Truth: Functional vs. Absolute
PAGE IN PROGRESS
This is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning.
Thank you for your patience!
This is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning.
Thank you for your patience!
For me, the concept of truth is closely linked to the issue of polarization. Polarization is a clash of perspectives and different approaches to problem-solving. Understood this way, polarization is a clash of truths. I believe that fighting polarization requires acknowledging that different perspectives have value and can be compatible, even if at the first sight they look very different. In other words, it is essential to realize the existence and importance of multiple truths. But it also makes sense why many people feel that talking about truth as something relative ("there is your truth and there is my truth") is unproductive and even dangerous. These people, with good reason, feel that while we philosophize about the relativity of truth, real problems remain unsolved or worsen.
It is possible to reconcile these clashing perceptions if we distinguish between two types of truth: absolute and functional. Seeing this distinction can allow us to talk about the importance of fighting lies and misinformation, while at the same acknowledging that each of us (no matter our experience, political affiliation, level of education, etc.) can only claim to know a partial truth about the world. So, we do need each other to make this world better, and to make sure it is not getting worse. This shift of perspective can help us work on solving society's problems together.
Continue reading to explore the concepts of functional and absolute truth, and why distinguishing between them is crucial for both individuals and society.
***************************************************************
"Truth" is a big word. It is a complicated word. And it is a contested word. I share my ideas about truth with some trepidation.
But I do share them, because I believe that thinking deeply and open-mindedly about what we mean by truth can help us overcome conflicts and become happier individuals in a more balanced society. This, I believe, is not going to be possible without acknowledging that the word "truth" hides some of the toughest puzzles of the human condition, or maybe even of the whole universe.
I don’t think there is a simple answer to the biggest truth-related question: Is there truth out there? I don't think the answer is either "yes, there is" or "no, there is not." This uncertainty does not mean that we cannot do anything here and now when we feel that obscuring truth (or truths) is essential for dealing with problems facing individuals or society. But as we act here and now, we should always be careful, because things are usually more complicated than they seem to be.
Even when we do not say the word "truth," we think about it and talk about it all the time. Whenever we disagree, it is about truth (and, let's face it, people disagree a lot). Whenever you feel that you are right (and I am wrong), it is about truth. Whenever kids 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 truth ("My toy!" - "No, MY!"). And as people grow up, truth-related conflicts only get more intense.
I would even argue that 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!" Whether we realize that our conflicts are about truth or not, certain assumptions remain unexamined. Individuals, communities, groups, and even whole countries entangled in bitter conflicts have little hope of sorting their problems out unless they understand what core beliefs are hiding behind their disagreements.
Although we not have to use word "truth" to argue about it, truth is often explicitly named 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." The New York Times talks about truth in its mission: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world." Truth is usually perceived as a universal value. Knowing the truth is seen as a good thing, although there is also the idea that dealing with truth can be sometimes very hard—"Truth hurts"; "You can't handle the truth"—and sometimes a certain amount of distortion is believed to be preferable to knowing the whole truth. This, however, does not contradict the fact that we mostly perceive truth as something positive. By the same token, we perceive as mostly negative everything that appears to be opposite to truth: lies, falsehoods, misinformation, disinformation, illusion, delusion, distortion.
In this essay, I argue that when we talk, think, or debate about truth, we usually refer to absolute truth. This happens even--or especially--when we do not use the word "truth" explicitly (for example, when the conversation revolves around "I am right, you are wrong" claims). My argument is easy to check. If it was not for our assumptions about absolute truth, why would we fight about it? If we start a conversation by acknowledging that each of knows some important but limited truth, there would not be any need for an argument in the first place.
Yet we do argue, and we think that finding out and asserting the truth is important because truth is so much better than lies or delusions. And on the surface, it makes sense. It makes sense to want to know the truth about something rather than believe misinformation about what's going on. But let's ask ourselves: Why is truth good and misinformation/lies/delusions bad?
The reason is pragmatic and practical. We want to know the truth (and/or we want others to know and accept it) in order to be able to make right decisions and choices--and to act accordingly. For example, most people now agree that it was not good for scientists of the past to think that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Why? Because clinging to this misleading belief made scientific progress impossible, and scientific progress allows us to do new things, or do old things in more efficient ways. Not knowing or accepting the truth is usually seen as something that can lead to mistakes, some of which can be costly. In addition, knowing or accepting the truth is often considered to be crucial from the ethical, moral point of view--because it allows us to make correct, morally right choices. To sum it up, we want to know the truth (and want others to accept it) in order to make right decisions--decisions that allow us to choose efficient actions that do not cause harm.
And why do we think that knowing the truth allows us to make correct choices? This has something to do with reality. Reality is, quite simply, the way things are. Most people agree that there is some sort of reality out there that must be reckoned with. Truth can be then defined as reflection of this reality in our minds. And lies/misinformation is distortion of this reality in our minds. Having reality reflected in our minds correctly helps us make good decisions about how to deal with reality. So, we will agree (for the purpose of this conversation) that there is some kind of reality out there and that it can be reflected in our minds, which is usually called knowing. "Reality" and "knowing" (also "knowledge") are all essential concepts in the conversation about truth.
So far, I hope my argument appears logical. However, we need to ask ourselves a few questions about it. We have decided that reality exists and we are not going to question this assumption (though some thinkers do that, and this questioning can be also interesting). But, can this reality even be accurately reflected in our minds? In other words, can we have knowledge about reality? Duh! As human beings, we can and do have plenty of knowledge about reality. We are able to navigate the world and manage our lives. We have science, we have technology. Obviously, we know a thing or two about reality, otherwise we would not be able to live in it!
A thing or two, indeed. We know some stuff, which helps us to get around. But can we be certain that what we have is some kind of absolutely precise and all-encompassing knowledge about what's going on out there? We can't. And... that's okay. What's not okay, in my opinion, is when we do not realize the difference between functional truth(s) about reality and absolute truth. That's when we get stuck in conflicts based "You are right, I am wrong!" binary. The way out of these conflicts starts with being open to explore why people see things from different perspectives. If we all operate with functional truths, what do these truths allow us to accomplish, and how might they create problems?
Let me repeat that: there is no shame is using functional truths. There is no shame in not knowing everything. We do not actually need to have absolutely precise knowledge about reality in order to be able to take actions that are most efficient and least harmful, under the circumstances. It turns out that our knowledge can be precise enough to do stuff that is reasonably efficient and not too harmful, without us having some absolute knowledge about what's going on. Functional knowledge allows us to solve real problems, and that's great. BUT, we should not forget that functional knowledge is limited, and solutions that it allows us to find are helpful but not ideal.
For thousands of years, human beings have been using functional truths while constantly refining their knowledge about reality (and arguing about it). We also know that in the process people have made mistakes and caused harm, so there is a reason to strive toward more precise reflection of reality in our minds. To sum it up: We do not need absolutely precise knowledge to make fairly decent decisions and get by in the world. Not knowing the whole truth should not been seen as a bad thing. Because if we see it as a bad thing and are reluctant to acknowledge that we don't know the whole truth (that is, absolute truth), then we likely won't be able to keep refining our knowledge, as we will be stuck in the misleading certainty that we already know enough.
If you are still not entirely persuaded, I will add that the idea of unattainability of some absolute truth is actually reflected in the scientific method, which is considered by many to be the most reliable way of getting knowledge about reality. You are not supposed to say, "This scientific theory is true." A theory is considered usable if it has not been falsified--that is, if nobody showed that it is wrong. Note that saying that something is "not wrong" is not the same as saying, "it is true." "Not wrong" means good enough for practical purposes (it helps us interact with reality in the most efficient and least harmful way, under the circumstances). A lot has been said about problems that arise when scientists start arguing that what they have discovered is some absolute truth: absolutely efficient and harmless. These scientists ignore their own mistakes and the harm they cause. For that reason, scientists are encouraged to admit limitations of their knowledge and their methods. This does not mean stopping the pursuit of truth. But it does mean being more careful and more humble about the process. And maybe we should treat everything we know as a theory: something that can helps us get around but is not an absolute truth, something that can be always improved to get us closer to understanding reality. (Of course, there is always a danger of turning this into a competition: "My theory is closer to truth than yours!")
By the way, the ideas I am laying out here are not new, not new at all. Multiple scholars--not just philosophers but also scientists who study people and their behavior--argue that we do not know as much stuff about reality as we claim to know. Moreover, both Western and Eastern thinkers came to this realization hundreds of years ago. (Which does not mean that everybody agrees about the nature or reality, truth, and knowledge. Obviously, truth remains a contested concept, with many people feeling very upset when truth--which often means their truth--is questioned.)
In the Western tradition, doubts about human ability to access reality were first clearly formulated 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 were formulated already 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 choose some courses of action as the right ones. Otherwise, we will be stuck in the endless navel-gazing and remain passive in the face of life's challenges. (We can recast this ancient debate in the terms I use in this essay: absolute and functional truth. While the ancient skeptics argued that people do not have access to absolute truth, their opponents pointed out that functional truth is attainable and should be something we strive to uncover. And perhaps both of them were right!)
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 toward 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 hard to question for a few centuries. So, in the Western world debates about truth have raged between two extremes: extreme skepticism on one end and absolute belief in power of the human mind on the other end.
About a century ago, the pendulum of the debate swung back quite dramatically. The twentieth century ushered in the era of new doubts in the human rationality in the Western world. Limitations of the human brain and of its ability to understand the world have been investigated by scholars who explore society and human behavior (notably, psychologists). For example, we now know that multiple cognitive biases are an intrinsic aspect of out brains' functioning. Sociologists (notably, symbolic interactionists) point out that we perceive the world through meanings (ideas, associations, memories, values) that exist in our minds. In the area of abstract thinking, philosophy of postmodernism took doubts about the accessibility of truth to the new level. Social and behavioral scientists do not use the term "truth", but there clearly are connections between scientific claims about the human brain's complicated relationship with reality and the conversations among philosophers about the (un)attainability of truth.
It the Eastern philosophical tradition, Buddhism looms large in the conversation about truth. You can see a separate page where I discuss intersections between symbolic interactionism and Buddhism. On that page and here, I will offer some quote from the book Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright. He explains that, according to Buddhism, "human beings often fail to see the world clearly, and this can lead them to suffer and make others suffer" (Appendix). Wright points out that this Buddhist idea corresponds to Western science discoveries about evolutionary roots of the human species: People were "designed" by natural selection; and the main goal of natural selection is enhancing chances of survival of a species (in this case, Homo Sapiens). The goal of natural selection is not to help people see things clearly. In other words, people were not "designed" by natural selection to have access to some absolute truth. On the positive side, people's brains are malleable (which is confirmed by modern science), so there is hope that we could get closer to knowing reality. But this requires some significant effort on our part.
Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright is all about showing that the Buddhism is not just a religion, that it's a framework of thought and practice that has important intersections with discoveries of modern science. Seen in combination with these discoveries, Buddhism can help us avoid mistakes that make things harder for ourselves and others. These mistakes are largely connected with our distorted perception of reality, which is not an exception but rather an inseparable (although, hopefully, not completely unchangeable) trait of the human species. In particular, Wright says: “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" (Chapter 1, Why Buddhism Is True).
According to Buddhism (and modern science), feeling play a big role in our inability to have correct knowledge about reality. Wright explains: "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 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... And that’s true of many sources of delusion... : 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... 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" (Chapter 1, Why Buddhism Is True).
So, discoveries of both Western and Eastern thought suggest this: human knowledge about reality is limited. This knowledge--even scientific knowledge, which is supposedly the best one we can get--is limited because it is constructed by our brains. And our brains are culturally and biologically conditioned in ways that lead that often away from some absolute truth rather than toward it. Here are some good books on the limitations of scientific knowledge:
Note that the first book in the list was published almost a century ago, yet it is still considered a classic. As Steven Shapin of Science notes in his review, “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.” If scientists can say that about scientific facts, it would make sense to suggest that facts we operate with in our daily life also do not precisely reflect reality. This does not mean that there is no value in science, or that there is absolutely no difference between what we call facts and what we call opinions. They do get mixed up a lot, though. And that's also important to keep in mind.
All of that, I will repeat, does not mean that this is no value in pursuing truth or debating about it. This pursuit did make our life easier in many ways. As authors of We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe write, "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." (Describing emergent phenomena is not enough for understanding something on a deeper level because such descriptions do not explain the underlying mechanisms that produce high-level behaviors. For example, describing how people interact does not equal explain underlying reasons of their behavior.)
If you are still with me, reading these words, it is probably because you are interested in questioning the idea of truth. You might agree that "fact" is a deceiving notion, even it is sometimes serves well our human purposes. But you might also agree with me that it can be generally difficult to have conversations about paradoxes of truth with a person who is feeling strongly about something. The word "truth" comes from a Proto-Indo-European root that meant "firm and solid". This very root produced words that meant "security," "loyalty," "promise" and "faith" - something you can believe, rely on, trust. These etymological connections might give us a hint why the idea of truth feels so valuable and important--and can be so difficult to question. In the world that often seems unpredictable, each one of longs to have something we can absolutely rely on, something solid and firm. 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 acknowledge.
We do not have to deny that truth exists or argue that facts are not valid. But we can complicate the idea of truth. So far, I have used the words "truth" and "reality" to explain my ideas. These are singular nouns and they might make it seem as though reality (and truth about it) is something monolithic.
Truth: we think we are special animals - rational beings - capable of grasping the truth about the world we live in. But what if we can 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 of accessing.
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 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 the enjoyment of life. But then we are getting to the connection with other truths: what is functional and under what conditions can other truths be helpful.
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 the best available tools to understand the world 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 its imperfection because this allows us to refine the knowledge instead of becoming paralyzed by certainty of dogmas.
Continued from Why Buddhism Is True (example about seeing rattlesnake as a lizard):
“Rather, natural selection designed this feeling to be almost always illusory in a literal sense; the feeling fills you with a conviction—a judgment about what’s in your immediate environment—that is pretty reliably untrue. This is a reminder that natural selection didn’t design your mind to see the world clearly; it designed your mind to have perceptions and beliefs that would help take care of your genes.”
Misinformation: https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/what-is-misinformation-anyway?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
…
CONCLUSION
In the beginning of this essay I said that if people understand what is hiding behind the notion of truth, they can be happier individuals in a more balanced society. What I mean is that we can be less stuck in limiting interpretations of reality, we can value more the pursuit of truth while acknowledging limitations (if each individual and if humans as species) in trying to achieve the truth, but we can also be more curious, humble, and forgiving of our own limitations and limitations of others; we could be more willing to listen to other people’s perceptions of reality, no matter how different from ours these perceptions are.
Some people might think that complicating the idea of truth is dangerous. If we focus too much on the relativity of truth can cause harm as lies and misinformation will go unnoticed. How can the idea of functional truth can help us respond to this criticism?
Functional truth allows us to find concrete solutions for concrete problems. These are good solutions. But these solutions are often either temporary or they inadvertently create new problems. This does not mean that that we should not seek functional truth or apply it to reach solutions. But it means that we should not stop with these solutions or ignore problems that they create. For example, somebody committed a crime (stole something). A solution can be to take whatever they stole and give it back to the rightful owner. A solution can be to put the person who stole in prison if there is a risk that they will take other people’s property. These are real concrete solutions. I don’t think we should not return stolen properly. And I do think we should not do our best to prevent the person who still from doing it again. But the question is whether putting her in prison (punishing, isolating) would solve the bigger problem (or rather problems) here. For people still things for a reason.
By all means we should seek truth here and now and use it for guidance to solve problems and puzzles that life throws at us. But we should also be willing to acknowledge that the truth we are getting at is mostly likely going to be functional truth, not absolute truth. Which means is that our solutions will be temporary, and might even lead to new problems. So we should never get too comfortable with our functional truth. We should always wonder what it left outside the magical circle of our knowledge. We should be able to humbly acknowledge that our solutions are not perfect. And we should always work on understanding things better and looking for better solutions.
SOURCES:
Cham, J., and Whiteson, D. (2018). We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe. Pinguin Random House.
Wright, L. (2013). Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief. Alfred A. Knopf.
Postmodernism. (2015). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism
Symbolic Interaction Theory. (n.d.) Structural Learning. www.structural-learning.com/post/symbolic-interaction-theory
Wright, R. (2017). Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. Simon & Schuster.
About this project: Start page
It is possible to reconcile these clashing perceptions if we distinguish between two types of truth: absolute and functional. Seeing this distinction can allow us to talk about the importance of fighting lies and misinformation, while at the same acknowledging that each of us (no matter our experience, political affiliation, level of education, etc.) can only claim to know a partial truth about the world. So, we do need each other to make this world better, and to make sure it is not getting worse. This shift of perspective can help us work on solving society's problems together.
Continue reading to explore the concepts of functional and absolute truth, and why distinguishing between them is crucial for both individuals and society.
***************************************************************
"Truth" is a big word. It is a complicated word. And it is a contested word. I share my ideas about truth with some trepidation.
But I do share them, because I believe that thinking deeply and open-mindedly about what we mean by truth can help us overcome conflicts and become happier individuals in a more balanced society. This, I believe, is not going to be possible without acknowledging that the word "truth" hides some of the toughest puzzles of the human condition, or maybe even of the whole universe.
I don’t think there is a simple answer to the biggest truth-related question: Is there truth out there? I don't think the answer is either "yes, there is" or "no, there is not." This uncertainty does not mean that we cannot do anything here and now when we feel that obscuring truth (or truths) is essential for dealing with problems facing individuals or society. But as we act here and now, we should always be careful, because things are usually more complicated than they seem to be.
Even when we do not say the word "truth," we think about it and talk about it all the time. Whenever we disagree, it is about truth (and, let's face it, people disagree a lot). Whenever you feel that you are right (and I am wrong), it is about truth. Whenever kids 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 truth ("My toy!" - "No, MY!"). And as people grow up, truth-related conflicts only get more intense.
I would even argue that 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!" Whether we realize that our conflicts are about truth or not, certain assumptions remain unexamined. Individuals, communities, groups, and even whole countries entangled in bitter conflicts have little hope of sorting their problems out unless they understand what core beliefs are hiding behind their disagreements.
Although we not have to use word "truth" to argue about it, truth is often explicitly named 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." The New York Times talks about truth in its mission: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world." Truth is usually perceived as a universal value. Knowing the truth is seen as a good thing, although there is also the idea that dealing with truth can be sometimes very hard—"Truth hurts"; "You can't handle the truth"—and sometimes a certain amount of distortion is believed to be preferable to knowing the whole truth. This, however, does not contradict the fact that we mostly perceive truth as something positive. By the same token, we perceive as mostly negative everything that appears to be opposite to truth: lies, falsehoods, misinformation, disinformation, illusion, delusion, distortion.
In this essay, I argue that when we talk, think, or debate about truth, we usually refer to absolute truth. This happens even--or especially--when we do not use the word "truth" explicitly (for example, when the conversation revolves around "I am right, you are wrong" claims). My argument is easy to check. If it was not for our assumptions about absolute truth, why would we fight about it? If we start a conversation by acknowledging that each of knows some important but limited truth, there would not be any need for an argument in the first place.
Yet we do argue, and we think that finding out and asserting the truth is important because truth is so much better than lies or delusions. And on the surface, it makes sense. It makes sense to want to know the truth about something rather than believe misinformation about what's going on. But let's ask ourselves: Why is truth good and misinformation/lies/delusions bad?
The reason is pragmatic and practical. We want to know the truth (and/or we want others to know and accept it) in order to be able to make right decisions and choices--and to act accordingly. For example, most people now agree that it was not good for scientists of the past to think that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Why? Because clinging to this misleading belief made scientific progress impossible, and scientific progress allows us to do new things, or do old things in more efficient ways. Not knowing or accepting the truth is usually seen as something that can lead to mistakes, some of which can be costly. In addition, knowing or accepting the truth is often considered to be crucial from the ethical, moral point of view--because it allows us to make correct, morally right choices. To sum it up, we want to know the truth (and want others to accept it) in order to make right decisions--decisions that allow us to choose efficient actions that do not cause harm.
And why do we think that knowing the truth allows us to make correct choices? This has something to do with reality. Reality is, quite simply, the way things are. Most people agree that there is some sort of reality out there that must be reckoned with. Truth can be then defined as reflection of this reality in our minds. And lies/misinformation is distortion of this reality in our minds. Having reality reflected in our minds correctly helps us make good decisions about how to deal with reality. So, we will agree (for the purpose of this conversation) that there is some kind of reality out there and that it can be reflected in our minds, which is usually called knowing. "Reality" and "knowing" (also "knowledge") are all essential concepts in the conversation about truth.
So far, I hope my argument appears logical. However, we need to ask ourselves a few questions about it. We have decided that reality exists and we are not going to question this assumption (though some thinkers do that, and this questioning can be also interesting). But, can this reality even be accurately reflected in our minds? In other words, can we have knowledge about reality? Duh! As human beings, we can and do have plenty of knowledge about reality. We are able to navigate the world and manage our lives. We have science, we have technology. Obviously, we know a thing or two about reality, otherwise we would not be able to live in it!
A thing or two, indeed. We know some stuff, which helps us to get around. But can we be certain that what we have is some kind of absolutely precise and all-encompassing knowledge about what's going on out there? We can't. And... that's okay. What's not okay, in my opinion, is when we do not realize the difference between functional truth(s) about reality and absolute truth. That's when we get stuck in conflicts based "You are right, I am wrong!" binary. The way out of these conflicts starts with being open to explore why people see things from different perspectives. If we all operate with functional truths, what do these truths allow us to accomplish, and how might they create problems?
Let me repeat that: there is no shame is using functional truths. There is no shame in not knowing everything. We do not actually need to have absolutely precise knowledge about reality in order to be able to take actions that are most efficient and least harmful, under the circumstances. It turns out that our knowledge can be precise enough to do stuff that is reasonably efficient and not too harmful, without us having some absolute knowledge about what's going on. Functional knowledge allows us to solve real problems, and that's great. BUT, we should not forget that functional knowledge is limited, and solutions that it allows us to find are helpful but not ideal.
For thousands of years, human beings have been using functional truths while constantly refining their knowledge about reality (and arguing about it). We also know that in the process people have made mistakes and caused harm, so there is a reason to strive toward more precise reflection of reality in our minds. To sum it up: We do not need absolutely precise knowledge to make fairly decent decisions and get by in the world. Not knowing the whole truth should not been seen as a bad thing. Because if we see it as a bad thing and are reluctant to acknowledge that we don't know the whole truth (that is, absolute truth), then we likely won't be able to keep refining our knowledge, as we will be stuck in the misleading certainty that we already know enough.
If you are still not entirely persuaded, I will add that the idea of unattainability of some absolute truth is actually reflected in the scientific method, which is considered by many to be the most reliable way of getting knowledge about reality. You are not supposed to say, "This scientific theory is true." A theory is considered usable if it has not been falsified--that is, if nobody showed that it is wrong. Note that saying that something is "not wrong" is not the same as saying, "it is true." "Not wrong" means good enough for practical purposes (it helps us interact with reality in the most efficient and least harmful way, under the circumstances). A lot has been said about problems that arise when scientists start arguing that what they have discovered is some absolute truth: absolutely efficient and harmless. These scientists ignore their own mistakes and the harm they cause. For that reason, scientists are encouraged to admit limitations of their knowledge and their methods. This does not mean stopping the pursuit of truth. But it does mean being more careful and more humble about the process. And maybe we should treat everything we know as a theory: something that can helps us get around but is not an absolute truth, something that can be always improved to get us closer to understanding reality. (Of course, there is always a danger of turning this into a competition: "My theory is closer to truth than yours!")
By the way, the ideas I am laying out here are not new, not new at all. Multiple scholars--not just philosophers but also scientists who study people and their behavior--argue that we do not know as much stuff about reality as we claim to know. Moreover, both Western and Eastern thinkers came to this realization hundreds of years ago. (Which does not mean that everybody agrees about the nature or reality, truth, and knowledge. Obviously, truth remains a contested concept, with many people feeling very upset when truth--which often means their truth--is questioned.)
In the Western tradition, doubts about human ability to access reality were first clearly formulated 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 were formulated already 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 choose some courses of action as the right ones. Otherwise, we will be stuck in the endless navel-gazing and remain passive in the face of life's challenges. (We can recast this ancient debate in the terms I use in this essay: absolute and functional truth. While the ancient skeptics argued that people do not have access to absolute truth, their opponents pointed out that functional truth is attainable and should be something we strive to uncover. And perhaps both of them were right!)
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 toward 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 hard to question for a few centuries. So, in the Western world debates about truth have raged between two extremes: extreme skepticism on one end and absolute belief in power of the human mind on the other end.
About a century ago, the pendulum of the debate swung back quite dramatically. The twentieth century ushered in the era of new doubts in the human rationality in the Western world. Limitations of the human brain and of its ability to understand the world have been investigated by scholars who explore society and human behavior (notably, psychologists). For example, we now know that multiple cognitive biases are an intrinsic aspect of out brains' functioning. Sociologists (notably, symbolic interactionists) point out that we perceive the world through meanings (ideas, associations, memories, values) that exist in our minds. In the area of abstract thinking, philosophy of postmodernism took doubts about the accessibility of truth to the new level. Social and behavioral scientists do not use the term "truth", but there clearly are connections between scientific claims about the human brain's complicated relationship with reality and the conversations among philosophers about the (un)attainability of truth.
It the Eastern philosophical tradition, Buddhism looms large in the conversation about truth. You can see a separate page where I discuss intersections between symbolic interactionism and Buddhism. On that page and here, I will offer some quote from the book Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright. He explains that, according to Buddhism, "human beings often fail to see the world clearly, and this can lead them to suffer and make others suffer" (Appendix). Wright points out that this Buddhist idea corresponds to Western science discoveries about evolutionary roots of the human species: People were "designed" by natural selection; and the main goal of natural selection is enhancing chances of survival of a species (in this case, Homo Sapiens). The goal of natural selection is not to help people see things clearly. In other words, people were not "designed" by natural selection to have access to some absolute truth. On the positive side, people's brains are malleable (which is confirmed by modern science), so there is hope that we could get closer to knowing reality. But this requires some significant effort on our part.
Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright is all about showing that the Buddhism is not just a religion, that it's a framework of thought and practice that has important intersections with discoveries of modern science. Seen in combination with these discoveries, Buddhism can help us avoid mistakes that make things harder for ourselves and others. These mistakes are largely connected with our distorted perception of reality, which is not an exception but rather an inseparable (although, hopefully, not completely unchangeable) trait of the human species. In particular, Wright says: “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" (Chapter 1, Why Buddhism Is True).
According to Buddhism (and modern science), feeling play a big role in our inability to have correct knowledge about reality. Wright explains: "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 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... And that’s true of many sources of delusion... : 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... 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" (Chapter 1, Why Buddhism Is True).
So, discoveries of both Western and Eastern thought suggest this: human knowledge about reality is limited. This knowledge--even scientific knowledge, which is supposedly the best one we can get--is limited because it is constructed by our brains. And our brains are culturally and biologically conditioned in ways that lead that often away from some absolute truth rather than toward it. Here are some good books on the limitations of scientific knowledge:
- Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press.
- Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
- 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.
Note that the first book in the list was published almost a century ago, yet it is still considered a classic. As Steven Shapin of Science notes in his review, “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.” If scientists can say that about scientific facts, it would make sense to suggest that facts we operate with in our daily life also do not precisely reflect reality. This does not mean that there is no value in science, or that there is absolutely no difference between what we call facts and what we call opinions. They do get mixed up a lot, though. And that's also important to keep in mind.
All of that, I will repeat, does not mean that this is no value in pursuing truth or debating about it. This pursuit did make our life easier in many ways. As authors of We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe write, "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." (Describing emergent phenomena is not enough for understanding something on a deeper level because such descriptions do not explain the underlying mechanisms that produce high-level behaviors. For example, describing how people interact does not equal explain underlying reasons of their behavior.)
If you are still with me, reading these words, it is probably because you are interested in questioning the idea of truth. You might agree that "fact" is a deceiving notion, even it is sometimes serves well our human purposes. But you might also agree with me that it can be generally difficult to have conversations about paradoxes of truth with a person who is feeling strongly about something. The word "truth" comes from a Proto-Indo-European root that meant "firm and solid". This very root produced words that meant "security," "loyalty," "promise" and "faith" - something you can believe, rely on, trust. These etymological connections might give us a hint why the idea of truth feels so valuable and important--and can be so difficult to question. In the world that often seems unpredictable, each one of longs to have something we can absolutely rely on, something solid and firm. 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 acknowledge.
We do not have to deny that truth exists or argue that facts are not valid. But we can complicate the idea of truth. So far, I have used the words "truth" and "reality" to explain my ideas. These are singular nouns and they might make it seem as though reality (and truth about it) is something monolithic.
Truth: we think we are special animals - rational beings - capable of grasping the truth about the world we live in. But what if we can 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 of accessing.
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 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 the enjoyment of life. But then we are getting to the connection with other truths: what is functional and under what conditions can other truths be helpful.
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 the best available tools to understand the world 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 its imperfection because this allows us to refine the knowledge instead of becoming paralyzed by certainty of dogmas.
Continued from Why Buddhism Is True (example about seeing rattlesnake as a lizard):
“Rather, natural selection designed this feeling to be almost always illusory in a literal sense; the feeling fills you with a conviction—a judgment about what’s in your immediate environment—that is pretty reliably untrue. This is a reminder that natural selection didn’t design your mind to see the world clearly; it designed your mind to have perceptions and beliefs that would help take care of your genes.”
Misinformation: https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/what-is-misinformation-anyway?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
…
CONCLUSION
In the beginning of this essay I said that if people understand what is hiding behind the notion of truth, they can be happier individuals in a more balanced society. What I mean is that we can be less stuck in limiting interpretations of reality, we can value more the pursuit of truth while acknowledging limitations (if each individual and if humans as species) in trying to achieve the truth, but we can also be more curious, humble, and forgiving of our own limitations and limitations of others; we could be more willing to listen to other people’s perceptions of reality, no matter how different from ours these perceptions are.
Some people might think that complicating the idea of truth is dangerous. If we focus too much on the relativity of truth can cause harm as lies and misinformation will go unnoticed. How can the idea of functional truth can help us respond to this criticism?
Functional truth allows us to find concrete solutions for concrete problems. These are good solutions. But these solutions are often either temporary or they inadvertently create new problems. This does not mean that that we should not seek functional truth or apply it to reach solutions. But it means that we should not stop with these solutions or ignore problems that they create. For example, somebody committed a crime (stole something). A solution can be to take whatever they stole and give it back to the rightful owner. A solution can be to put the person who stole in prison if there is a risk that they will take other people’s property. These are real concrete solutions. I don’t think we should not return stolen properly. And I do think we should not do our best to prevent the person who still from doing it again. But the question is whether putting her in prison (punishing, isolating) would solve the bigger problem (or rather problems) here. For people still things for a reason.
By all means we should seek truth here and now and use it for guidance to solve problems and puzzles that life throws at us. But we should also be willing to acknowledge that the truth we are getting at is mostly likely going to be functional truth, not absolute truth. Which means is that our solutions will be temporary, and might even lead to new problems. So we should never get too comfortable with our functional truth. We should always wonder what it left outside the magical circle of our knowledge. We should be able to humbly acknowledge that our solutions are not perfect. And we should always work on understanding things better and looking for better solutions.
SOURCES:
Cham, J., and Whiteson, D. (2018). We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe. Pinguin Random House.
Wright, L. (2013). Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief. Alfred A. Knopf.
Postmodernism. (2015). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism
Symbolic Interaction Theory. (n.d.) Structural Learning. www.structural-learning.com/post/symbolic-interaction-theory
Wright, R. (2017). Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. Simon & Schuster.
About this project: Start page
