretation of the phrase. A phrase is either uttered or not - there is no third option. But even thinking that you did not say something might be because you said it automatically (so it’s not a lie if you claim that you did not say it). Interpretation is another thing.
Challenges of logic: if you give five pieces of meat to a dog, how many pieces will the dog have? Is it logical to say 5, or 0 - because the dog will eat the meat?
from “we have no idea”:
” The quest to find a Theory of Everything is an attempt to do something we have never before accomplished in science: reveal the deepest, most basic truth of our universe.”
what does it mean to reveal the truth about the universe?
Do we even have tools for that (including language, which has not been very helpful)
the authors continue:
” So far, we have proven ourselves to be pretty good at building useful descriptions of the world around us. From chemistry to economics to monkey psychology, we’ve put a lot these descriptions to work improving our lives and helping us build societies, cure diseases, and get faster Internet speeds. That these descriptions are not fundamental and describe only emergent phenomena doesn’t make them any less useful or effective.“
there might be a difference between building useful descriptions and reaching the truth
we can have an explanation that the god of sun has the day begin when he starts crossing the sky in his fiery carriage. This will help us predict that every morning the sun will come up, but will it really be the truth?
By the same token, we can see particles as moving points in space or as excitation of the fabric of space (Quantum field theory states that particles are excitations of quantum fields that fill all of space) or as vibrations of tiny strings. Which one us truth?
A shared understanding of truth is important for the functioning of society. Examples: science and the justice system. We need to have this shared understanding for practical purposes. Having it does not mean that we cannot see its limitations.
Grannies from Bluey (fluidity/relativity of truth)
we live in the same physical reality, but interpretations differ
is the truth about physical reality or interpretations
Information: infodemic. Is the problem that somebody is trying to deceive others by pushing false information? Or is it that, because more voices can be heard, more information can be accessed, truth has become more contested, it’s more obvious that there is no one subjective truth?
We say "she is saying the truth" as if truth is something monolithic. Whatever a person is saying is made up of a combination of statements, some of them more or less factual, more or less colored by this person's opinions. When we read a book, see a film, listen to news, or talk to another person, we similarly encounter a mix of the three (facts, lie, opinion) or at least of the first two (admittedly, some people lie less than others). [scene from Inside Out where they say that facts and opinions get mixed up all the time].
Concerns about ChatGPT: it will make it even harder to get to the truth https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ezra-klein-show-2/episode/a-skeptical-take-on-the-a-i-revolution-210560921?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzKAAFMTcwtTM2MA&sseid=MzKAASMTI1MjAA&jobid=f3a7a616-9736-4693-9252-276da5a9d884
-not wars over truth but wars over meanings
truth, interpretation, perspective : same ring but I see different colors under different lighting. Is the ring really blue or purple? Or is it more important that the ring can be blue or purple depending on the light?
“Dharma is a potent Sanskrit word that is packed tight with meaning, like one of those little sponge animals that expands to six times its original size when you add water. Dharma means, variously, “path,” “teaching,” or “law.” For our purposes in this book it will mean primarily “vocation,” or “sacred duty.” It means, most of all—and in all cases—truth. Yogis believe that our greatest responsibility in life is to this inner possibility—this dharma—and they believe that every human being’s duty is to utterly, fully, and completely embody his own idiosyncratic dharma.”
From Oxford Handbook of the History of Anthropology, chapter by Irina Podgorny on fakes: "Fakes reveal the porosity of boundaries between the true and the false, and especially how these borders relate to the fears of the deceived."
Truth: we think we are special animals - rational beings - capable of grasping the truth about the world we live in. But what if we ca not grasp the Truth, what if all we can do is unveiling endless layers of meanings? Some of them help us live in the world, they are truths in their own right, but they are nothing like the Truth we claim to be capable to access.
It can be helpful to compare truths according to their functionality. Is the glass half full or half empty. Seeing it one way or the the other is a matter of perspective. But one of these perspectives might be more functional than the other under certain circumstances. For example, seeing the glass as half empty might prompt you to do something about it. Or it might take away enjoyment of life. But then we are getting to the connection with other truths: what is functional and under what conditions is other truths.
Truth: difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to to the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
So, truth is the way to grasp the way things are. If we dig deeper into the history of the word, we discover that it comes from a Proto-Indo-European root that meant "firm and solid". This root produced words that meant "security," "loyalty," "promise" and "faith" - something you can believe, rely on, trust. This might give us a hint why truth is so important for us. In the complex and often unpredictable world, it is important to have something we can absolutely believe it, something solid and firm in the chaos that surrounds us. In fact, having something to hold on is essential for our mental health for our happiness.
We can sometimes notice when other people hold onto their truth with an iron grip, with what Lawrence Wright (2013) calls crushing certainty. We might even feel the need (or the urge) criticize them for that ("How can't they see that they are wrong?"). But each one of us has something we deeply believe in, own own truth. I have it, and you have it too. It's not a bad thing, but it's something that I find important to name and acknowledge.
***
So, to sum it up, a tentative solution for truth-related conflicts should (in my opinion) include the following steps:
1) identify that a tension/conflict/disagreement/argument is about truth (if you feel strongly that you are right and your opponent is wrong, or that you do the things the right way and your opponent does them the wrong way, it is about truth)
2) notice your assumptions about truth (e.g., you think you know that truth and your opponent does not)
3) question your assumptions about truth (Is it possible for one person to know the truth of this situation? What might stand in the way of you or anybody else fully grasping the truth?)
4) complicate the conversation using humility (think about your personal biases and about general limitations of human brains; acknowledge that you don't know the truth before encouraging your opponent to do the same)
5) focus on finding functional truth rather than the absolute one
As human beings, we will not be able to access an absolute truth about any situation anyway. But we can settle down on a functional truth, which is the one that helps us do things together, and do them better. If we try to piece together some perfect all-encompassing truth, we will only find ourselves playing the frustrating Rashomon game. But if we replace this goal with an objective to achieve some specific positive results through collaboration, we might discover that piecing together some perfect puzzle or finding an ultimate agreement is not necessary. Or, to put it simply, it really does not matter who is right and who is wrong as long as we find a way to live in peace with each other, with the universe, and with ourselves.
From James Gee. Intro to discourse analysis, chapter 2,
"Humans are sure that out there in the world there are “things,” things like trees, bats, mountains, and houses. They are confident language that correctly describes these things. So, a statement like “Trees have green leaves” is “true” and a “fact.” However, while there are truths and facts, they are not “out there” in the world. They are products of how we humans as a specific type of being perceive the world and of how our brains operate.
The argument that there are really no “things” out there, but only a variety of experiences and interpretations of the world, draws upon insights from various disciplines including biology, physics, and philosophy. This perspective suggests that what we consider to be solid, independent objects in the world are constructs of our sensory perceptions and cognitive processes, rather than inherently existing entities.
...
Bats, birds, bees, cats, and humans perceive a flower in different ways. It has different sensual properties for each of them. Who is perceiving the “real” flower, the flower as it “really” is?
These differences in perception suggest that there is no single, objective way to experience the world. What we call “things” are interpretations of sensory data, constructed by our brains to create a coherent experience of the world.
Philosophical perspectives, particularly constructivism, argue that much of what we take for reality is constructed by our minds. According to this view our brains interpret sensory data and construct models of the world, which we then perceive as reality. Language and culture play significant roles in shaping how we categorize and understand the world, further suggesting that our conception of “things” is not universally shared or inherently correct.
Combining insights from biology, physics, and philosophy, the argument that there are no “things” out there, but rather a myriad of interpretations and experiences, gains strength. This perspective does not deny the existence of the physical world but suggests that our understanding and categorization of it are deeply influenced by our sensory perceptions, cognitive processes, and cultural constructs."
Even though perfect understanding is not possible, it does not mean that we should arrive for better understanding, always. If we see things from this perspective, it does not need to leave to paralyzing passivity, it should ideally lead the the mindset of humility and curiosity. Same with looking for/trying to achieve truth.
Relationships between truth and facts
Communication is so often not effective but it is also often working. The ineffectiveness is not a reason not to communicate. Same with searching truth.
We are afraid that if we suspects judgement this will paralyze our actions and people who do make judgements will take action and impact things
Truth = reality, but also past - what really happened
SOURCES:
Wright, L. (2013). Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief. Alfred A. Knopf.
Schrödinger's cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
Rashomon trailer
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
Oxford Handbook of Hellenistic philosophy
50 Cognitive Biases in the Modern World https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/
We Don't See Things As They Are: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/09/as-we-are/
ancient skepticism https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-skepticism/
The frame problem: meaning changes based on the context we include.
We can say that absolute truth is unattainable but it does not mean that we should not do our best to use functional truth, which might look like using best available tools to understand the would and communicate our understanding to others. Using accurate language is part of moving towards function truth (provide examples)
Knowledge does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be functional. And it is useful to acknowledge it it’s imperfection because this allows us to refine the knowledge instead of becoming paralyzed by certainty of dogmas.
particles traveling faster than the speed of light (examples of the trickiness of scientific truth "nothing can go faster than the speed of light")
Why other people don’t see/speak truth: they don’t see it or they lie (that’s what we assume if
Opposite to truth: lie or delusion; whoever does not know/say truth is inferior to whoever knows/says truth (value hierarchy)
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley
About this project: Start page