User:Evarenon/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 4/Truth

Truth

Concept break down

Concept formation: unpacking the "truth" of concepts

	TRUTH
Essential attributes	absolute (Caroline and Muyao)C lmy (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)	correspondent	coherent	universal	exclusive	genuine	factual	objective	belief
Non-essential attributes	perfect	immortal	immutable	unconfined	evidence	consesus
Indicators (if applicable)	does not require verification through reliable sources but can be appropriate everywhere and agreed by the general public

Essential attributes	Non-essential attributes	Indicators ( if applicable)
Analytical, logical truth: true by definition Ex: The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180	Logical:	Positive: Independent from the human values
Verifiable through logic or empirical evidence	Having not yet been falsified If something has been shown to be false, then, it is not true	Independent: It exist independently of anyone’s knowledge ( gravity existed before Newton)
Correspondent with actual reality - or, in contrast - coherence	Precise The more information constitutes an information, the more precise it is, the more we tend to believe it is true.
Universal	Legitimate If a statement is arbitrary, it is not something that most people could agree on, but a statement that has just been imposed by one without explanation. The truth, however, is something that should be acknowledged by most, if not all ( with sufficient knowledge).
Objective	Scientifically demonstrated
Absolute	Exclusive: the truth has a narrow and specific nature	(Julie and Wen)

Discussion

Truth's objectivity (Caroline and Muyao)

Although “truth” seems to imply “objectivity”, objectivity is more an impossible ideal as it is said in reading 2. However, the epistemic objectivity stays an essential attribute of truth because without it, it is not possible to estimate/analyse/understand in a neutral and true way a fact, a situation or even a theory. Objectivity is much easier in certain fields such as the ones dealing deal with objects and properties whose existence is independent of all human perception (this is the definition of objectivity).

The correspondence theory of truth (Teo and Mia)

It is the view that truth exists in relation to reality. It claims that true beliefs and statements relate to the actual state of affairs and it dates from the time of classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It claims that humans can gain knowledge of the world through of observation and experimental refinement. This theory of truth is associated with the realist school of thought within philosophy. Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the main proponents of the correspondence theory of truth was the philosopher Bertrand Russell. His conception of truth can be expressed by the following: "a belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, and is false when there is no corresponding fact" (Russell, 1906). In Russell's view, the truth of a belief depends only the objects of the belief, which exist in external reality. Thus, truth is seen as entirely independent of the mind. Mia (discuss • contribs)

As postmodernism becomes more prevalent, the principles of correspondence are increasingly called into question. According to a postmodernist approach, facts of experience are conceptualized in our minds according to a variety of organizing principles and by using judgement, which is dependent on historical, cultural and linguistic factors (Danaher, 2002). Because we necessarily form concepts from experience, and because objective reality itself does not contain those concepts, our beliefs cannot directly correspond to reality. However, Danaher argues that correspondence can be understood as a correspondence to a certain conceptualization of reality, rather than to objective reality itself. This does not imply that there are no universal facts of reality, only that we cannot view these facts outside of our own conceptualizations, which vary among individuals. The conceptualization on which we base correspondence can be freely chosen, but there exists no innate knowledge about which basis for correspondence we should choose. Such a view thus bears some similarity to the coherence theory of truth. Mia (discuss • contribs)

Truth's universality (Ollie and Thalia)

According to the correspondence theory, something is true based on it corresponding to a fact, something that exists in the world. A fact is taken to be something consisting of universals or particulars, hence truth may not always have universality according to these theory. It may be a fact that 'I am eating dinner' however, this is not a universal, it is not the case in all possible worlds that 'I am eating dinner'. According to the theory, it would still be a truth to claim 'Ollie is eating dinner' given this corresponds to the fact of me eating dinner, yet this would not be a universal. Therefore, it may be concluded that universality is not an essential attribute of truth. Olliedixon148 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In order to be universal, laws must fulfil certain requirements, namely that they must have “an unrestricted range in space and time”, be invariant when translated over space and time, not carry any coordinates of either space or time and that they must not be specific to any spatio-temporal locations. Within the sciences and in relation to natural laws, these conditions of universality by which to determine truth or lawfulness have previously been considered to be accurate. Whilst sufficient in the discussion of laws formulated with an absolute space and time in mind, in a more flexible and subsequently more complex setting these conditions must be revised. Here to, as with the correspondence theory, a comprehensive universality in all its aspects is not considered to be an essential attribute of truth or lawfulness. Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Belief and truth (Amber and Sunni)

Belief can be argued as an attribute of truth, as truth can in some cases be constructed from certain beliefs. This claim will be explored by examining the placebo effect, religious beliefs and the relationship between knowledge and truth.

Religious believers perceive their religious belief to mirror the truth. The religious beliefs of others are hence considered false (if they contradict the ‘true’ belief). However, in the case of religion one cannot gather quantitive evidence to prove or disprove a certain ‘truth’ claim, thus one cannot reach objective truth. Brecht argues in her paper that factual evidence is not really important to believers as belief is something one feels but cannot justify using factual evidence. Thus, in religion truth is subjective and individualistic rather than objective and universal. Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The consequences of understanding truth from this perspective are that the truth can be defined as anything - making it a very broad definition of the word. This takes a holistic approach to viewing truth, not limiting it to what can be physically proven. However, a limitation of viewing truth through belief is that it can lose its concrete meaning and its utility in distinguishing between what is true and what is false. Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Beliefs and biases in truth (Lucas, Apara and Henri)

Based on the pragmatist theory, truth is an uncontested belief i.e. a belief that is no longer questioned becomes a truth. For this to happen it must cause no conflict nor should it contradict another belief, ‘truth is satisfactory to believe’ (Pierce and James). As existentialists believe, truth is something you should act out, not merely hold, because to act out is to believe. Humans are prone to biases by nature, and in the quest of finding the truth they even metamorphose it to reflect their own beliefs, a pitfall which even researchers are not immune to.

Furthermore postmodernism, a theory which even denies the notion of truth and considers science an reason as myths and tales, was finally rejected. In fact it pointed out that fondamentally and philosophically no one can have access to truth because one depends on induction to have access to any knowledge. Hence men don't even know if truth exists. However people need to consider beliefs as truths to live, and even more to live in a social system. They need to believe in science. Because men experienced they only need beliefs and biased truth to survive, biased truth has become true (pragmatism).

The coherence theory of truth (Wen and Julie)

In the coherence theory, a true proposition is one that coheres to a specific set of propositions; it typically contrasts directly with the correspondence theory in that it assumes that conditions for truth are not found within any sort of objective disparate reality, but rather that the truth of a belief is indicated by its coherence with other beliefs. Coherentism hence involves the rejection of the principles of bivalence and transcendence (that every proposition is only true or false, and that a proposition can be true even if it cannot be known to be true respectively).

A coherence approach can be particularly practical in situations in which the object of focus is not easily verifiable through our traditional means of verification--i.e., empirical study and observation--such as in psychiatry. (Kendler, 2015)

Importantly, though, coherence is only an essential attribute insofar as one subscribes to the coherentist notion of truth. A major issue with coherence theory is the fact that even when things seem completely coherent, it may be untrue, as had been demonstrated many times throughout the history of science. Therefore it has a limit, and can only bring us closer to an approximative truth, rather than absolute truth as explanatory coherence increases. ~~~~

Leewenyi (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) (Wen and Julie)

Our readings

Reference, authors, year and link	Main argument	To which attribute (or specific aspect of truth does this source relates to)
Truth, Objectivity and Evidence in History Writing，Marek Tamm, 2014	The essay argues that history doesn’t need a new theory of truth; rather, it is necessary to analyse in theoretical terms how truth is understood and used in historical inquiry. In this sense, t objectivity is understood as an epistemic virtue valued in a specific contemporary scientific community.C lmy (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)	Objectivity
TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY IN JOURNALISM,Juan Ramón Muñoz-Torres (2012)	In the essay, the author states that objectivity is not only an impossible ideal, but rather an ill-conceived question, based upon the mistaken premises of positivism; the concept of objectivity has partly managed to replace a more fundamental one, that of truth, thus becoming confusing and fallacious.C lmy (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)	Objectivity
Truth and Objectivity Regained, James Baillie and Mark R. Meckler (2012)	In this essay, the authors try to explain the notions of truth and objectivity before showing the link with trust and their place in social sciences. The authors deal with Mark Meckler’s and James Baillie’s first article to explain the ways in which the social world exists objectively and that the claims (made regarding this social world) were evaluable as true or false. A claim is objective if its true value is due to factors that are independent of any individual point of view.	Objectivity
Truth, 1.1.2 The neo-classical correspondence theory Olliedixon148 (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	This essay discusses the correspondence theory of truth, an ontological thesis which claims a belief holds truth if there exists a fact to which it corresponds. Facts are also said to consist of universals or particulars thus a truth may not always relate to universality.	Universality
The Universality of Laws Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	For natural laws certain universality conditions (e.g. the universality of range and time translation invariance) have been considered within the context of a fixed time and space. Once removed from this environment, however, these conditions can no longer be as easily applied or taken to be indicative of some truth- or lawfulness. The paper emphasises, that the aforementioned range/time invariance can no longer be treated as an indispensable requirement for such lawfulness.
Deconstructing the Placebo Effect and Finding the Meaning Response, Daniel E. Moerman, PhD; Wayne B. Jonas, MD (Amber and Sunni) Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	Explains the placebo effect in medical terms and how experiments have shown that providing placebo medications or procedures can actually improve peoples’ medical conditions. This links to truth as the placebo effect has the power to turn peoples’ beliefs (in medications and doctors making them better) into truth.	Belief
A defence of the object’s interpretation of Plato’s theory of knowledge and belief in Republic V, Xiaomei Yang (Amber and Sunni) Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	This article outlines Plato’s theory of knowledge and belief, suggesting that knowledge is made up of only truths whereas belief is made up of both truths and falsehoods. Also, in relation to things in the physical world, it distinguishes between knowledge and belief by suggesting that objects of belief do not fully exist and objects of knowledge do fully exist.	Belief
What’s the use of exclusivism by M. Brecht (2012) (Amber and Sunni) Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	The paper explores exclusivism in theological debates within Christianity about religious diversity. Religious exclusivists claim their religion to be the ‘truth’ whilst all others are ‘false’ representations. Brecht examines how this belief manages interaction with other religions who claim to believe in the ‘truth’.	Belief
Forget about the correspondence theory of truth	The article claims that the correspondence theory of truth is the same the truthmaker principle which agrees that "x makes it true that p". Similarly to the correspondence theory, the truthmaker principle relates to the physicality of claims in order to validate them as true. The article then goes on to argue that both theories are in fact not about truth at all but about all matter of things, discussing that they only relate to the existential grounding of their claims but not truth in itself. Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	Correspondence
Toward a postmodern correspondence theory of truth(Danaher, 2002) Mia (discuss • contribs)	This article argues that despite the postmodern view that there is no objective reality, the concept of correspondence can still be used. Postmodernism has challenged the idea of our ability to directly experience reality. The concepts we use to organize our experience depend on different factors. We each have a degree of freedom in organizing facts of experience, which can be done in a variety of ways. This calls into question the correspondence theory's view that truth is based on a correspondence between what is experienced and what exists in reality. Because ideas based on experience are conceptualized, there is no correspondence with reality as reality does not contain concepts. However, correspondence can be kept if it is understood as correspondence to a conceptualization of reality instead of to objective reality itself. We are able to choose which conceptualization to use for correspondence, but this does not mean that all choices are equally good or that there is no reality. The article then also offers a religious perspective on truth, but this is less relevant to our discussion.	Correspondence
What is Truth? (Russell, 1906) Mia (discuss • contribs)	In this paper, Russell outlines his conception of truth, which is the correspondence theory of truth. The central idea of this theory is that a belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, while a belief is false when there is no corresponding fact. Russell explains this conception by first defining belief as a relation of believing or judging, connecting the mind with other things. Furthermore, a belief or judgement consists of object-terms, a subject, and an object relation. If in reality there is a complex unity in which object-terms are related by the object-relation in the same way as they are related in the belief, then this complex unity is the fact corresponding to the belief. For a belief to be true, there must exist an associated complex unity.	Correspondence
Tarskian Truth and the Correspondence Theory https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20117105.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aeeae3f5b15b7dcdaf50c8335d602c5ad	This paper assesses wether Tarski intended for his theory of truth to be a correspondence theory of truth. Tarski bases his definition of truth on the concept of satisfaction. This satisfaction is assessed on the semantics of the truth claiming sentence, and more precisely on the relation between sequences of objects and atomic sentential functions. Since this constitutes a conception of truth in relation to the correspondence theory the article claims that Tarski's theory is in fact a correspondence theory. Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)	Correspondence
The pragmatist theory of truth https://www.jstor.org/stable/686121?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents	According to pragmatist theory, truth consists of the sum of all the empirical effects of an idea or thing. There is no universal truth, it just experimentally appears step by step.
Beliefs and Biases in Web Search	The paper highlights the counterproductive effects of biases in search accuracy, which in fact reshape the beliefs of people in certain outcomes. The study shows that people seek to confirm their beliefs in their searches (positively-skewed search results provided by search engines, irrespective of truth), effectively modeling their own comprehension of a certain topic, which might not reflect the truth. What is alarming is the combination of system and searcher biases, which unintentionally leads people to wrong answers half of the time.	Biases
Modelling the truth of scientific beliefs with cultural evolutionary theory	Some researchers have proposed that over generations scientists collect beliefs that become progressively more truth approximating. This paper, however, argues that may not be the case due to previous research being atomistic in its consideration of possible biases that could affect belief selection. Furthermore, the paper suggests that there are 5 different types of bias, each having a different level of impact on approximation to truth.	Biases
Toward a limited realism for psychiatric nosology based on the coherence theory of truth (Kendler, 2015)	A common concern regarding the epistemology of psychiatric diagnoses is the idea of 'pessimistic induction': given the extensive history of abandoned diagnoses, it is difficult to defend that science currently has the sole definitive psychiatric categories that correspond with an independent reality. Kendler argues, therefore, that the coherence theory is useful in psychiatric nosology, in that a diagnosis is real insofar as it integrates well with the existing scientific database of knowledge. Cognisant of said database an approach of coherence as opposed to correspondence establishes a known framework to evaluate psychiatric categories and develop criteria for ongoing evaluation of the categorisation process.	Coherence
Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge, (Thagard, 2007) Juliechea	Explanatory Coherence, where explanatory consists of describing mechanisms, leads to approximate truth. For a scientific theory to become closer to the truth, it has to increase its explanatory coherence by both deepening the layers of investigation in the mechanisms of the scientific theory and broadening by explaining more. In the case of explanatory coherence, phenomenons are complementary and statements, hypothesises support one another. Although there are examples of it not having been the case, coherence USUALLY leads to truth in social sciences.	Coherence
The coherence theory of empirical knowledge(Bonjour) Juliechea	Both weak and strong scientific theories make an appeal to coherence, that can be explicit or implicit. A coherent system must be consistent, although a consistent system doesn't need to be consistent. For a theory to be true, it must be more coherent than any other alternative. Coherence is closely related to explanation	Coherence
In defence of the coherence theory of truth (Young, 2001)	Young addresses the most prevalent contemporary criticism of coherence, the specification problem, as postulated by Walker, in which coherence inevitably is either trapped in infinite regress of what constitutes specified systems for truth conditions or presupposing the correctness of the correspondence theory. He argues that truth propositions and facts are not inherently related and can exist independently of one another, thus allowing coherence to be coherent as a theory. In other words, objective facts are not the truth conditions of propositions.	Coherence