User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 2/Truth

Truth in Mathematics

Introduction

Mathematics is by nature a highly realistic and objective subject; however, this should not be taken to mean that mathematical objects are unconditional, and their knowledge is a priori. Truth in mathematics primarily arises from the success of its concepts and ideas when put into practice . One prominent way in which Truth creates issues in Mathematics is through a mathematical fallacy. Mathematical fallacies can best be defined as mathematical arguments which are being used inappropriately

Howlers

A Howler is a mathematically correct conclusion involving incorrect lines of reasoning. An example is shown in the accompanying diagram. Through correct interpretation of the lines Through correct interpretation of the division sign, the answer yields ¼. However, through incorrect interpretation, by cancelling the 6 on the numerator and denominator, the answer also yields ¼ . This then poses the question as to whether the ¼ derived from the Howler is any less true than the ¼ derived from the correct interpretation of the division sign.

• 
  A Howler: A demonstration of the Correct and Incorrect interpretation of the division sign.]]

Verification & Language

Mathematical knowledge is being recognised more frequently as empirical rather than absolute knowledge. By doing so, Mathematics opens itself up to much more interpretation and much less truth. Truth in mathematics comes through another concept – ‘verification’ and if one’s theorem or concepts can withstand the rigorous process of verification then it is truthful. Verification, and ultimately truth, has to do with the alignment of a mathematical statement with the facts of the world. As is truth in any discipline yet with Mathematics there is an additional layer of scrutiny which comes from the possession of its own language. This can be seen in the Howler diagram whereby a division sign belongs to the language of Mathematics, a language with no sovereignty nor state whose truth is not absolute but instead able to be moulded and ‘verified’ by such Mathematical fallacies

Conclusion

Thus, truth in mathematics is a result of the success of its concepts in practice yet its autonomous language opens itself up to multiple methods of verification and thereby potentially resulting in multiple truths.

Statistical Truth in Everyday Life

Statistics is an area of mathematics that is required and used in most walks of life due to its interdisciplinary nature and 'statistical significance' being a requirement for publication in many fields. The definition of statistics is 'the science of using information discovered from collecting, organising and studying numbers', giving the impression that there is only one form of the 'truth' in statistical analysis, due to its quantitative nature. However the weight of statistics can often lead to its manipulation, seen greatly in politics when using statistics as propaganda.

Statistical Literacy

Katherine K. Wallman defines '"Statistical Literacy" [as] the ability to understand and critically evaluate statistical results that permeate or daily lives'. Poor statistical literacy can often lead to confusion and can often be a conscious choice in order to manipulate the stats at hand. For example, in the Nationwide Building Society's 'Great British Family Report' a number of 'averages' were claimed such as 'the average family consists of two children' and 'the average amount spent on a family car is £8,911 with Ford Focus the car of choice'. Throughout the text there is no reference to the 'average' they have referred to in these statistics; is it the mode, median, mean? And why has this average been chosen over others?

Manipulation of Statistics in Politics

File:Current PM Boris Johnson in front of bus with admitted lie printed on.jpg

Figure 1: Parsons A.The Guardian. [Internet]. 2019 [cited 16 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/16/350m-brexit-bus-slogan-lie-says-jean-claude-juncker/

Lacking statistical literacy in this context is not dire, however vague terms like this can mean winning or losing elections in politics. During the EU Referendum in 2016, the figure of '£350 million a week to the EU', which would allegedly go to the NHS, was plastered on buses and in the media, as shown in Figure 1, and later admitted to be a lie by leave campaigner Nigel Farage on National Television. Even if this statistic was the truth, it would mean the UK would be sending the EU £252 a year per person in the country, a mere 0.6% of national income. This also ignores the rebate of money the UK receives from the EU, reducing the cost to £60 per person, according to the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) The manipulation of statistics here and grey area of the 'truth' can be seen as what led to the leave campaign winning the referendum by only 1.9% .

Statistical Significance vs. the Truth

It is very important to note that even if something has statistical significance, it does not mean that it is the truth. This is why in the digital age of fake news, statistical literacy is one of the most important tools to have so that, at an individual level, we can discover what we perceive to be our truth through our own interpretation of the data at hand, rather than relying on outside biased sources, with varying levels of statistical literacy, to do this for us.

Truth in Cartography

Introduction

Cartography is one of the disciplines that has evolved the most since its creation thanks to new scientific discoveries and technological advances. Being a complex discipline, cartography is both at the center of the creation maps and of the study of ancient maps. Maps are a ‘diagrammatic representation of an area of land or sea showing physical features, cities, roads, etc.’ (Oxford Language Dictionary). However, the reliability of maps and their sources have often been debated.

History of maps

Between the Antiquity and the Great Discoveries, maps were mainly drawn on stones, papyrus and then later on different types of papers. Furthermore, maps were supported by literature of their time, this included writing on cosmology for the Incas or the Bible for middle-aged European society. During the Great Discoveries, the use of tools like astrolabes and compasses, has allowed researchers and settlers to draw representations of the new territories they were discovering as accurately as possible. In 1507, the German Waldeesmüller represented for the first time America when he published The Waldeesmüller wall map. The Great Discoveries were the apogee of cartography because so many territories were discovered. Moreover, the 14th of August 1959, the American satellite Explorer 6 took the first satellite picture of the Earth. Satellite and plane images are still today one of the most relatable evidence to support the creation maps.

Different types of truth

Truth in cartography is contestable. Cartography today wants to inform, represent, control, act and imagine the world we live in. However, cartography has usually been accused of being subjective and of only representing one point of view through the cutting off of information. In the Middle-Age, maps were usually representing Earth but also paradise and hell because most of the European society was Christian. Truth was therefore contestable because it represented what the catholic religion portrayed as being the “human” and the “divine” worlds. Later on, during the Great Discoveries, what was considered as truthful maps were only the European ones used by settlers to find their way around and inform the colonizing countries of what they discovered. Furthermore, in our modern-world, maps only show what the designers of the map want us to see. The flat map of the world by Mercator for example is well-known for not being proportional to the real dimensions of the continents and countries’ size compared to the map of the world seen from the poles.

Conclusion

Maps are the pillars of our civilizations. Since the Antiquity, they have allowed men to find their bearings and later to represent the newly discovered territories. However, it is important to remember that even though cartography as a discipline tries to look at the world in the most objective way possible, maps are usually subjective and thus deliver a message. Truth in cartography therefore has to be considered carefully when maps are used as evidence to support arguments.

Truth in Behavioural Genetics

Introduction

Behavioural Genetics is a scientific discipline that studies human behaviour and focuses on the impact of genes. It combines molecular and quantitative genetics . This discipline incorporates the idea of interdisciplinarity, combining knowledge from biology and psychology. Behavioural Genetics is an example of a field of study where subjective phenomenon (e.g. intelligence) is investigated, and quantitative methods are applied to create assumedly objective scientific truths . Different approaches result in Behavioural Genetics being pluralist. Moreover, the results can be biased, and thus, the truth is manipulated.

Molecular and Quantitative Genetics

Researchers conduct twin and adoption studies to understand the impact of quantitative genetics. In contrast, molecular genetics are often investigated through DNA studies .

Behavioural Genetics uses animal research. Experiments with animal models need to follow ethical guidelines. The main strength is that in the closed environment genes can be investigated. The variables can be controlled, but lower ecological validity can be a limitation. Furthermore, the validity of the scientific truth obtained by animal research might not be fully applicable to humans. Therefore, the truth is dependent on the accuracy of the study.

The truth in this discipline is based on the scientific method, which includes peer review. When a group of scientists investigate the same issue, the results obtained become truth only when they correspond. Peer review highlights the idea of personal knowledge becoming a shared knowledge, a well-known fact that is objective.

Pluralism

Pluralism is present in Behavioural Genetics. The truth can be only obtained when different approaches and perspectives are considered. Human behaviour is very complex. Genetics are combined with environmental and social factors that together impact the behaviour of mammals . Previously mentioned molecular genetics suggest that behaviour is influenced by Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, small changes in the DNA structure . Secondly, quantitative genetics supports the idea of heritability of the behavioural traits . Thirdly, the socio-environmental approach states that human behaviour is impacted by external factors. Therefore, the plurality in Behavioural Genetics suggests that there is no absolute truth. In contrast, there are many answers to the same question that use different approaches.

Biases

Behavioural Genetics is a scientific area of research. The truth might be manipulated to match the current political situation and the socially expected results . Truth in science gives power and can claim authority. The issue of eugenics highlights how the truth in genetics can be manipulated and power over others gained. It is until the absolute truth is challenged and undermined. It highlights the controversy around Behavioural Genetics, as new findings can lead to the favouritism of a specific gene and discrimination .

This discipline can be impacted by western bias. It is created because white people are the majority of subjects participating in the research within this discipline . It limits the generalizability of the obtained results. Thus, the truth is not objective. Minorities can have constricted access to the treatment of specific diseases due to underrepresentation . Therefore, to obtain absolute and universal truth, studies on Behavioural Genetics needs to be more inclusive.

Conclusion

Behavioural Genetics tries to explain the social phenomenon by molecular and quantitative genetics. Therefore, sometimes complex social issues cannot be limited to one, absolute, and objective truth . Moreover, pluralism and the use of scientific methods limit the objectivity of one, absolute truth. Finally, the truth is impacted by biases that limit the universality and generalizability.

Truth in Sex and Gender

Introduction

The controversial topic of gender and sex is heavily debated in society. What constitutes someone’s true gender and sex? Are they biological phenomena, or are we socialised into these roles? Must our sex and gender always be complementary? Widely accepted truths are that sex is the categorisation of human beings based on their reproductive organs, whereas gender is a range of characteristics and behaviours pertaining to men and women. Gender is often seen as a much more complex topic than sex, as it manifests as a culmination of biological and social factors. However, as Nietzsche states, “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force”. In this sense, our understanding of sex, and especially gender, is contingent, and we must treat the topic with caution.

Essentialist Views on Sex and Gender

An essentialist understanding of gender and sex is commonly supported by sociobiologists. It believes that men and women are fundamentally different for reasons that are unchangeable. This theory dates back to prehistoric times, where few social roles existed. There was the hunter-gatherer role: responsible for obtaining sustenance, and the role of bearing children. Naturally, as men are, on average, physically stronger and quicker, they would be hunters, whereas women, those who bore children, were usually confined to the gatherer role. As essentialism is the perspective that “every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function”, in this prehistoric society, your sex was your destiny, leaving little room to explore different constructions of gender. However, this outdated, essentialist view on gender does raise problems in society. The very prevalent issue of sexism stems from the belief that men are stronger, more capable, and better leaders than women, leading to issues such as the underrepresentation of women in politics. Furthermore, Thomas Laqueur argues that our current understanding of the two sexes being opposite and distinct, arises from the fact that medical examiners viewed the vagina as an inverted penis, catalysing the divergence of male and female gender roles and social positions.

Social Constructivist Views on Sex and Gender

Social constructionist understandings of gender believe that typically masculine or feminine characteristics and behaviours, and the roles they play in society are socially constructed, and are therefore separate from your born sex. This corresponds to the constructivist theory of truth, which argues that truth is not universal, varying across time and cultures. A study done by Margaret Mead, who investigated three tribes in Papua New Guinea, supports this theory. She found that the relationship between gender and sex between the three tribes (Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli) varied greatly. For example, in the Arapesh tribe, there were no different gender roles, and both sexes conformed to the American stereotype of a “feminine” personality, whereas in the Tchambuli tribe, both stereotypically ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ gender roles existed, but the sexes that realised these gender roles were reversed from the American norm. We must also consider people that do not identify solely with either male or female gender norms, and how we must account for them in our understanding of gender. From this, we can understand gender as a spectrum of different societal values, of which we choose and are socialised into choosing, the ones with which we most identify; a culmination of these factors then forms our understanding of the truth of our own gender.

Truth in International Relations

Introduction

International Relations is a discipline that emerged after the First World War and that seeks to further develop our understanding of world politics. However, this diverse field has many different theories that clash with each other. A theory can be defined as a simplifying device that makes us decide which historical facts we will use to construct our own opinion. Therefore, each theory of International Relations has a different view of the international order and hence each has a different truth, and therefore leads to pluralism in the field of international relations. Realism and Liberalism are two main theories that look at world politics in opposite ways, each considering its opinion the truth. Alongside these two traditional theories is constructivism which emphasises the importance of ideational rather than material truth.

Liberalism

Liberalism is a theory that believes in the potential to create a more peaceful world that has strong international cooperation fueled by institutions. Liberalists defend that there is a potential for peace since humans have the capacity to change their environment . This branch of international relations is still powerful as there are examples in the past where this theory was correct. Indeed, the end of the Cold War in 1989 proved that humans could resolve an international conflict without war and violence. In the same way, the strength of international institutions such as the European Union defends the liberalist point of view. It can therefore be seen that in the function of the examples from the past that one chooses to analyze, liberalism can be considered as the true explanation of world politics. However, liberalism can be countered if one chooses to look at different historical facts, hence the creation of realism.

Realism

The core beliefs of realism are that nation states are the only unit that matters in the international system and that world politics is driven by self-interest and the nation’s will to increase their power. Realists also defend that the state of war in world politics cannot be changed due to the selfish and greedy side of human nature. We can therefore see that in opposition to liberalism, realism is a pessimistic view of international relations. However, realism can be defended with historical examples such as Brexit, showing us that supranational institutions are not seen as beneficial by every country. In the same way, when the second world war occurred, it showed that even international institutions such as the League of Nations could not stop inter-state violence, proving the international system always comes back to a state of war. We can consequently see that the “truth” about how world politics’ work changes in function of the theory one adopts, showing the multilateral aspect of truth. .

Constructivism

Whilst liberalism and realism are the two fundamental theories which have guided international relations for many years, new theories are constantly being developed with one of these being constructivism. Constructivism essentially argues that the world and decisions made in the world are completely of our making and not through a traditional theory. Essentially, it is our actions and interactions in the world which dictate outcomes in international relations and thus through constructivism there is not one absolute truth as presented through realism and liberalism but instead the individual human experience creates their own truth of the world which they then apply to International Relations . . Alexander Wendt makes clear this concept of constructivism when saying that 500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons. Should truth in IR be determined by either liberalism or realism then objectively, the material structure of 500 weapons is more dangerous; however, because of the ongoing and historical conflict between the US and North Korea, the truth adopted by most Americans is that those 5 weapons are more dangerous than the 500 in Britain .

Conclusion

Overall, in international relations truth is created through pluralism of different perspectives. Whilst there are several theories which can attempt to classify what is the ‘true’ and ‘right’ decision in International Relations, with Liberalism and Realism being the two dominant theories, constructivism demonstrates that ultimately human nature and social relationships will influence this truth, emphasising the truth of the ideational structure rather than the material structure.

Truth in Mythology

Introduction

It is clear that story telling is a fundamental part of human nature, it would not have evolved if it did not serve a purpose. The word mythology is used extremely widely, from describing our belief in corporations and nations, to describing old stories, legends and religious texts. I am using the word myth to refer to the human tendancy to use our capacity for understanding stories, social dynamics and other humans to understand other phenomina, from the natural (e.g. Gods of thunder, the sun and harvest) to the sociological (e.g. nations, limited companies, brands) to the psychological (e.g. Jung's archetypes, Frued's Oedipal complex and the angel on one shoulder devil on the other). Myths are often associated with falsehood because of their interpretation from a modern perspective, a lack of understanding of their metaphorical nature and their replacement with much more specific scientific models. Research and analysis into these topics largely exists in the form of books and lectures rather than scientific papers due to both the nature of the subject and the rift between psychoanalysis and the scientific disciplines.

However, when considering the meaning of the word truth important to consider the concepts of pragmatic, psychological, Dawinian and consensus truths as well as empirical, especially in the case of mythology. Carl Jung, Freud and other more modern psychologists argue that the patterns contained in many stories, especially those most ancient and containing themes that appear across isolated cultures, contain metaphrical truths about the patterns that crop up in human societies and lives. Harari and others argue we still use myths to organise our societies today.

Pragmatic and Psychological Truthes

Pragmatic truth is a doctorine of defining truth by it's success or failure when acted out. Psychological truth is something a truth about the workings of the mind rather than the workings of the world. An example of a psychological and pragmatic truth is the hero myth which is not only universal across cultures but a useful framework for people who suffer from anxiety or depression. In the hero myth the hero goes out to voluntarily face the most terrible monster, often gaining help and power from defeating more managable enemies and the aid of friends along the way and in the end finds something of great value in his or her victory. This is metaphorically analogous to the way that voluntarily facing their fears in managable parts helps people with anxiety.

An example of an old story that embodies a pragmatic and sociological truthes when taken metaphorically is the story of the flood. In this story a god or force of nature comes down and destroys a civilization for the cumulative wrongdoings or neglegence of its inhabitants.This story also appears to be very universal, cropping up in many ancient texts, notably, several times in the bible. This story is a metaphorical representation of of or response to the way individual immorality can erode the foundations of a society, climate change being the most obvious and current real example of this being climate change, another being the 2008 crash, which, according to Sapienza, can be accounted for by the abuse of public trust by investment bankers and conversely the public misplacing their money and trust in them. Taking the story of the flood metaphorically, it can be viewed as a model of a situation that is repeatedly true in human societies.

Darwinian Truth

Darwinian truth is a branch of philosophy that uses the idea that our perceptual frameworks were shaped by our enviroments over the course of evolution. It is related to empirical truth but rather than being tested by the scientific method it is tested by the process of evolution. It is interesting that this method of testing can answer not only questions of the nature of the physical world but questions of value.

Jung argued that the fundamental stories and common themes in stories across isololated cultures must have a biological basis, most biologists and psychologists dismissed this believing the stories could not be passed on through DNA. Peterson argues that these archetypal stories and myths were generated by the same process: people watching how the patterns developed between individuals and within societies and through the telling and retelling of the stories the parts that were either psychologically true or repeatedly observed over generations, that they were remembered and retold until only the stories that were 'more true' and useful than thier original parts and versions survived. This is supported by Nature Communications paper on the evolutionary advantages of the use of stories to help individuals understand one another and organise their societies. Either way, this gives myths pragmatic and Dawinian truth.

Consensus Truth

Truth by concensus is the idea of taking things to be true because people generally agree on them. Although consensus truths are heavily criticized for their unreliability, and in many cases this is entirely valid, some things are made true by consensus, the value money is the most obvious example of this, as well as the existance of limited companies and nations.

Noah Harari argues that the limited companies and nations we now believe in are analogous to our ancient myths of gods and fulfill very similar roles to the churches and god-kings in organizing our societies. This is supported by our tendancy to use our faculty for understanding social dynamics and other human beings to understand entities like brands and nations (as well as, more so in the past, natural phenomina for example deities of thunder, the sun, the harvest havest etcetera). These myths and shared fictions are crucial in saying almost anything about our societies, and to deny the truth of them would make it almost impossible to navigate modern society.

Scientific Truth

Scientific truth is based on observations of physical reality and the empirical testing of hypothese against data. The scientific method attempts to look past the mythological frameworks we use to conceptualize the world, but is still heavily reliant on them. Modern sociological and economic theory rests almost entirely on myths of entities such as nations and companies. Like mythological truth, scientific truth can change over time as the 'mirror' is improved or in the social sciences as the landscape being observed changes.

Scientific theories are often interpreted mythologically. Fritjof Capra show's in great detail how quantum physics can be interpreted through the eastern mythological and philosophical framework. Evolution is another good example of the way scientific theories are interpreted mythologically. It is often implicitally interpreted to be a chain leading towards humanity, this is far from what is implied by the actual processes and history of evolution. However, based on the actions of humans as a whole in claiming dominance of the planet's resources and inhabitants take this mythological interpretation of evolution as truth by concensus, in replacement for the west's previous biblical justification for dominion over the world.

Conclusion

Science has filled many of the gaps previously filled by mythology in our understanding of the physical, observable world. However, it cannot answer questions of value without a mythological framework to interpret it's findings, and some sociological and psychological patterns and truthes are more usefully understood through archetypal stories than empirical data. Furthermore it would be impossible to navigate human society without accepting the reality of the mythological framework we use to conceptualise the entities that make it up.

Truth in Art

Establishing a truth in art seems to be something impossible, the very meaning of art being almost elusive and different for everyone. However in the course of its history, many art movements and artists have thought they possessed this truth.

An objective approach

The history of art can be approached in a very factual, very positivist way. We can study a set of data, based on dates, art movements, the history of a period… One can judge art by comparing it to reality. Some artistic disciplines have the direct aim of approaching art in this rather objective way. One of them is the anthropology of art, a social science interested in art across different cultures. Art has many times been used for a specific purpose, such as for political propaganda. In this case, the art is part of a structure and so is studied objectively with historical data. Based on all these factual and objective aspects it is already possible to establish a kind of truth in art.

Interpretation from facts

We can also use facts to study art and understand a work. The life of the artists, the period in which they lived or their political positions can help to understand the message of an artwork to a greater extent and allows an interpretation closer to the truth of the artist. One can speak of the works of Niki de Saint Phalle which are often interpreted by considering her past and her pain towards it.

Variety of possible truths

But art is not merely a vision of reality or its comparison. Although it evolves in part with society, art reaches another dimension. A more personal and subjective dimension that moves away from everything. Aristotle said “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Each personal experience brings a new form of truth. From one person to another, from one society to another, the approach to art, its understanding and use will be radically different.

This very personal view of people that applies to art in a very general way creates debates about the legitimacy of certain artists, works and movements. One can speak of the debates between iconoclasm and iconodulism. What can be considered art or not? Can we set limits and a framework to a discipline based on personal feeling and imagination? These debates and these different visions of art have enriched the history of art generally and keep doing it nowadays.

Truth in Law

Law can be qualified as the establishment of rules put in place by the state. Observing law as a discipline, we can identify the concept of truth at its foundations. The notion of truth is most commonly expressed in relation to fact and reality. Law describes truth as the 'actual state of things', and emphasises the role of a trial to determine this state. In practice, truth in law is not as black and white of a concept.

Criminal Law

If we look closely at criminal law, we can acknowledge the fact that the truth can be hard to find. The claim that the primary role of a trial is to uncover truth is commonly disputed and should be distinguished from the true focus of determining a 'defendant's guilt or liability'. This distinction is important because substantive truth is often sacrificed in legal proceedings.

Significance of Evidence

For example, rules of evidence such as relevance, admissibility and privilege may lead to the exclusion of facts and consequentially obstruct the evaluation of the whole truth . In addition, the way that the adjudicative process is designed means that each side of a case is going to present selective evidence most advantageous to their argument, arguably causing more distortion of the 'substantive truth'. Larry Laudan highlights this idea in his book “Truth, error and criminal law” (2006). He discusses the difficulty of accessing and assessing evidence in the legal system, despite its central role in what we consider as truth. Laudan concludes that we can express the idea that the truth is based on evidence and not being able to acquire proper evidence can be the reason why truth is distorted.

Scientific vs. Religious Truth

The scientific and religious disciplines both claim the revealing of ‘truth’ as central to their practice. However, it is the way in which these apparent forms of truth are qualified where the conflict can emerge. Jerry A Coyne discusses this idea in his novel ‘Faith vs. Fact’ where he claims that ‘science and religion are incompatible, and you must choose between them’. Scientific truths are based on the correspondence theory of truth: facts are formulated from evidence collected through the observation of physical reality

Religious truths can too have an evidentiary basis - through historical documents or archaeology - but it is rarely verifiable and reproducible in the same way as scientific evidence. There is also an arguably very personal dimension to religious truth, built on the concept of faith formed from individual or community interpretation of scripture. As a result of this, consensus is hard to maintain. Religious disciplines, like theology, can of course present knowledge and reasoned arguments but we cannot expect the same unanimity that we can get from science. This is because of an established trust in the scientific method. The construction of scientific truth is rigorous: experimentation, observation and the formation of falsifiable hypotheses. The system works to create a truth that is harder to dispute. This does not mean that religion is not of value as many of life’s important questions: ‘What is love?’, ‘What is morality?’ do not have answers amenable to the scientific method Furthermore, it is important to note that though scientific truth may be perceived as objective, it is still ‘produced’ and therefore is encoded with biases.

Truth in Cosmology and Astronomy

Introduction

In the scientific field, numerous debates about astronomy and cosmology divided the world for more than two centuries. Some of them are still in progress, each party involved claiming their truth. Firstly, cosmology can be defined as the study of the nature and origin of the universe while astronomy is the scientific study of the universe and of objects that exist naturally in space, such as the moon, the sun, planets, and stars.

Galileo affair

Galileo is clearly one of the most important scientists who helped us to improve our vision of space and to surpass previous theories in astronomy. In the early 17th century, the Italian scientist elaborates heliocentrism theories which go against the theory of the time. In fact, heliocentrism is the belief that the sun is at the center of the universe and/or the solar system and that other planets like earth revolve around it. However, at that time, heliocentrism is not the main theory, the core belief for the scientists, philosophers and the church is geocentrism. The geocentric model places earth in the middle of our system and the other planets orbit it. When Galileo elaborates his theory, he is attacked by the church for whom the classical vision could not be questioned. From this moment, we see the emergence of a confrontation around the fundamental notion of truth. The conflict separates two parties, however both party fight in the name of truth. And it is exactly how Galileo will defend himself from the accusation against him. In a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany wrote in 1615 , he defends the foundations of reality as a notion that needs to be proven. He relies on the strength of factual proofs, discovered facts from his studies. Therefore, for him it represents a reality and a truth that you can’t deny for any reasons especially religious.

Conclusion

This affair perfectly represents the conflict around the notion of truth. It shows how a term like reality, that seems to always demonstrate what we could call the only truth, can also get dramatically controversial. Finally, truth can be surpassed by strong beliefs and therefore this notion represents an ongoing issue because it shows that truth can get relative.