User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 9/Truth

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

Truth[edit | edit source]

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Truth is defined as an idea, belief, or statement that is or considered to be in accordance with fact or reality. It is derived from Old English trīewth or trēowth meaning 'faithfulness, constancy'.[1]

Truth is a concept strongly associated with complexity. Looking at the origin of the term in different languages underlines this aspect, as its etymologies have different meanings In many languages such as German, Dutch or Latin, the word for truth is derived from the indo-european root "u̯erǝ-" meaning friendship as well as true. [2] There is therefore a sense of sharing of truth between human beings. It is something accessible to all and on which people can build. Truth can be translated to "emet" in Hebrew, meaning something on which we can rely. In Latin, the term "Veritas", refers to truth, but in a way exceeding, transcending everything else [3], linking back to the idea of truth being shared by people. The ancient greek term for truth "Aletheia" refers to something not being hidden, being evident [4] . With this origin comes the issue of subjectivity. What is evident for some might be confused for others. There therefore would be no shared truth, contrasting with the meaning of "u̯erǝ-" and "veritas". All those origins brings up new characteristics of truth some being in opposition with others. The angle taken to study the concept of truth thus impacts our understanding of it, reinforcing its complexity. Our current perception of truth therefore contains all of those different meanings, adding up in a complex concept. The interactions between the different origins makes truth as understood today even greater than the sum of all of its different origins.

French philosopher Michel Foucault was amongst the first to highlight the West's pursuit of 'the truth', yet how simultaneously we have 'built into and around ourselves' superior systems which 'manage all that we know and do'. [5]

The Interdisciplinary Approach[edit | edit source]

The interdisciplinary approach requires preliminary contextualisation of the problem and the related epistemological terms including: truth, knowledge and methodology. These terms need to be defined in relation to involved disciplines and their respected approaches when tackling the problem itself. Interdisciplinarity requires evaluation of the methodology used in each discipline involved, looking into flaws and biases within the criteria set by the discipline.

Some thoughts:

Predefining the key epistemological terms in relation to the problem: truth, knowledge, methodology. These terms need to be defined in relation to disciplines being involved and the problem itself.

Evaluating the methodology of each discipline/approach involved and their biases

Should we synthesize the notion of truth or discuss the diversity of meanings among disciplines being part of the research? When approaching truth with interdisciplinary a debate arise : can the definitions from the different disciplines be united into one general understanding or it can only lead to an association of different views on truth? For Ibn Rushd even if the visions of two disciplines are not in direct opposition, they can be so different one from the other that there is no shared aspects which could be used as a bridge between them to reach a common understanding. Interdisciplinarity can therefore be questioned as the search for transversal, common truth appears very complex. Multidisciplinarity is then the more viable and plausible option.

Defining Truth: Theories of Truth[edit | edit source]

As stated above, key epistemological terms need to be defined in relation to involved disciplines to truly employ the interdisciplinary approach. Analysing what the nature of truth is, Correspondence theory states that truth is how things actually are. According to Correspondence theory, if there is an existing fact which a belief corresponds to then the belief is true, therefore a belief is false if there is no existing corresponding entity [6]. A critical view of Correspondence theory will point out that the theory relies upon a certain finality about the propositions made about reality. When weighing these propositions, there is no way for one to ensure that what is being stated is an objective characteristic of reality [7]. Perhaps picking up on that criticism, Coherence theory argues the nature of truth by exploring what is already confidently learned and thus known about reality. Truth becomes true only if it fits well and consistently with learned established facts about reality [8]. When examining scientific intuition, scientific knowledge on for example medical disorders becomes more and more valid, and hence more true, as it becomes more intertwined with the already established learned knowledge bases [8]. Realism investigates the existence of certain objects in relation to thoughts and claims, therefore a realist claims that certain things exist independent of thought and belief, hence objectively. Oddly, realism and anti-realism hold a feature of hyper-generality, hence making it possible for one to be a realist on certain categories of discussion and an idealist on other such categories. This existing hyper-generality about realism exposes areas for criticism as there are many things that exist solely due to human activity [9]. Anti-realism, however, relies heavily upon verification procedures to offer evidence for a claim to be true [6]. In sociology, Weber believed that social classes or entities did not exist independent of the need for social theorists to analyse and observe social actors as, for him, there was no evidence to suggest the independent existence of such classes. In opposition was Marx, who strongly believed that the named social classes, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, did exist independent of thought [10]. Beyond the definition of truth per se in different disciplines lies the question of the nature of truth and the thought behind defining it. It is heavily influenced by our conceptions of facts and faith. The very nature of facts, considered to be more concrete in some ways than even truth, is changing; it was once a 'fact' that the Earth is flat which was then disapproved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519–1522) [11] There still exist people who deny this based on certain elements of faith or counter facts. This demarcates the debate on the nature of truth into relativist and absolutist theories. It might be difficult to define truth in terms of facts if we look at the history of those facts since as we have employed more and more empirical methods, our perception of discovering facts itself has changed.

Defining Knowledge: Truth and Knowledge[edit | edit source]

Although truth and knowledge are closely tied, they are not the same thing. One only knows something if the following are satisfied: The Truth condition, The Belief-condition, and The Evidence-condition. The Truth-condition refers to the concept that one knows something if it is true, or more realistically known to be true. Similarly, the Belief-condition refers to the concept that one only knows what they believe and hence belief is a precursor to knowledge. The Evidence-condition is satisfied when one has adequate evidence for the claim, or a third party has adequate evidence to believe in the claim [12]. Exploring the Belief-condition, and hence the intrinsic nature of knowledge, from a Platonic perspective knowledge only becomes so if it stems from justified true belief. This analysis thus differentiates between genuine knowledge and just simply true belief, separating things individuals truly know as opposed to things believed by individuals that happen to be true [13]. Clearly there are set criteria for the justification of knowledge, yet there is the question of whether justified true belief is enough. Edmund Gettier challenged this exact criteria but concluding through counterexamples that one having justified true belief does not constitute knowledge, having knowledge requires an another condition above simply the justified belief [14]. Following this line of thought, Truth-making comes into play in terms of satisfying the Evidence-condition. One's belief becomes so only if it is evident in the current state of affairs, which becomes the truth-maker for the belief. This idea of a truth maker can be split another way running parallel, making one the truth maker and the other the state of affairs [15]. Although there is an inability to distinguish between the two states of truth-making or evidence forming, a point worth mentioning is how one's certainty of a belief is never mentioned. Although one can have knowledge without certainty, the demands by Gettier of claims to fulfil more conditions then were previously set can only make knowledge more valid and truthful.

Despite the seemingly static definitions and conditions, the discovery of knowledge is constantly driven to action by skepticism and further justification. Particularly in scientific disciplines, advancements are made by the discipline continuously falsifying itself and refuting accepted hypothesises [16]. The claims as noted earlier set clear criteria for knowledge requiring justification of belief, yet some instances are unjustifiable and thus infallible in a sense. For example, in Philosophy, Traditional foundamentalism highlights this exact problem by claiming that some basic beliefs are in fact self-evident such as beliefs pertaining to personal experience. Under this principle, one's experiences provide evidence for their own validity and truth, despite the fact that there are good reasons to question beliefs that are self-evident [17]. As people differ, there is no external set criteria for evaluating personal experiences hence there remains uncertainty about the quality of justification, which is where modest foundationalism comes into view. Modest foundationalism examines basic beliefs, claiming that basic beliefs are justified given that there is no reason to reject the aforementioned beliefs. Under these circumstances, evidence is provided via properly functioning cognitive faculties, for example visual perception[13].

Self-knowledge, hence, becomes the perfect vessel to examine the role of evidence in truth-making. Generation of self-knowledge mostly comes from reflecting on one's past experiences and using them as evidence in self-inference process[18]. This evidence-based self-knowledge arises from individual examination of one's collected autobiographical information, no matter how incomplete or unreliable the memories one may possess. In fact, evidence has presented to have little or no access to introspection in higher cognition. Individuals are sometimes extremely unaware of the mediating power of the mind, hence eliminating any report of cognitive processes as any form of true introspection [19]. Individuals have very little awareness to their cognitive processes as when asked direct factual questions, they respond swiftly, yet when asked how they came up with that answer, it becomes inarticulate and vague [20]. What is revealed is how unaware and uncertain individuals can become when asked to assess and evaluate their own cognitive processes, uncovering a slight area for weakness and unreliability. If individuals are considered truth-makers in certain knowledge generation situations, there is no objective way to assess the reliability of the generation of self-knowledge, making it's validity questionable.

Truth and Power[edit | edit source]

As mentioned above, one knows something if it is known to be true. Direct access to truth appears impossible. There has to be an intermediate step, a consideration of what has already been accepted as true by a community. What is accessible is the general consensus about what is true.

Therefore controlling, this general consensus means having a huge power as with it comes an influence on what people think is true. For Michael Foucault, the power in societies lies in the means of productions of information. The ones controlling which information is accessible and under what form in a system have power over the people inside the system as it creates a special, artificial truth people are bound to believe. [21] This has been for example present under totalitarian dictatorship with propaganda.

The impact power has on truth is particularly felt in certain disciplines such as History. As Napoleon said, "What is History, but a tale agreed upon?". Indeed, for every conflict, the winning side is in power and thus decides which informations will be remembered (often undermining the opponent and glorifying themselves), shaping what will be considered as true. After World War 2, the French government glorified its role, creating what is now called the "Resistance Myth" but was for a long time considered as the truth.

Another example of how truth, influenced by those in power, may trickle-down into society and lead to dire consequences is the "stab in the back myth" (German: Dolchstoßlegende). This was the sentiment imposed by General Erich Friedrich Wilhelm Ludendorff (1865–1937) that, "The “organized treason” of the German Revolution, not the actual military balance, was made responsible for the collapse of Germany’s military resistance."[22] It is the notion that the World War I was lost by civilians on the home front, especially due to the republicans in the German Revolution of 1918-1919. Whilst the politics at the time was mainly unanimous on terms of peace, right-wing circles were motivated by the "stab-in-the-back" theory. The theory was then made a part of the history of Germany when the Nazi party came back into power in 1933. Anti-semitism emerged due to the armistice and German Revolution[23], and combined with the "stab-in-the-back myth", this lead to much of the tension held by the Nazis leading up to the Second World War.

Truth and Logic[edit | edit source]

In the realm of logic, logical truth is defined as a statement that is true in every interpretation (tautologous), and therefore cannot be false [2]. Under this definition there is an absolute truth; statements that are ambiguous are not classified as true and we evade the conflict of differing opinions, biases and other aspects of relativism. Additionally, the language used in formal logic consists of symbols (commonly numbers, letters, operations) that are clearly defined in each context. This prevents conflict from interpretation of language, speech, body language and other methods of communication that rely on sensory perception or previous experiences of knowledge. The unambiguous nature of formal logic can be advantageous as statements can be communicated precisely and accurately. The truth can therefore be definitively determined in a straightforward manner.

Logicians take on a mathematical way of thinking and use mathematical reasoning to extract truth out of statements. This includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is when you arrive at a broad generalisation from very specific observations. For example, “the professor has used a powerpoint every lecture, therefore he will use a powerpoint tomorrow.” Another example is mathematical induction, which is a commonly used proving method that can be conceptually compared to falling dominoes; if the first domino hits the second, and if for every domino a consecutive domino will be hit, then by induction all dominoes will fall. Conversely, deductive reasoning is when you derive very specific truths from a broad hypothesis [4]. For instance, consider the following three statements: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.”. This is a classic example of a syllogism, which is a conclusion that is drawn from two premises. The first statement is a generalisation, the second statement is an observation about a specific case, and the final statement is a conclusion that applies the general proposition onto the specific case. Both methods of reasoning require sufficient evidence and logical reasoning. In this sense, logic/logical systems can be seen as a means to induce/deduce a reliable and valid truth by using a clear and concise framework of mathematical reasoning. Many disciplines, namely pure sciences, computer science and programming, mathematics, therefore rely on logic to deduce truth.

However, some forms of formal logic may not be practical in other disciplines, like art, social sciences, music, because it lacks a capacity for nuanced perspectives. This is because these types of formal logic are especially limited in expression. For example, propositional logic and Boolean algebra work with propositions, which are defined as statements that are either true or false e.g. 7 is a prime number. Any expression that doesn’t fit in this category cannot be applied to these forms of logic. For example, the statement "democracies are bad for countries" is not applicable to propositional logic or Boolean algebra because democracies are not either good or bad - it depends on the specific democratic system in context to the country, history, culture etc. Therefore, the validity and satisfiability of this statement cannot be extracted. Additionally, some disciplines involve certain types of truths that require emotional perception. For instance, pieces of music can evoke unique emotions without any logical reasoning. Some may perceive a painting to be blue, while others perceive it as green - both truths are still valid. In subject areas where nuances are abundant and there is room for grey area, logic that primarily uses mathematical reasoning may be rendered useless in finding pragmatic truths.

Truth and Art[edit | edit source]

When exploring the relationship between truth and art, it's important to first define truth in the artistic sense. Truth then becomes what is accomplished, and hence asserted. 'Assertion' refers to bringing what is essential out into the open, exposing and showing it to everyone. Under this line of thought, artwork is the end product of assertion, therefore acting as a locus for truth[24]. For example, truth is asserted when a statue is raised or a temple built. Artistic expression reveals truth in the process of discovering meaning and the creation of meaning itself[25]. Considering art is a way to create meaning and hence truth itself, art can provide a number of functions in cultural perception. According to Martin Seel, a professor of philosophy at the Goethe University Frankfurt, art represents a view of the world that is specific to the creator. Artistic expression reveals truth, and hence knowledge, through presenting the significance of certain events, the constructions which guide human perception of reality, and most importantly, the importance of artistic experience on the human experience[26]. However, with this definition and categorisation comes a tension between truth and validity, as critical evaluation of the truth is not taken into consideration. Therefore, instead of artistic content being considered factual, it becomes perceptible and non-propositional.

Artistic truth, that which emerges from the interaction between artist and his materials, invites mediated and critical interpretation due to that exact tension between artistic truth and validity. Under this conception, truth thus has a double existence, first truth in art is located in the artworks themselves, and is not suggested or prompted by them. Secondly, truth also exists within the aforementioned process of mediated and reciprocation between the viewers critical interpretation and the artwork itself[27]. Arguments surrounding the nature of truth in art usually centre around the function of the disclosure in art. Theorising truth in art requires questioning what art can do or what it can disclose, how this exploration or disclosure occurs, and whether this exploration or disclosure is valid or legitimate in any way [28]. The subjective nature of art creation and interpretation both on the part of the artist and viewer brings disagreement surrounding whether art's disclosure contributes to human knowledge. Unfortunately, art has the ability to conceal, and hence the ability to be false and imaginative[28]. Although it's easy to discard artistic truth and to assume, due to this imaginative quality, that art is frivolous and immoral, it's still worth considering what should be disclosed in an imaginative way. Even with imaginative disclosure art can generate truth through being true to the intentions of the artist and true to the viewers interpretations [28]. Essentially, as long as art is set forth and asserted into the world, it can generate truth in many of its own ways.

When examining the relationship between truth and art, design is also worth discussing as it's an extremely important aspect of art. Design can be considered a medium to hold and assist social interactions. Good design will always reveal truth through delivering exactly what it promises on the tin [29]. The nature of design is not static however, as it incorporates innovation, making the nature of the truth revealed by design to be ever-changing. As individuals work towards multiplying power and moving beyond our set design borders, they provide a source of growth for design itself [30]. When discussing truth being held in good design, it's important to define what exactly can be considered good design. A number of criteria can be used to assess the design, including how well the design is playing in harmony with the environment, here including both nature and human nature. Design also has to help develop people's skills or encourage knowledge generation in some way, as well as extend the users freedom whilst engaging with reality [30]. Through this definition, what is revealed is perhaps how design tells the truth about human nature more than anything else. Design becomes a by-product of individual's need to grow and innovate, challenging the status-quo over and over again. The very nature of design presents an extremely optimistic view on truth and knowledge generation, as design will always change and seek to improve upon itself, revealing more and more valid truths. Both discussions in art and design present a very similar outlook on the nature of truth, both considering truth and knowledge to be generated if asserted well and with clear intent to say or do something.

Disciplines of Truth[edit | edit source]

Our path towards truth will wildly vary depending on which discipline one is looking into; and also what one is looking for. Different disciplines will have different ideas on how true a theory or an idea is: and therefore considering it 'trustworthy', or not.

For example, if a forensics expert found a notorious criminal's fingerprints on a used gun: it is likely they would work towards a truth where said criminal is to be the one whole pulled the trigger. This is a physical, touchable representation of the 'truth'. But it also presents a bias, because the hypothetical scientist has considered previous 'truths': it is possible that they might have pursued a different path otherwise. [31]

Truth and Statistics[edit | edit source]

The information asymmetry between statistical experts and the general public is a gateway for manipulation of data to suit a possible means. Depending on the variables considered, and the way in which data is reported such as by news articles, contrasting facts may arise. The phrase, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”, first coined in 1749, was popularised by British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. An example of differing statistical data is an article stating that breast cancer in the UK is four times more likely than in East Africa, posted by the Guardian in 2014[32]. This shocking title is dismantled when one looks closer, as it looks at only women who have been diagnosed to have breast cancer amongst a sample of 100,000, where clearly East Africa will have less reported cases due to worse healthcare infrastructure. Furthermore, the average female life expectancy for East Africa is 42.3 years old as opposed to 81.7 years old in the UK.[33] Therefore, there are many more years where women might develop breast cancer, and women are at a higher risk of it in later life. In this instance, the report by the guardian displayed a more accurate title than the original press release.

Truth and Media[edit | edit source]

The forms of media of which we receive information has a large impact on how we perceive truths in the modern day. With constant breakthroughs in technology, information is becoming more and more accessible. However, this overflow of information comes with a cost and the truth can often be distorted or compromised by an abundance of opinions, unreliable sources and misunderstandings.

Mass Media[edit | edit source]

The printing press was invented in the mid 1400s and later industrialised ad computerised, which improved efficiency of producing newspapers [34]. By the 1900s, the Western world had popularised daily newspapers and spreading current affairs solely by word of mouth had gradually gone out of practice [35]. Newspapers gave the general public access to information about the economy and global events that would otherwise only be available to professionals. This made truth more inclusive and credible; newspaper companies were encouraged to widen their audience to make profit and establish a reputation of being reliable and legitimate. However, newspapers companies carefully controlled the substance that was published in their newspapers and therefore a small amount of people had power over what information the general public consumed.

Then came the first television in the 1920s, which revolutionised the way we consume mass media. [36] [37] In the late 2000s, 96.7% of American families and 99% of United Kingdom families owned a television set. [38] [39] Globally, the television has also made its presence as there are an estimated 759 million connected TV sets as of 2018. [40] The television allowed us to access information through visual and audio sensory perception, which was more engaging and powerful in terms of communication. This gave us the means to communicate information like current affairs, popular culture in a way where people could easily visualise. In some ways this improved the accuracy of the truth that was being conveyed. For example, news stories could now come with video evidence of true events. However, the issue that haunted the newspaper industry worsened: television companies grew in scale and reached more people than ever before, giving companies more power over the people.

Truth and Artificial Intelligence[edit | edit source]

In recent times, Facebook has been criticised for its misuse of user data and how, by controlling advertising, the company manipulates its consumers. This impacts on what the consumer decides to be true in terms of their free will in making rational decisions. A recent, confidential report published by the BBC containing emails within Facebook shows how Facebook aims to predict the future consumer behaviour of it’s users.[41] This will allow third parties to change the course of consumer thought and purchases of 2 billion users with an alleged 29000 criteria available from each user, such as if a consumer is “at risk” of switching to a competitor, and has to be persuaded otherwise.[42] Furthermore, the alleged Cambridge Analytica advertising scandal on behalf of Donald Trump suggests a clear deviation of truth and alters the clarity of thought by users in what is meant to be a democratic free thinking society.

Social Media[edit | edit source]

Positive case: accessibility of evidence, recording of police brutality, spreading the word fast, more power to people since demand is very elastic,

Negative case: fake news, overflow of information, requiring catchy titles that may not be as accurate or as important


Rmb there are still many areas that don’t have access to the internet.

  1. ↑ Oxford Online Dictionary (2018), truth
  2. ↑ Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, [1]
  3. ↑ Wikitionnary, [2]
  4. ↑ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, [3]
  5. ↑ Roger Deacon (2002) Truth, Power and Pedagogy: Michel Foucault on the rise of the disciplines, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34:4, 435-458, DOI: 10.1111/ j.1469-5812.2002.tb00518.x https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2002.tb00518.x
  6. ↑ a b "Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy)". Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#NeoClaTheTru.
  7. ↑ Armstrong, D. (1973). Truth. In Belief, Truth and Knowledge (pp. 113-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570827.009
  8. ↑ a b Kendler, K. (2015). Toward a limited realism for psychiatric nosology based on the coherence theory of truth. Psychological Medicine, 45(6), 1115-1118. doi:10.1017/S0033291714002177
  9. ↑ Greenough, P., & Lynch, M. (2006). Truth and realism / edited by Patrick Greenough, Michael P. Lynch. (Oxford scholarship online). Oxford: Clarendon.
  10. ↑ Ransome, P. (2010). Social theory for beginners / Paul Ransome.Bristol: Policy Press.
  11. ↑ [4]
  12. ↑ [5]
  13. ↑ a b Campbell, J., O'Rourke, M., Silverstein, H., & Inland Northwest Philosophy Conference. (2010). Knowledge and skepticism / edited by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and Harry S. Silverstein.(Topics in contemporary philosophy). Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.
  14. ↑ Hetherington, S. (2006). Aspects of knowing epistemological essays/ edited by Stephen Hetherington. (1st ed., Perspectives on Cognitive Science). Oxford, UK ; Boston: Elsevier.
  15. ↑ Hetherington, S. (2006). Aspects of knowing epistemological essays/ edited by Stephen Hetherington. (1st ed., Perspectives on Cognitive Science). Oxford, UK ; Boston: Elsevier.
  16. ↑ Taylor, L. BBC Radio 4 (2018) Post-Truth.Thinking Allowed, 2018, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bk1llv. Accessed 14 Oct 2018.
  17. ↑ Campbell, J., O'Rourke, M., Silverstein, H., & Inland Northwest Philosophy Conference. (2010). Knowledge and skepticism / edited by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and Harry S. Silverstein.(Topics in contemporary philosophy). Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.
  18. ↑ Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
  19. ↑ Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
  20. ↑ Miller, G. (1966). Psychology : The science of mental life / George A. Miller. (Pelican book). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  21. ↑ https://www.bachelorandmaster.com/criticaltheories/truth-and-power.html#.W9CjaxNKjdQ
  22. ↑ Klaus Schwabe; World War I and the Rise of Hitler, Diplomatic History, Volume 38, Issue 4, 1 September 2014, Pages 864–879, https://doi.org/10.1093/dh/dhu030
  23. ↑ Klaus Schwabe; World War I and the Rise of Hitler, Diplomatic History, Volume 38, Issue 4, 1 September 2014, Pages 864–879, https://doi.org/10.1093/dh/dhu030
  24. ↑ Lingls, A. (1972). Truth and Art. Philosophy Today, 16(2), 122.
  25. ↑ Zuidervaart, L. (2004). Artistic truth aesthetics, discourse, and imaginative disclosure / Lambert Zuidervaart. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press
  26. ↑ Seel, Martin. Die Kunst der Entzweiung: Zum Begriff der ästhetischen Rationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985.
  27. ↑ Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Trans., ed., and with a translator’s introduction by Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
  28. ↑ a b c Zuidervaart, L. (2004). Artistic Truth. In Artistic Truth: Aesthetics, Discourse, and Imaginative Disclosure (pp. 118-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498398.009
  29. ↑ GRUDIN, R. (2010). Good Design Tells the Truth. In Design And Truth (pp. 10-26). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq26z.4
  30. ↑ a b GRUDIN, R. (2010). What Design and Truth Say about Each Other. In Design And Truth (pp. 27-33). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq26z.5
  31. ↑ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
  32. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/09/breast-cancer-variation
  33. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/29/statistics-lies-abuse
  34. ↑ https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P8014.pdf
  35. ↑ https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/1-3-the-evolution-of-media/
  36. ↑ https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/research/general/tvstory1
  37. ↑ http://news.statetimes.in/television-effective-medium-mass-communication/
  38. ↑ Ihttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03television.html
  39. ↑ https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/households-with-television-percent-wb-data.html
  40. ↑ https://www.statista.com/statistics/247160/forecast-of-the-number-of-connected-tv-sets-worldwide/
  41. ↑ https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/Note-by-Chair-and-selected-documents-ordered-from-Six4Three.pdf#page=243
  42. ↑ https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-doesnt-tell-users-everything-it-really-knows-about-them

Notes[edit | edit source]

Template:Realist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/Seminar_Group_9/Truth&oldid=3500357"