Re: What is truth?
by doogles on March 11th, 2018, 2:16 am
This is something I drafted maybe 20 years ago.
I'm just going to throw it in, as my 2c worth, and run.
I'm off for holidays for a couple of weeks.
DEFINITIONS AS A BASIS FOR TRUTH
AT TIMES WHEN THERE IS UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT on something, it is most probable that we are dealing with notions that developed from the start on foundations we call definitions. There is universal agreement, for example, on basic mathematical principles. Every nation on this planet agrees with the principles involved in mathematics. But this is only because we have agreed to use basic definitions such as the combination of the letters t-w-o (in English-speaking countries) to represent the concept of a pair of things. And this arithmetical concept of Arabic numerals developed relatively recently in the Middle East, including India, to the long-lasting credit of that area.
They realised it was easier to write the symbol ‘2’ instead of 1+1, and ‘7’ instead of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1. We all agree that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 equals ‘7’ or ‘seven’. Yet it is an unarguable truth only because we have defined it as such. Of course, the system of using a made-up system of figures and words to represent the numbers of anything has the greatest advantage when we get into the larger numbers. You can imagine how much space it would take to show the number one thousand as a series of single figures. We all agree by these definitions that twenty times fifty equals a thousand. This is reality. I repeat - the whole discipline of mathematics is based originally on definitions. All of us on this planet agree with the conclusions of mathematics. Well we agree until we come to the parts we don’t understand – for example in some areas the answers could be plus or minus the same number - and that seems weird.
The mathematical symbols we use these days work. Imagine trying to get the square root of some Roman numerals. The Indian/Arabic-founded numerical system is a wonderful example of an idea-system that has been thrown into the system and which has survived. Remember how Julian Huxley suggested that we have now reached a stage of survival of the fittest idea-systems.
Modern mathematics did not come into being until we defined the basic structures, and then set about making them work for us. We state the rules at the beginning, and thereafter there is no misunderstanding about what we mean.
We have only ever done this to a limited way in areas of human thinking.
Using definitions in a sense, though not by deliberate intent, all English-speaking people at least agree that the big warm round thing that appears in the sky on most days will be called the ‘sun’, or its equivalent word in other languages. We agree by implied definition that we can use the word ‘rise’ to describe anything that goes up towards the sky. We agree that the direction in which a magnetised piece of iron points, out in the open, in the general direction of the midday sun, is the ‘Magnetic North’, and that the opposite direction is the ‘Magnetic South’. If we face the North, the direction on our right will be called the ‘East’, and that on the left will be called the ‘West’. In this way, the concepts of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have also been defined. Combining these, we all agree that the sun rises in the East. There is no dissension here, unless you wish to be pedantic and state that the Earth rotates towards the sun in an easterly direction. Bear in mind that there is evidence that it may not have always happened that way. When we stick to matters that involve the use of definition, there is no conflict between groups, either locally or internationally.
SCIENTIFIC TRUTH
We mostly accept as true the conclusions of experiments based on scientific methods. The discipline of statistics, and the way it calculates the probabilities of results happening by chance, is employed to assess associations between events. It does not really establish causes and effects but it gives a clue to such a thing.
It works on the principle of probabilities, that whatever happens as a result of an experiment did not happen that way by chance. Usually, the results are only accepted initially if such odds are less than one in twenty.
This ‘probability of the figures coming out the way they do by chance’ is expressed universally as the letter ‘P’.
The symbol ‘<’ is used universally for ‘is less than’. We use decimal ratios to express the actual odds: for example, we express ‘one in twenty’ as ‘0.05’ (5 in 100). You may have seen the results of an experiment wherein it is stated at the end that ‘P < 0.05’, or ‘P < 0.01’. This means that the Probability of the figures coming out the way they did by chance is less than (<) one in 20 or one in a 100 - the smaller the ratio, the greater the chance that there is an association between the action and the result.
But the results of a single isolated experiment are never accepted absolutely in their own right. Further substantiation is required. If others repeat the experiment with the same result, belief in the association between the events inherent in the experiment becomes stronger.
If the results of a single experiment become a vital stepping stone to a further experiment, which is validated by repetition, then the results of the first experiment become more widely accepted.
If a theoretical proposition is used as a basis for a successful practical result, then the theory becomes validated. An example of this was where the formula E=mc2 was a precursor to the actual explosion of an atomic bomb. This equation implied that matter contained a vast amount of potential energy and that if the atom could be split, massive amounts of energy could be released.
But there is no way any of us can actually prove a cause and effect situation. Logically we can only produce a mass of evidence that suggests that A is causing B to the point where it becomes generally accepted. The only thing we can prove is the ‘null’ hypothesis. That is, if someone says for example “I have produced evidence that A is always followed by B”, and then another person sets up the same experiment in which B does not follow A, then this is enough to state that B does not always follow A. The second person has proved what we call the null hypothesis.
Scientific experimentation always incorporates an element of doubt in its conclusions. DOGMA of any kind never does. And to their discredit, supporters of any sort of dogma on this planet tend to use this honest statement of the most remote of doubts as evidence of weakness in science.
Unfortunately most dogmatic belief systems have not been challenged adequately. So what are we left with?
THE TRUTH AS BEING WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE (CONSENSUS)
Do horses gallop using a similar action to greyhounds? If you look at 19th century paintings of galloping horses, you would have to conclude that everybody, particularly artists, at that time sincerely believed so. The advent of the moving picture that could be played in slow motion revealed that every artist’s belief about the galloping action of horses was incorrect. In fact, the movements are quite different, and not easy to describe. In simple terms, they do not have two legs forward and two legs back. They have non-matching legs out and back, and one front leg becomes the leading weight bearing limb.
We accept that there was really a Great War between 1914 and 1918 only because enough people have said that there was a great war in that period. You and I didn’t really see it. And we didn’t take the time to look up the old newspapers in the public library, did we? Not that that would have been conclusive proof because we didn’t know the journalists writing the articles, so there was no way of deciding whether it was all a gigantic hoax or not. This could apply to the many books written about the subject. When it comes down to the nitty gritty of belief, you and I believe it really happened only because a large number of people have left a multitude of evidence that it happened.
But there are limits to the truth being what the majority of people believe. Perhaps one of the silliest group mistakes in my lifetime was that erroneous decision throughout the world to have official celebrations for the end of the second millennium, and the starting of the third. We collectively celebrated at the start instead of the end of the last year of the second millennium according to our current calendar system. Respectable senior people in our community endorsed this.
But even primary school children know that the year 10 was the last year of the first decade, and that the next set of 10 did not commence till the first set was finished (at the end of the year 10, not the start of the year 10). Likewise, the year 100 was the last year of the first century, and the year 1000 the last year of the first millennium, and the year 2000 the last year of the second millennium and the millennium did not finish till the end of the year 2000. Certainly we celebrate our 50th and 60th birthdays on the day we become 50 or 60, but this is at the end of our 50th or 60th year. This demonstrates that the ‘powers that be’ and the masses can get things wrong on an international scale.
There were a few people asserting in the 1990s that the Holocaust never happened during the Second World War!
Again, unfortunately we do tend to take the easy way out and regard things as being real if enough people say they are. We don’t bother to check everything others tell us, particularly when we are young children. We tend to regard everything our parents and teachers say as being the truth, mainly because we do not have the time or the know-how to check on everything for ourselves. For most of us, there comes a time when we need to question what everyone else is saying, and then we have to start looking at the available evidence to determine which versions of reality make sense to us. We have to decide whose judgments are wisest for us to heed. In short, the final judgments of reality or truth are indeed very subjective. Even if everyone believes something at any time, it may turn out to be incorrect in the light of further evidence.
There have been court cases where the outcome has subsequently proved to be extremely doubtful, cases where the Prosecution, witnesses, and all twelve jurors may possibly have got it wrong.
Take the case of Lindy Chamberlain as an example. Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of the murder of her own ten-week-old baby, and sent to gaol. Lindy claimed that she saw what she thought was a dingo carrying the baby off one night when she and her family were camping at Uluru in Central Australia. It appears that in her trial some pertinent evidence had been suppressed, and the jury were only too willing to listen to some so-called expert evidence which itself was subsequently thought to be questionable. The original blood specimens studied by one particular expert became no longer available for re-testing, and some other so-called expert witnesses stated dogmatically that dingoes would never take a baby.
Yet in recent times, even adults have been attacked and mauled by dingoes on Fraser Island. Such is the basis of what we sometimes believe to be the truth. Years later, after what must have been a devastating time for her, she was finally exonerated. Now dingoes are regarded as potential killers of humans.
Have you noticed that it takes much longer to reverse a decision than it does to make it in the first instance? That’s an indictment of legal systems in most parts of the world.
In Georgia, USA, a ‘Moratorium Campaign’ on capital punishment in 2006, showed that 39 people had been executed since 1976, but that 6 Death Row inmates had been exonerated since 1973. The time taken to exonerate these six varied between two and thirteen years. A USA-wide study by Professor Michael Radelot and others in their book In Spite Of Evidence in 1992, suggested that 23 people were wrongfully executed between 1990 and 1992.
Apart from Court cases, if a group of people is initially wrong in their philosophical or religious views, it takes a much greater effort to change their minds than it did for them to form their original belief. We’ve already mentioned Bruno’s and Galileo’s attempts at this. Few people can tolerate having their assumptions challenged. Self-image and status are at stake.
There is an old maxim that ‘the test of truth is time’. Perhaps this maxim is a little nearer to the answer to the question of “What can we believe?” The longer a belief system is held by a large majority of people, the closer it will come to being the truth.
But how long is the ‘test of time’. After almost 2000 years, we are still awaiting the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, after hundreds of years since the days of Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo, the majority of people now believe that the Earth rotates around the sun.
Unfortunately, we have to conclude that polarised views can sometimes exist among us, and there is no way of validating the issue one way or the other. It’s no wonder many of us finish up confused and disillusioned. The safest course, and this seems to be generally accepted these days, is to agree to disagree.
In an ideal world, we should have access to the opinions of every expert in the field under consideration, the ability to consider those opinions, and the ability to discern which people are most likely to have the most authoritative opinions.