Blog

The Truth – I thought I Understood it

There is much debate, much argument, much competition and much conflict to determine what is the “truth”. The “truth” is a word that is used so much and is so commonplace that we often do not ask what it means. I did ask recently and I found that it is more complex than it appears. I now believe that a better understanding of the nature of truth is key to better communication and achieving better human connections.

Dropping a Ball – The Correspondence Theory of Truth

The Correspondence theory of Truth is the theory that best reflects the common understanding of Truth. That is that a proposition or belief is true if it is demonstrated to correspond to a view of reality that can be demonstrated or which is generally accepted as corresponding to reality based on previous experience. In the most simple and most powerful case this can be self verified through demonstration. But even if it cannot be self verified it may correspond with an existing world view.

Let’s look at the following proposition:-

a ball dropped from a higher position will fall to a lower position.

Most people would agree that this is true because:-

1. They can self verify by doing an experiment that shows that this is true.
2. It corresponds with their Worldview (their internal representation of reality). They will have experienced that something dropped from a height falls to the ground and will have never experienced this truth being contradicted
   

But…even this simple example poses questions:-

1. What is reality? Is our perception of it the same as that of others? All observation is from a point of view and coloured by conditioning and understanding.
2. Karl Popper believed that all (scientific) knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment. Therefore something is true until something better comes along. For instances all agreed at one time the proposition “ All swans are white” to be true until a black swan was discovered which falsified that proposition and showed it to be untrue.
3. The proposition itself is based on language, culture and context. It would normally be assumed that the ball was dropped on Planet Earth and not Space (for instance).
4. What about hypothetical propositions (If we do x then y will happen)? How may they be verified such that they are shown as corresponding with the real world?
   

Dropping a Ball in Space – The Coherence Theory of Truth

Let’s change the context. Let’s assume we are in space. Let’s look at the following proposition(2).

a ball dropped from a higher position will fall to a lower position (in Space).

Most people now would agree that this proposition is untrue. But why?

They cannot immediately self verify or demonstrate that it is untrue. They have never been to space and so have never personally observed what happens there. But, they have seen Space in multiple films, documentaries, have heard stories told by those who have been to Space, have listened to trusted experts who have all agreed with the story that would falsify the above statement.

In short they created a belief that became part of their Worldview. This belief is that in Space:-

a ball dropped from a higher position will not fall to a lower position.

Instead, it will float.

So while a ball floating in space cannot be self verified or easily demonstrated it is part of the world view of many and therefore the above proposition(2) is not coherent with the Worldview of such individuals. This is an example of the Coherence Theory of Truth whereby something is considered true if it is Coherent with an existing world view. (This is best seen as a complementary to the Correspondence Theory of Truth). It connects most directly with idea that reality is only known through our mental representation of it.

It shows the power of stories and imagination in the creation of a representation of reality and how individuals can be influenced by others through propaganda to create a Worldview that may not in fact correspond with objective reality.

But… this also poses more questions:-

1. It is possible for an event or statement to be coherent with different Worldviews.
2. It is possible for an event or statement to be coherent with one Worldview and incoherent with another. Therefore an event or statement that is coherent with one Worldview may be incoherent with an other leading one individual to consider it true and another individual to consider it false.
3. What if a group of people were shown films and instructed by experts and others in positions of trust that in Space a ball would react similarly to on earth? Or what if they were told that a ball dropped would be confiscated by a God? We are entering the realms of stories and representations of reality that have been argued over and fought over for centuries….those of religion.
   

Do I Care what the Ball does? – The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

Yes…if it means that it helps me interact effectively and efficiently with the universe. If it is useful to me. If it “works”.

I don’t need to verify completely that the proposition matches up directly with “reality” only that if I hold an idea it will have practical value and make me more effective and efficient.

Stretching the ball metaphor somewhat 🙂 let’s move onto football.

In football there are different ways of organising and training. To use a very simple example:- One can say that a proposition such as “A 442 formation is the best” is true or “A 433 formation is the best” is true. One way of determine which proposition is true is to test the propositions with different teams in a competition (assuming different teams use different formations) The team that “wins”/“works” is the most effective and efficient at winning competitions and could therefore be said to hold the proposition true.

The best Economic or Political system can be said to be that one with works best. (However, whereas in football the rules are relatively clear in how the competition is played and how what “works” best will be determined in Politics and Economics it is much less clear. Even so the same principles can be said to broadly apply.)

This is the Pragmatic theory of truth and is best seen as complementary to the other two.

But… this also has issues:-

1. It ignores the common meaning of truth
2. A proposition may “work” and be effective but be false with regard to the common meaning of truth