User:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 5/Truth

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Truth[edit | edit source]

Truth Determined by Research of W.E.I.R.D Societies[edit | edit source]

The aim of research is to find the truth about a topic.[1] It is generally trusted as a 'truthful' source as the claims made are usually explained and backed up with evidence collected and interpreted by experts. Research is generally seen as positivist as it tries to prove its findings and reflect the real picture of society. However, there is dispute as to whether research actually finds the truth, or if it is flawed. A 'sample' in research, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is a smaller group extracted from a larger population, who are intended to represent the properties of the larger population.[2] This is done because it is often impossible for researchers to assess the entire sample as it is too large and there would be too much data to collect and analyse, especially if they're attempting to make conclusions that apply to the entire human population, for example; it would be infeasible to collect data from 7.8 billion people.[3] There are different methods of sampling, used in different situations, and they all have their advantages and disadvantages, and there are many papers out there to aid researchers in this process, such as Taherdoost's 'Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research'.[4] The aim of all of these methods is to obtain a group of people who are representative of the entire population. This means that they are expected to illustrate the characteristics of the entire population. This will help researchers to gain the truth about a topic in an efficient way. It has been argued, though, that this aim is not met in research, even when samples are taken to be 'representative'.

The acronym W.E.I.R.D came about in 2010 in an article by Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, and Ara Norenzayan called 'The weirdest people in the world?'. W.E.I.R.D stands for Westernised, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic, and the concept behind it is highlighting that the majority of research samples come from societies that have these features. They state that these kinds of societies are actually the minority in the world, yet they are over-represented in research and generalisations about the entire world are made based on them, meaning that research does not acknowledge cultural diversity and differences in populations which would change a research conclusion.[5] Thus, the sample can be very representative of the larger population of W.E.I.R.D countries, but it will be unrepresentative of countries that do not have these characteristics. Therefore, the research that is accepted as truth is actually conveying a truth for a narrow set of people, meaning it is not truth for some of those which believe it. An example of this happening comes from Jeffrey J Arnett who stated that the vast majority of APA (American Psychological Association) journals were based on Americans, who only make up 5% of the world's population and that 96% of subjects in the top journals were from W.E.I.R.D countries, even though people from these countries only made up 12% of the world's population.[6] This shows that truths in psychology are based on a tiny minority of the sample they are looking to represent and there is unequal representation of different cultures. Conceptions of truth from this kind of sample could be damaging as the potential for differences may be overlooked when utilising the research, leading to a 'one size fits all' approach.

The use of W.E.I.R.D research and how it skews truths has been recognised greatly since the introduction of the acronym 10 years ago. There have been responses from countries who do not fall into that bracket, emphasising how different their societies are to that of the assumed truths, and the issue that it causes. Kwang-Kuo Hwang wrote about Chinese psychology, discussing the lack of applicability of W.E.I.R.D research to non- Western societies, saying that "Western paradigms of scientific psychology are often irrelevant to or inappropriate for resolving problems encountered by local people in their daily lives".[7] This shows the issue with truths in the world, though the recognition of such facts has led to changes and the rise of a movement where indigenous research is being generated and recognised more as a result. This suggests that conclusions from research may become more reflective of truth in future.

Truth in Philosophy[edit | edit source]

Truth has always been one of the fundamental questions researched by philosophers. Over the centuries, many different theories or interpretations of truth have emerged, each being subject to criticism. Truth is so hard to define and theorise, that some philosophers have even rejected the idea completely. Philosophical skepticism for example argues that no knowledge can be proven, and no evidence is sufficient to any establishment of certainty.[8] On the other hand, philosophers such as pragmatist Richard Rorty wanted an endless re-evaluation of beliefs to replace the idea of set truth.[9] However, despite those who rejected truth, many have tried to define it in philosophical terms.

One of the most well-known theories of truth, perhaps because it is laid out the most simply, is the Correspondence theory. This theory states that a claim or belief is true if it corresponds with a fact.[10] In Book Z of Metaphysics, Aristotle had formulated it as follows: “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true”.[11] However, this theory, although important and largely recognised, has been criticised for being overly simple, as it relies on the vague idea of "fact".[10] Indeed, a fact is often defined as a belief which is true, meaning both "fact" and "truth" rely on each other.

Another theory emerged in the 19th century which strayed from the Correspondence theory's concentration on singular beliefs or events. The Coherence theory provides a more global view, looking at 'systems' of knowledge, which, taking into account interdependent beliefs, must be coherent to be 'true'.[10] In 1906, Harold H. Joachim explained it as "Truth in its essential nature is that systematic coherence which is the character of a significant whole" in Nature of Truth.[12]

A different kind of interpretation of truth was created by the logician Tarski in the 1930s.[10] While the last few theories we have covered consider beliefs and propositions to be the bearers of truth, Tarski claimed that sentences were.[10] Indeed, the expression of truth through language is a highly important aspect of its philosophy. For any given language, Tarski established that, for S a sentence, 'S is true if and only if S'[10] (e.g. 2+2=4 is true if and only if 2+2=4). His explanation also takes into account what he calls 'Reference and Satisfaction'.[10] This means that the object of a sentence must be referenced by the corresponding term (e.g. "Snow" references snow) and must satisfy a state or action (e.g. "snow" satisfies "is cold").[10] Some philosophers such as Davidson or Field, considered his theory somewhat as a mathematical explanation of the Correspondence theory.[10]

Finally, Deflationism claims that the idea of truth in itself is redundant, and insignificant.[10] This is because saying that X is true, is essentially the same as saying X. So saying that 'It is true that snow is cold.', is the same as 'Snow is cold'. This is called the Redundancy theory.[10] As we can see, there are several theories which reject the idea of truth, and perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that truth is such a difficult concept to define, that many think it simply cannot be defined on a metaphysical level.

Truth in Philosophy of Religion[edit | edit source]

When one considers the notion of truth within religion and religious studies, they may argue that religious beliefs are based upon a phenomenological approach. Those who claim to have had religious experiences, truly believe that they have had an encounter with a god or gods, thus, suggesting that their experience proves the existence of the supernatural being whom they believe in. However, there seems to be some friction between the concepts of experiential truth and empirical truth, as experiential truth suggests subjectivism whilst empirical truth connotes objectivism.

Although it is impossible to prove universal non-existence, it is possible to to prove existence.[13] This is why several arguments have been constructed within Religious Studies, more specifically within the religion of Christianity, in attempts to prove the existence of God, from ontological arguments to teleological arguments. Religious experience also seems to fall under the category of evidence, but it is often met with scepticism, as non-believers tend to suggest that these experiences can usually be explained by another phenomenon, other than the supernatural. Psychologist, Ludwig Feuerbach contends that God is merely a projection of human beings ideal attributes, thus reducing what one may consider to be a supernatural being, or an encounter with a supernatural being, to solely a figment of their imagination.[14] Nevertheless, in order to prove the validity of religious experience, scholars such as Richard Swinburne have proposed arguments in response to the scepticism. Swinburne proposes both the Principle of Credulity and the Principle of Testimony in order to support postulations of religious encounters. In relation to truth, Swinburne's Principle of Credulity attests that "If it seems (epistemically) to a subject S that x is present, then probably x is present."[15] The notion of truth being subject to human beings' sensory experiences seems both naive and rational, as our senses can deceive us, but to constantly be in a state of scepticism seems both paranoid and irrational. Therefore, what Swinburne suggests, is that unless we are given ample reason to believe that our senses are misleading us, we should not doubt them, as they can lead us to truth; this should apply to all experiences, including religious ones.[15]

For those who believe, religious experience aligns with the their truth and their reality, that being that God exists, whilst for non-believers, religious experience is a misconstrued perception of reality and truth. Therefore, it could be argued that truth within religious studies tends to be relative due to the subjectivity of individuals' perception of reality.

Truth in Politics[edit | edit source]

As Hannah Arendt says, “truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other.”[16]

As a discipline that encompasses nearly all other disciplines (e.g. economics, psychology), politics inherently has a mixture of constructivist and interpretive (also referred to as perspectivist)[17] theories.

Many political essayists emphasise the use of lies in political campaigns, in the sense that manipulating what can be called a truth is subsequently a lie.[18][19] The problem is, in the era of post-truth, when considering facts used in political campaigns or in news coverage of said campaigns, each individual has their own interpretation of the truth. For example, a study conducted by the Stanford Law review in 2012 demonstrated how ‘cultural cognition’ has a significant influence on how facts are perceived.[20] In the study, participants were shown a video of a group of protestors and it was seen in either one of two ways: as a peaceful protest or as a riot.[20] It could be argued that this illustrates the role of fact-checkers and why we have them; yet, it must also be acknowledged that they themselves have their own political bias and, arguably more importantly, their own social status.[19] This is key in analysing truth in politics as politicians cannot get far in their career without the support of people who view the same truths as them.[17] To quote James Madison, “all governments rest on opinion.”[21] More so, it can be said that they gain and then retain power through how they manipulate the truth.[22][19] To counteract bias, the Stanford Law Review proposes “adversarial fact-checking”[20] but others have argued that this would end in an ‘infinite regress toward an uncertain truth.’[19]

Politics relies on factual truth; at the same time, it can be a detriment to politics as factual truths are ‘acknowledged without debate and debate constitutes politics.’[16] Here lies the problem with truth in politics - factual truths are malleable.[16] Where scientific theories, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, can be proven time and time again, factual truths can be manipulated.[16] People often rewrite history to fit their narrative and they’re able to do so since facts and events can’t be ‘proven’ in the same way theories can, and thus, will always be fallible in society.[16] Even by considering the role of a historian or a philosopher, which is not only to interpret facts but to choose facts to explain events, it poses the question of whether facts can even exist, especially in a political setting.[16]

Truth in History[edit | edit source]

Interpretation of evidence is important for the construction of historical truths (facts), which must be meaningful and refer to past events.[23][24] In order to generate logically-constructed compelling truths and reconstructions of historical events, historians must make sure their statements are consistent with all the evidence that is available, without contradictions, and thus, once that is achieved, the possibilities are regarded as historical truth.[25]

The approach to truth in history is also very scientific as we may note that academics favour to update the foundation of knowledge - as with the actualization of scientific theories - rather than being attached to a bundle of information that cannot be revised. Sigmund Freud examined the idea of truth in history in his religious analyses, as he wrote that "at first [historians] shaped their accounts according to their needs and tendencies of the moment.”[26] Humans indeed have the propensity to remember the past as it pleases them, from a comforting perspective. It would yet be wrongful to call ancient historians liars. They were simply stating their truth.

The interpretive nature of historical truth inevitably adds a degree of subjectivity, as it is dependent on the historian’s own views of human behaviour and activity.[27] Moreover, it may sometimes include the omission of data which is seen as unrelated to the focus of a particular historian or occasionally, it may be necessary for certain facts to be inferred through speculation, when sources are insufficient to portray the entirety of an event.[23]

Although it could be seen as if they lack historical credibility, these sources still have a strong academic value. Modernist historians indeed crave for purely objective truth which sometimes leads them to disregard any untrustworthy material, but this stance is inconceivable as it would force us to question the reliability and truthfulness of all past sources.[28][29]

The dialectical nature of truth makes it impossible for someone to find a historical truth if the chain of truths and untruths is not closely examined. This is why truth in history is a versatile process, in which partiality, contradiction and incompleteness are essential in order for one to find the truth. It would indeed be imprudent to believe that truth in history is always absolute, as this same truth relies on different perceptions, which inevitably alter it, including the perspective of the person who witnessed these events or the perspective of the translators and of the editors. Absolute truths do still exist in history, but they are limited to the historical facts of an event i.e. date, participants, course of action. This is vital for society to learn from its past and not being able to dismiss their dark history as a fairy tale. Hence, historians' responsibility to take into account contradictions and different sides of an historical event is of paramount importance, before relaying this information to the broader public.

Furthermore, historical truths and reconstructions are not static. They are changed and readjusted as new sources of information are discovered, as well as shift to reflect a society’s views and perceptions of events.[25]

Francois Gerard - Napoleon Ier en costume du Sacre

An example of the former can often be seen in totalitarian societies, such as Stalin’s dictatorship in the Soviet Union. Much information (or truth) was withheld from both historians and the public, and was falsified to reflect the regime’s ideology. Nevertheless, David King’s 1997 book ‘The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia’ reveals the censoring and modification of historical records under Stalinism, which would often airbrush or crop out people who were seen as political enemies (after they had disappeared from their homes or were publicly executed).[30]

The latter can be seen through the idea that historical truths are automatically linked to the language being used to explain them, which can often reflect the subjective ideas of a certain time period. For example, by labelling the 1857 Indian Mutiny (the anti-colonial resistance against Britain’s rule) as a “mutiny”, it depicts the event as a rebellion against Britain’s “legitimate authority” and “rightful dominance” over India. However, currently many Indians and historians refer to it as the Indian War of Independence, which presents a different interpretive view of the truth.[31]

“History is a set of lies agreed upon”[32] Napoléon Bonaparte once said. One may assert that history is written by the victors, yet they also forget to say that it is rewritten over time transformed by books, reinvented by those who didn’t live through it. To this may be added the overwhelming quantity of sources, in which most of the material turns out to be extremely tendentious. Where does truth lie in history then? [33]

If we take the example of Napoléon Bonaparte, French historical accounts have a tendency to portray him as a hero, France’s saviour after the French Revolution.[34] On the other hand, his more obscure role in the French history has been hidden for a long time and is only slowly coming to light.[35] This shows how historical perspective has evolved around Napoléon Bonaparte, highlighting a willingness to more accurately recall the truth, even if this means opening up old wounds.

Treating history as a hermetic fog is thus an inadequate mindset, as we have seen that history is an everchanging discipline, to which new added evidence brings to light aspects of truth or untruth. Going back in time to witness past events or having the ability to get into one’s head must yet be discovered for us to completely evaluate truth in history. In the mean-time, any historical analyses may only be insightful and truthful, if the public is looking out for any biased or misleading information.

Conspiracy theories[edit | edit source]

A conspiracy theory is “a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot”.[36] However, the term “conspiracy theory”, is most often associated with lacking evidence, unscientific methods and distortion of truth. This gives the term a powerful meaning because being associated with that term, can lead to a theory and research about it being disregarded without proper consideration for the advanced thesis.[37] Historical conspiracy theories are particularly difficult to judge, as evidence is rarer, could have been fabricated in retrospect and challenges our understanding of a widely accepted side of the story.

Picture of the original "Operation Northwoods" documents

The conspiracy theorists, who argue their case can vary from independent researchers to entire government agencies. For instance, in February 2003, Colin Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council, the theory, that Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda were planning on cooperating to attack the U.S.A with weapons of mass destruction.  How much this affected the invasion of Iraq the next month can hardly be assessed, as that decision took many other factors into account. Nevertheless, this apparent relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda was proven to be false in later years yet it was never labelled a major conspiracy theory.[37]

Any theory is only temporary until enough evidence is brought forward to either confirm or dismiss the theory. This should not be any different, for conspiracy theories, as the past has proven that ridiculously sounding theories, were actually true. This is the case for Operation Northwoods, a planned mission from the US military that included propositions of staged terrorist attacks on the USA. This mission had the goal to blame the Cuban government with these attacks and therefore justify military intervention in Cuba.[38] Although, Operation Northwoods never went through, the idea of the US government planning to stage terrorist attacks would suffice for that theory to be regarded as a conspiracy. And yet, the operation did exist, showcasing that truth and conspiracy theories are not incompatible entities.

The evolution of memories concerning the Second World War in France between 1945 and Today[edit | edit source]

As explained below, historical truths are not static: they are in constant evolution. A great example of this quest of a historical truth is the evolution of memories concerning the Second World War in France between 1945 and Today.

Having a critical and neutral point of view of the horrors of Second World War is a difficult task for historians. One of the main characteristics of History is to trace the experiences suffered. In order to do this, historians must cross different sources of evidences such as interviews or archives. The variety of individual war experiences during the Second World War II, the role of the French State in deportation and the place of the fight in public debate were some of many difficulties that Historians faced in order to trace the truth.[39]

When the war ended in 1945, France was extremely divided. A sentiment of injustice and shame was deeply felt and the main officials of Vichy’ government were brought to justice. In urge of unity and reconstruction, the new elected government conveyed the image of a victorious France and hide French implications into mass deportation.[40] In 1972, through his book Vichy France and the Jews, the historian Robert Paxton wrote “Vichy France bears an important part of responsibility for this disaster, as the records of both French and German governments make clear“.[41] Truth was shaped again and Vichy’ History reinterpreted.

Moreover, until the seventies, Jewish and Roma mass deportation camps weren’t seen as a racial mass deportation. The concentrationist system was seen as a whole. No distinction was made between a concentration camp and an extermination camp or a political deportation and a racial deportation.[42] The specificity of Jewish genocide emerged progressively. The Eichmann trial in 1961 can be considered as the start of the recognition of the Holocaust and many historians intervene as experts during similar trials in France. One of their principal roles was to protect memory and historical facts against a negationist tendency. Through their works, Historian proved the scientific nonsense of the negationist speeches and showed the diversity of the memories of the war.[43]

Truth in Architecture[edit | edit source]

Truth in architecture deals with architecture as a whole, from the foundation to the roof, from the surrounding landscapes to the most interior spaces.[44] The study of buildings' authenticity and architectural truth such as scientific truth cannot be absolute truth, it can only give concepts and ideas that work when applied to the data possessed.[45] Randy Ray Gaines believes that truth in architecture is an honest approach to materials, and in line with Franck Lloyd Wright with his work on the meaning of materials, studies of human-material interactions establish a true meaning of buildings components.  

According to Jeff Malpas, truth is related to authenticity and correctness between the representation and that which it represents. Consequently, the representation of the building is analysed, through sentences, from different points of view concerning the different objectives that the building has to fulfil in a given context.[46] Looking to an editorial standpoint, architectural discourses prioritize the visual sense rather than any other senses to understand the shapes and social appearances of a building. The representational and the visual linked with sentences highlight the relation between truth and ethics from different opinions. Thus, photography’s in architectural research have an important role in the meaning of truth.[46]


From a scientific perspective, architecture is related to Design-science research to prove truthful usefulness and helpfulness of building, including an ontological basis and epistemological stance. Design-science underlines different articulation of the world-views to avoid hegemony across the research paradigm.[47] On the other hand, according to a recent article in Architectural Review, post-truth is rising which means that objective facts are less influential within the social sphere than emotion and personal belief. Media can create images that look real and instantly manipulate them for economic purposes. Our constant connection to the screen tends us to perceive good and bad architecture favouring the rise of homogeneous architecture less related to Design-science research.[48] Following pre-modern thinking, the world is part of a symbolic order expressed by buildings. Each society has its symbolic order, and architectural analysis illustrates visually this specific order, such as capitalism linked with bureaucracy in European cities.[46] 

A recent critique from the urbanist Richard Sennet in the book “Designing Disorder” says that truthful architecture should be today disorganized in favour of spontaneous encounters, to the detriment of optimised spaces linked to the profitability of capitalism.[49]

Truth in The Chicago Conspiracy Trial[edit | edit source]

Case Study: Trial of Chicago 7[edit | edit source]

The 24th of September 1969 began the almost five-month trial of seven plus one activists accused of conspiracy to incite riots that happened in the city of Chicago, United States. It took place during the Democratic National Convention, after a student’s manifestation against the Vietnam War, which sent many young American soldiers to their death. Opinions differ between the defense and the prosecution on whether this demonstration, which led to violence opposing demonstrators to police officers, was supposed to be peaceful or a purposely confrontation with the police. Thereby, the Trial of Chicago 7 could benefit from an interdisciplinary approach, as it involves few disciplines that have a different way to unfold the truth on the events: law and criminology, politics, and media.[50]

Politics[edit | edit source]

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable” – George Orwell[18]. The Chicago 7 is a political trial as it involves the manifestants of the political protest that fought against the police, supported by the government. The eight defendants, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Hellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Reiner and Booby Seale (the leader of the Black Panther Party that was first judged with the others and then got his own trial, as he didn’t take a part in the manifestation),[50] were charged by Republican President Nixon, and the Attorney General, John Mitchell. Both of them hired the lawyer Richard Schultz to find a good reason to indict and put the blame on the defendants for the violence that occurred during the manifestation with the police[51]. If all their charges were judged correct, the defendants risked a ten-year in prison. In order to follow their political agenda, the prosecution based their argument upon undercover informants (policemen especially) that testified on the violence provoked by the demonstrators. On the contrary, the defense tried to prove that the indictment relied on a political trial rather than a criminal one.[50]

Law[edit | edit source]

Whereas the prosecution argued that the defendants described as “outside agitators” or “revolutionaries” violated the Anti-Riot Act of 1968 by inciting riots during speeches and provoking the police “to respond with violence”, the defense claimed that their charges went against the right of freedom of speech written in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of principle, judges ascertain the facts of each case by assessing eyewitnesses, defendants, testimonies, forensic and documentary evidence. Later on, it was proved by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals that the trial Judge Julius Hoffman made errors and misjudgments and reversed most of his decisions. It reveals that he sided with the government attorneys and led the case with a strong bias in evidence gathering and an even stronger bias against the defendants. He ignored questions posed by the defense attorneys, denied the defense attorney’s access to government evidence obtained without a warrant and barred the defense from submitting the documents in which the defendants set out their non-violent strategy. He also prohibited the former Attorney General from testifying about his opposition to prosecution of demonstrators.[50]

Media[edit | edit source]

One of the ethical codes that journalists must follow according to the Society of Professional Journalists is to “seek truth and report it” “with fairness and accuracy”.[52] Having said that, the media coverage played an essential part in revealing the truth on the events of Chicago Seven, and led to investigations on the violence’s source. Photographs, articles in newspaper and radio broadcasts provided data to the public in order to report the manifestation’s violence between demonstrators and the law enforcement officers, as well as the trial proceedings.[50] For instance, to report the beginning of the trial the first day it started, the journalist James W. Singer published in the Sun-Times an article entitled “Chicago 8 go on trial today”, and many more preceded or followed it from other sources such as The New York Times, and The Washington Post. However, the media coverage was limited as journalists could only stayed in one room of the court,[50] and a report of Daniel Walker from the Chicago Study Team published the 1st of December 1968 based upon “3,437 eyewitnesses and participants, 180 hours of film, and over 12,000 still photographs”[53] showed that journalists weren’t welcome during the demonstration because their equipment had been damaged by police officers. In “A wild night’s ride with the kids”, Tom Fitzpatrick, a Chicago Sun-times journalist who won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting depicts the violence of the two sides, police and protesters alike. Although both sides claimed to be non-violent, it appears that facts-based information contradicts these claims.[54] Nonetheless, a lot of media outlets reported the truth in a subjective way. Indeed, the demonstration was represented in a biased way, as photographers captured a specific moment in the riot without telling us the context. For instance, after the Walker Report was released, television media were criticized and accused to focus on the police violence and not that of the demonstrators.[50]

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

The Conspiracy Trial of Chicago Seven can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach to understand how truth unfolds. Indeed, politics, law and media have different way to report and find the truth, as they do not have the same objective.

Truth in Advertising[edit | edit source]

Advertising is a means of communication where firms provide information about a product or service to aid consumers’ decision making process,[55] yet it is not strange to see businesses engage in misleading, deceptive, or false advertising by promoting claims that their product is superior. Consumers expect truth in advertisements; when they are persuaded to buy a product that fails to match their claims, they feel they were taken advantage of and develop a defensive stance towards advertising. This has led to the emergence of "consumer skepticism", referring to “the tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims”.[56]


Many governments employ regulations to protect consumers from fraudulent advertising, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in the United Kingdom. Despite this, manipulation of advertising content persists to this day. In 2015, Procter & Gamble’s toothpaste brand Crest was found exaggerating the beneficial effects of their toothpaste in an advertisement for Chinese consumers, by using digital software to make the model’s teeth appear whiter. Chinese authorities have thus fined Crest nearly $1 million (USD) for false advertising.[57] Simultaneously, there are cases where government regulation failed to ensure the promotion of truth in marketing. In 2016, a The Coca-Cola Company was sued for supposedly misleadingly advertising the soft drink Seagram’s Ginger Ale as “made from real ginger” when it was not made from real ginger root. The case eventually reached a settlement in 2019 where class members were entitled to a $0.80 (USD) cash reward for each purchase, while the company was permitted the use of the phrases “real ginger” and “natural ginger” paired with “taste” or “flavour”.[58]


Recently, a theoretical model was developed in attempt to assess the relationship between protective legislation and sceptical consumers. Results demonstrated that stricter regulation may hinder consumers’ ability to distinguish truth among false claims. When penalties for false advertising are high, firms are motivated to invest more into the validation of their claims to avoid being fined by regulators. As a result, it would be increasingly difficult for consumers to differentiate between a low quality product and a high quality one. In order to achieve absolute truth in advertising, it is proposed that regulators increase the penalty extortionately. However, the researchers recognise the solution’s impracticality as litigation costs would have to rise accordingly, which would make it more difficult for victims of false advertising to be compensated.[59]

Truth in Economics[edit | edit source]

The truth in Economics comes from the endless theories created and developed mainly by economists, however, occasionally collaborated with philosophers, psychologists and other scientists. Therefore, every truth in economics comes from its according scientific theory. A statement made by the former US secretary of labor Robert Reich, states that every economy in the world obviously has it doubts and leakages, but the main theories applied in the economies are supported by facts and data.[60] The truth in economics cannot be discussed easily as it has two sides to it. The truth on one side of economics comes from bedrock economics, such as scientific theories from John Maynard Keynes. One theory, economists use as their 'gadget' to find the truth to problems/issues in the real world, is the circular flow model,[61] which describes how households and firms interact in the market of goods and services and the labor market. The main reason it is used is to teach people to think in a correct and so a true way for themselves or their firm.

An introduction to the second side of the truth to economics is necessary to understand where the truth in both sides splits apart. The second side of truth in economics approaches once again more the interdisciplinary and cross disciplinary path, as the truth in economics often does not follow the principle that something is true when it is precisely matching the definition of truth.[62] It rather uses theories with have gone through the process of truth with other disciplines equivalently, to be able to find the truth no matter what the issue or problem in the real world is.

What does the truth in Economics have to do with Maths and Philosophy?[edit | edit source]

The second side of truth in economics, is more related to have evidence of other disciplines behind it and collaborate the working progress. Economics deals generally with the problems of reality, policies, peoples environment and their processes, therefore, often finds its truth in philosophy with the normative theory of truth,[63] where with the 4 characteristics of truth, it finds the ideal knowledge and a solution to achieve it. However, economists such as Lionel Robbins, used maths to find truth in economic theories, as in the modern classifications of economics, it belongs to the social sciences and should be used with mathematical facts. Lionel Robbins approach was clear, as economics studies how to best allocate scarce resources in the world, with a changing environment however there is always a different approach and solution to an issue, which leads to the problem that economics expresses the monetary solution and how people should allocate their benefits and expenses in a different way each time. To an end he believed, maths was the right approach to show the truth in economics, however, economics used in politics strives to make the best solutions for the country and believes it to be true, as it is the model with the highest respect[64] to human beings.

Lastly, the truth in economics has to be discussed in relation with the Neo-Classical theory, so the model of "Homo-Economicus".[65] It describes the role of consumers in a market as utility maximisers, therefore, the assumption is that those theories and models are there to predict what is the best outcome for the consumer or even producer to gain the maximum of utility. Many economists can calculate the utility of a consumer when buying a certain bundle of products, but state themselves that it might not be the truth that this bundle is the optimum to buy for the consumer. In fact, they describe it as a limited applicability.[65]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Clancy M. Overview of research designs. Emerg Med J [Internet]. 2020 [cited 30 October 2020];19(6):546-549. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756301/
  2. ↑ sample, n [Internet]. OED Online. Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 30 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/170414?rskey=Z4sAYh&result=1#eid
  3. ↑ Chamie J. World Population: 2020 Overview | YaleGlobal Online [Internet]. Yaleglobal.yale.edu. 2020 [cited 30 October 2020]. Available from: https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/world-population-2020-overview
  4. ↑ Taherdoost H. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management. 2016;5:18-27.
  5. ↑ Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2010;33(2-3):61-83.
  6. ↑ Arnett J. The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist. 2008;63(7):602-614.
  7. ↑ Hwang K. Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations. Springer, New York, NY; 2012. pp.2
  8. ↑ Comesaña, Juan and Peter Klein, "Skepticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/skepticism/>, Visited 02/11/2020
  9. ↑ Williams, M. (2003). Rorty on Knowledge and Truth. In C. Guignon & D. Hiley (Eds.), Richard Rorty (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus, pp. 64-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Glanzberg, Michael, "Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth/>, Visited 02/11/2020
  11. ↑ David, Marian, "The Correspondence Theory of Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondence/>, Visited 02/11/2020
  12. ↑ Harold Joachim, 1906, "Coherence Theory of Truth", From The Nature of Truth, Available at: https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/joachim-a.pdf, Visited 02/11/2020
  13. ↑ Romejin D. Proof of Non-Existence [Internet]. Rug400.nl. 2014 [cited 2 November 2020]. Available from: http://rug400.nl/rug400_2/rug_definitief.dev/sites/default/files/Proof%20of%20Non-Existence.pdf
  14. ↑ Child A. Projection. Philosophy [Internet]. 1967 [cited 2 November 2020];42(159):20-36. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3749301?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=feuerbach+projectionism&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dfeuerbach%2Bprojectionism&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_solr_cloud%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A8ba6b3a437c1f10433ea623b99cbe9df&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  15. ↑ a b Martin M. The Principle of Credulity and Religious Experience. Religious Studies [Internet]. 1986 [cited 2 November 2020];22(1):79-93. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20006259?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  16. ↑ a b c d e f Arendt H. Truth and Politics. The New Yorker. 1967;:295–314.
  17. ↑ a b Sinopoli RC. Is There Room for Truth in Politics? The Limitations of Perspectivism. Polity. 1994;26(3):363–86.
  18. ↑ a b Bufacchi V. What's the difference between lies and post-truth in politics? A philosopher explains [Internet]. The Conversation. 2020 [cited 2020Oct30]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-lies-and-post-truth-in-politics-a-philosopher-explains-130442
  19. ↑ a b c d Ceci SJ, Williams WM. The Psychology of Fact-Checking [Internet]. Scientific American. Scientific American; 2020 [cited 2020Oct30]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/
  20. ↑ a b c Kahan DM, Hoffman DA, Braman D, Evans D, Rachlinski JJ. "They Saw a Protest". Stanford Law Review. 2012May;64(4):851–906.
  21. ↑ Gibson A. Veneration and Vigilance: James Madison and Public Opinion, 1785-1800. The Review of Politics. 2005;67(1):5–35.
  22. ↑ Osserman J, Lê A, Dousos F. Psychoanalysis and Post-Truth [Internet]. Public Seminar. 2020 [cited 2020Oct31]. Available from: https://publicseminar.org/essays/psychoanalysis-and-post-truth/
  23. ↑ a b White H. Interpretation in History. New Literary History. 1973;4(2):281-314.
  24. ↑ Haecker D. A Theory of Historical Truth. Philosophical Topics. 1985;13(2):267-75.
  25. ↑ a b Toraldo di Francia G. Historical truth. Foundations of Science. 1995;1(3):407-16.
  26. ↑ Freud, Sigmund. Moses and Monotheism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and Random House, Inc., 1939. 85
  27. ↑ Levich M. Disagreement and Controversy in History. History and Theory. 1962;2(1):41-51.
  28. ↑ Wanta S. The Truth in History [dissertation on the Internet]. Milkauwee (WISC, USA): University of Milwaukee-Wisconsin; 2013. [cited 2020 November 1]. Available from: https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1007&context=rsso
  29. ↑ Dunning WA. The American Historical Review (Vol. 19, No. 2) [Internet]. Cambridge (MA, USA): Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association; 1914 January. Chapter 15, Truth in History; [cited 2020 November 1]. 217-229. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1862284?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  30. ↑ Flewers P. Review: David King, The Commissar Vanishes. Revolutionary History. 1998;7.
  31. ↑ Frith N. The French Colonial Imagination: Writing the Indian Uprisings, 1857-1858, from Second Empire to Third Republic: Lexington Books; 2014.
  32. ↑ Napoléon Bonaparte, 1815 June 18, After the battle of Waterloo
  33. ↑ Mintzker Y. Research: Essay: Truth in History. Princeton Alumni (weekly) [Internet]. 2017 October 25 [cited 2020 1 November] [5]. Available from: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/essay-truth-history
  34. ↑ de Méneval C-F, de Méneval J. Memoirs illustrating the History of Napoleon I from 1802 to 1815. Napoleon against Great Odds [Internet]. New York (N.Y, USA): D. Appleton and Company; 1894. Chapter 1: Memoirs to serve for the history of Napoleon I, from 1802 to 1815 [cited 2020 November 1]. 1. Available from: https://www.questia.com/read/65474065/memoirs-illustrating-the-history-of-napoleon-i-from
  35. ↑ Ashby R. The Emperor and the Defenders of France (Vol. 3) [Internet]. Santa Barbara (CA, USA): Praeger; 2010. Chapter 14: Epilogue and Conclusion [cited 2020 November 1]. 177. Available from: https://www.questia.com/read/124016797/napoleon-against-great-odds-the-emperor-and-the
  36. ↑ Definition of conspiracy theory availbale at:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory
  37. ↑ a b PELKMANS, M., & MACHHOLD, R. Conspiracy theories and their truth trajectories, Focaal, (2011), 66-80. Retrieved Nov 2, 2020, from https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/focaal/2011/59/focaal590105.xml
  38. ↑ 1962 US Joint Chiefs Of Staff Operation Northwoods Unclassified Document Bolsheviks NWO available at: https://archive.org/details/1962USJointChiefsOfStaffOperationNorthwoodsUnclassifiedDocument/1962%20US%20Joint%20Chiefs%20of%20Staff%20Operation%20Northwoods-Unclassified%20Document/page/n11/mode/2up
  39. ↑ Cohen. R,(1997) ‘The French Memory and the War’, The New York Times [website], p.1,https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/23/world/the-french-memory-and-the-war.html, (accessed 9 November 2020.) )
  40. ↑ Kevin Walsh (2001) Collective Amnesia and the Mediation of Painful Pasts: the representation of France in the Second World War, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7:1,p 83
  41. ↑ Marrus, M. R., & Paxton, R. O. (1995). Vichy France and the Jews. Stanford University Press.
  42. ↑ Keriven.B,(2013)’ France during World War II Historiographic analysis based upon the Annual bibliography of the French history(1964-2010)’p.1-12.
  43. ↑ (Chisem. J, (2011)‘The collective memory of WWII in France ‘, e-international relations [website],2011, p.1-2, https://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/22/the-collective-memory-of-wwii-in-france/#_ftn4, (accessed 9 november 2020))
  44. ↑ Gaines, Randy Ray. “Truth in Architecture: An Honest Approach to Wood, Stone, and Glass Conference Center.” Ttu-Ir.Tdl.Org, 1 May 2001, ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/10200. Accessed 2 Nov. 2020.
  45. ↑ Vardy, Peter. What Is Truth?. Alfresford, U.K., John Hunt Pub, 2003.
  46. ↑ a b c Malpas, Jeff. “Building Memory.” Interstices: Journal of Architecture and Related Arts, 14 Mar. 2012, 10.24135/ijara.v0i0.433. Accessed 28 Oct. 2020.
  47. ↑ Purao, Sandeep. “Truth or Dare.” Journal of Database Management, vol. 24, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 51–66, 10.4018/jdm.2013070104. Accessed 7 Apr. 2020.
  48. ↑ Parnell, Steve. “Post-Truth Architecture.” Architectural Review, 20 Dec. 2016, www.architectural-review.com/essays/post-truth-architecture. Accessed 2 Nov. 2020.
  49. ↑ Sendra, Pablo, et al. Designing Disorder : Experiments and Disruptions in the City. London ; New York, Verso, 2020.
  50. ↑ a b c d e f g Ragsdale B. The Chicago Seven: 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts [Internet]. Federal Judicial Center; 2008. Available from: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/trials/chicago7.pdf
  51. ↑ NPR. 'The Trial Of The Chicago 7' Is Passionate, Political — And Uncannily Pertinent [Internet]. Fresh Air. 2020 [cited 31 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/923974896
  52. ↑ Society of Professional Journalists. SPJ Code of Ethics [Internet]. Spj.org. 2014 September [cited 30 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
  53. ↑ Chicago Study Team. Rights in Conflict: The violent confrontation of demonstrators and police in the parks and streets of Chicago during the week of the Democratic National Convention of 1968. [Internet]. Chicago: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence; 1968. Available from: http://chicago68.com/ricsumm.html
  54. ↑ Fitzpatrick T. A wild night's ride with the kids. Chicago Sun-Times [Internet]. 1969 [cited 31 October 2020];. Available from: https://chicago.suntimes.com/21454891/trial-of-the-chicago-7-seven-netflix-a-wild-nights-ride-with-the-kids
  55. ↑ Richards J, Curran C. Oracles on “Advertising”: Searching for a Definition. Journal of Advertising [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2 November 2020];31(2):63-77. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4189215?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  56. ↑ Koslow S. Can the Truth Hurt? How Honest and Persuasive Advertising Can Unintentionally Lead to Increased Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer Affairs [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2 November 2020];34(2):245-267. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2000.tb00093.x
  57. ↑ China fines P&G’s Crest nearly $1 mln over false advertising claims [Internet]. CNBC. 2015 [cited 2 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/china-fines-pgs-crest-nearly-1-mln-over-false-advertising-claims.html
  58. ↑ Seagram’s Ginger Ale [Internet]. Truth In Advertising. 2016 [cited 2 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.truthinadvertising.org/seagrams-ginger-ale/
  59. ↑ Wu Y, Geylani T. Regulating Deceptive Advertising: False Claims and Skeptical Consumers. Marketing Science. 2020;39(4):788-806.
  60. ↑ Crisis of Democracy (SSIR) [Internet]. Ssir.org. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://ssir.org/books/reviews/entry/crisis_of_democracy
  61. ↑ [Internet]. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/1-3-how-economists-use-theories-and-models-to-understand-economic-issues/
  62. ↑ How Do We Know What Is True? | RealClearScience [Internet]. Realclearscience.com. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/07/how_do_we_know_what_is_true.html
  63. ↑ Philosophy of Economics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/
  64. ↑ (PDF) THE PROBLEM OF TRUTH IN ECONOMICS AND MATHEMATICS [Internet]. ResearchGate. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334132149_THE_PROBLEM_OF_TRUTH_IN_ECONOMICS_AND_MATHEMATICS
  65. ↑ a b How Effective is Economic Theory? [Internet]. Nationalaffairs.com. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-effective-is-economic-theory
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar_group_5/Truth&oldid=4364946"