User:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 3/Truth

Science Scepticism

Scientists often have a positivist approach to truth and see it as an understanding of the world, something that is based on clear observations of reality or experiments using the scientific method. Results of experiments are verified through replication studies by other scientists that attempt to prove if the original results can be replicated under similar experimental conditions. Though scientists will never be able to verify if their scientific findings are truly ‘true’, the rigorous application of the scientific method and replication reduce uncertainty and increase the credibility of the findings.

In post-truth politics

The problem of science scepticism highlights the interdisciplinary issues of science, public policy and politics, especially in the era of post-truth politics. Post-truth politics is a political culture where public opinion is largely shaped by a politician’s ability to appeal to emotion and personal belief, rather than scientifically proven facts.

Recently in the United States, this has also meant that facts backed up by scientific evidence are open to contestation by politicians when they do not support their political arguments. Science scepticism is attributed mainly to the rising prevalence of misinformation on social media and politicians questioning the legitimacy of mainstream media outlets that disagree with their political views. This spread of misinformation and consequently, the issue of science denial, is evidently a problem in the digital age and it causes a dichotomy between what’s seen as truth from the scientific viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the general public. An example is how 45% of self-identified Republican voters in the U.S. deny the existence of man-made climate change, despite 97% of scientists agreeing that climate exists and humans are causing it. As climate change is more likely to be viewed as a threat to commercial industry and capitalism by conservatives, right wing politicians are more likely to deny the existence of man-made climate change or downplay its effects. Notable examples are Donald Trump's tweets about climate change, such as "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" which he tweeted on 22 November 2018 during a polar vortex.

The grounds for this conservative denial of man-made climate change has been explored in the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. This thesis is explored in depth by Sociology Professor Aaron McCright in his 2016 journal article ‘Anti-Reflexivity and Climate Change Skepticism in the US General Public’. It examines the specificities and patterns which emerge within climate scepticism and the organised push by conservative groups to undermine climate science.

However, science scepticism is not exclusive to conservatives. Scepticism around the safety of genetically modified crops and vaccinations has been associated with liberals. In the case of genetically modified crops, the denial of scientific truth has considerable implications both for continued development of this field. In the case of the anti-vaccination movement, evidence has emerged to suggest that individuals who hold stronger political views (both liberal and conservative) are more likely to believe vaccinations are unsafe than more their more moderate counterparts.

Role of science communication

Science communication is a sub-discipline (usually considered within the broader discipline of sociology and politics of science). which aims to inform the public and raise general awareness around key scientific topics and issues. Science communicators, as well as considering how to make scientific information more accessible and learning around science more engaging, have the challenge of ensuring the information relayed to the public regarding key scientific issues is true.

Scientist communicators have identified different types of science scepticism. For example, within the broader area of climate scepticism, the following subsections have been recognised: trend scepticism, impact scepticism, attribution scepticism and consensus scepticism. They have also recognised the need to ‘debunk’ and ‘prebunk’ false claims and conspiracy theories, with the latter pre-emptive approach being proven to be more successful.

The need to ‘prebunk’ false reports and illegitimate studies is even more pertinent in the current social media climate in the face of ever-increasing conformation bias within the public. Conformation bias leads people to seek out sources which support their own point of view and dismiss contrary information.

Truth in Journalism

Journalism is the activity of collecting and gathering information to relay them in the media, such as in newspapers, magazines, and the radio.

Journalism became a real profession in the 20th century, that required academic training, making it truly become a discipline. The essence of journalism is to deliver news objectively, that are verified and true. Truth is thereby an important component of journalism.

The Verification of Information

A core principle in journalism is the verification of information. Journalists will achieve this by combining different sources, preferably of primary evidence, such as videos, photos and records. They must also place news in their context. It is said that journalists use two important concepts to verify news: correspondence and coherence. Correspondence means that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact; coherence looks at if this statement makes sense in a certain system.

A journalist's utlimate goal is objectiveness, he endeavours to provide impartial news. When covering a story, they try to give different point of views. Journalists must be independent, and not be influenced by unreliable, powerful sources. They are expected to be transparent, one should always be able to know their source.

Issues in Journalistic Truth

However, truth in journalism may encounter issues. Firstly, because journalists must select information: giving everything would often be too long. Their main goal is for the public to understand what is going on in the world, and they will sometimes deliver the truth in a certain way to reach this goal. Secondly, because journalists are subjective human beings, with their own opinion, who can also be unconsciously influenced by biased sources. Furthermore, they must meet professional requirements, such as deadlines that will sometimes cause them to rush the verification process. Hence, total objectiveness in journalism does not truly exist. This is why some claim that the accuracy of facts is more important than truth in journalism.

Therefore, journalistic truth depends not only on journalists but also on citizens and their ability to think critically. They should gather and weight information from several journalists, especially today in a context of the rise of social media, that amplify the phenomenon of “fake news”.

The notion of Truth in History

The notion of truth in history (and in any discipline in general) is quite complicated as it has various definitions and approaches. Is there one single truth meaning that any divergence in opinion regarding some event includes a “correct” approach and a wrong one? Or can they be multiple truths meaning that none of these different approaches are wrong despite the fact that they contradict one another?

Truth for most philosophers is a statement that corresponds to the facts you can observe. So truth is linked to facts; to evidence. But how can one be sure that a statement actually corresponds to the evidence? This step in the seeking for truth is where the bias of the human eye comes into account. Humans looking for evidence, in order to access truth, are biased. They see what they want to see. A historian when looking for evidence has something in mind already. He/she is looking for some proof that a certain event happened or some possible explanation as to why it happened. He/she cannot observe these facts without some intention, some subjectivity, some estimate of its value; some bias. In addition to simply looking for evidence in a biased way, historians also have to analyse this evidence, which reinforces this subjectivity as they see it, once again, through their own eyes and with their own prejudices, influenced by their implicit theories. For instance, there is an important clash when analysing the french soldiers during the First World War. On one side there are historians saying that the majority of soldiers were willing to fight in this war and defend their nation. On the other hand some historians say that te vast majority was pressured and compelled into this war. Antoine Prost, professor at Paris-I university affirms that today, to study the Great War, you first have to pick a side between these two versions of WWI's truth. Different things have to be taken into account to avoid subjectivity, in order to access an objective truth. The evidence itself can be/is biased, especially if it comes from one single source. The variety of sources is therefore also very important to limit that bias.

In social sciences, the Ulysses Principle consists in avoiding as much as possible this “siren call bias” when using historical sources as primary evidence, taking into account conceptual consistency, the already existing subjectivity of these sources and updated evidence (asking ourselves for instance if we actually have enough data to have an adequate representation of the event, allowing us to draw “true” conclusions).

The need for bias to access historical truth

Although this bias can be seen as something one would want to avoid, J. Harry Cotton suggests bias is actually essential to be a historian and to recover historical events, and that without it the historian is useless. Indeed, he says that an objective historian cannot be a historian at all as he wouldn’t be able to choose where to look for evidence. Whereas a biased historian, on the other hand, has a thesis to prove or disprove and therefore knows what to look for and where to look for evidence, to access historical truth. In addition, J. Harry Cotton says that this bias isn’t an obstacle to truth as long as the historian is able to change his assumptions, provided with evidence that contradicts his original thesis.

Therefore, all this bias and subjectivity that historians come across when gathering and analysing evidence questions the actual truth of History. Once again, asking the same questions; is there one single truth (and if so can it ever be reached by a human being)? or can the divergent theories of a historical event be different truths?

Truth in Film

Many would agree that art, in particular Cinema, is a reflection of the never ending human search for truth. Jean-Luc Godard wrote in Le Petit Soldat, « La photographie c’est la vérité, et le cinéma c’est vingt-quatre fois la vérité par seconde », ( « Photography is truth, and cinema is truth twenty-four times per second »). Does this mean we should consider what is presented to us on screen as the truth? Can film be compared to a distorted, magnified mirror of our reality? Tying it to the issue of Evidence, could we even use films as evidence or at least as an influence on rational thinking?

Catharsis is a concept introduced by Aristotle, most often associated with theatrical tragedies. It is defined as « The purification or purgation of the emotions aroused in a tragic performance ». In that case, catharsis can be considered as a form of knowledge in regards to our deepest weaknesses and desires. Through a reflection of ourselves, we are able to understand (and then purge) our own subconscious. As a result, catharsis applied to film, allows us to confront reality and a certain truth about human nature, as a form of abreaction.

In the 1960s emerged Cinéma Vérité, « Truth Cinema », a documentary-filmmaking movement which aimed to show truth in what surrounds us. It is a direct way of presenting reality in an attempt to « eliminate the barriers between subject and audience ». In that sense, Cinema Vérité enables film to not only be a mirror of reality but to annihilate the distinction. As a result can film influence our judgement and override rational thinking? Films allow us to live a certain experience through someone else, therefore knowing of the outcome of an action without facing its consequences. Accordingly, many would argue that they are valid contributions, but not evidently true.

Finally, an alternative view could be summarized as « What art does is reveal the truth about the illusion of truth. As a deception, art has a ‘good conscience’ in that it names the illusion as illusion. » This implies that art, in this case Film, does not serve the purpose to enlighten what each envisions as Truth, but to have us reconsider our given presumptions.

Truth in Criminology

Criminology is a discipline that emerged during the 18th century. It is the result of combining several existing disciplines, like psychology, sociology, law, and study of forensics, for the purpose of understanding crime and resolving cases. It was defined by Dr Keatley as « the study of crime, criminals, and the legal system - from crime detection and prevention, through to courts and justice system, and prison and rehabilitation services. » According to his description of the discipline, criminology applies a variety of different skills and cooperation to dismantle a crime and bring justice. The fundamental goal of criminology is to find the truth by which we learn all faces of crime and is, therefore, a knowledge very useful to improve security in our societies. This discipline is directly related to human daily life and has major impacts on them (for victims as much as for criminals). It is then imperative to find the real truth.

Theories

As complex as the human brain and psychology are, so is the study of abnormal behaviour which criminology is. The idea of the search for justice and punishment has always existed. It is such a rich subject that students in criminology have to develop many skills during college as well as study many cases to forge their brain ability to take a step back and think. This is why there are many different thoughts and theories in criminology. There is a compilation of different approaches to finding the truth but it always has a sense of construction. The recognized different thoughts include Classical, Positivist, Italian, Sociological positivist and Chicago school. These thoughts all seek to bring a piece of a way to think about crime and find ideas to connect elements. Two of the main scholars that contributed to classical criminology are Beccaria and Bentham. Their ideas were founding for criminology. The truth in criminology is then a combination of positivism (getting evidence), realism (hypothesis), as well as an interpretive process (the investigator own imagination) and constructivism. It is also distributed between objective (investigation based on empirical positive evidence, facts) and subjective (ranking of crimes seriousness) truth.

Evolution

The idea of punishment as the extent of criminology is also an idea that has been developed over the years, with the way of handling crimes, justice, truth and punishments revealing different societies traits. Many scholars like Michel Foucault have thought about the evolution of punishments and violence regarding the response to severe truth. This is a reason why criminology is very complex because it evolves in relation to the evolution of societies and the change of attitude. There are rules and ethical banners to find the truth even in crimes.

Truth in Mathematics

Mathematics: A Single or Multiple Truth?

Mathematics is often portrayed as a single universal truth and as a discipline handling incontestable facts. However, evidence has been found against this widespread claim. Indeed, an example of this would be the discovery, or perhaps the development, of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th Century. These new geometries were groundbreaking in the world of Mathematics, disproving that there was only one “true” geometry, which Euclidean geometry was previously thought to be. Indeed, the Greek mathematician Euclid founded the principles of this geometry which is now most commonly taught in schools, having been of great importance in Ancient Greece and still being pertinent today. It may thus be argued that there is a certain “pluralism” to be explored within this discipline, as explained by Peter Koellner in “Truth in Mathematics: the Question of Pluralism”, supporting the possibility of multiple truths within this discipline.

A Human Creation

The thought of mathematics as a universal truth often led to it being portrayed as something above man, linked to God, that has always existed but was discovered through time. This idea has been contested by mathematicians and philosophers, notably through the study of neuroscience and cognitive science, research suggesting that our ability to conceive numbers and mathematical concepts is in fact deeply wired in our brains. This would mean that arithmetic concepts are in fact a product of our own biology and evolution rather than a universal truth created by God or the world around us. Experiments have shown that this is also the case with most animals that we would otherwise consider intellectually inferior to ourselves. Indeed, it would seem that animals such as birds, chimpanzees and even rats have a more or less developed understanding of quantities and basic arithmetic principles of addition and subtraction, six month old human babies also having similar intuitions. This supports the idea that mathematics are a creation of our own minds, helping us understand the world around us.

Empiricism in Mathematics

Empiricism is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses". That empiricism is or should be applied to mathematics is a matter of debate among mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics. Indeed, in “What Is Mathematical Truth?”, philosopher Hilary Putman suggests that mathematics would benefit from an increased use of empiricism in the acquisition of truth, alongside deduction and more traditional mathematical reasonings. He goes so far as to argue that quasi-empirical methods have in fact always been used within this discipline.While the argument of empiricism playing a significant role in mathematics has also been strongly supported by others, such as mathematical logician László Kalmár, it has nevertheless been subject to criticism. Indeed, in his article “Empiricism in Mathematics”, Goodstein opposes this view by explaining that the mathematician is in certain ways an “inventor”, pointing out, for instance, that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries cannot be simultaneously observed in the natural world.

Truth in Stem Cell Research

Positivism in Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are unspecialised cells having the capacity of differentiation and self-renewal. Stem cell research is a sub-field in life science concerning the properties of different stem cells and their applications in medicine. As a field in natural science, truth in stem cell research is often positivist and objective. To study the properties of stem cells, researchers conduct experiments to measure the activities of the cultured cells. For example, to document the self-renewal ability of stem cells, lineage-tracing assays are done by tagging the studied stem cell with a genetic marker and monitoring its in vivo activity in a long term. The measurement of the strength of the marker overtime is therefore an objective indicator of cellular activity.

Constructivism in Stem Cell Research

However, stem cell research is still a new field of study and scientists only started to research on this field systematically from the first successful isolation of embryonic stem cells in 1981. Thus, the research methods used are not matured yet and are still under development. Subjectivity raises when the experiment results are not indicative enough. For instance, current lineage-tracking techniques usually cannot provide images with a clear resolution, and the interpretation of the result is subjective to researchers themselves. Depending on the differences in past experience, individual labs sometimes give different analysis to the result, resulting in the constructive side of truth in stem cell research. Moreover, when applying to the medical world, the therapy methods as the truth are constructed by researchers. Genetic engineering is frequently used to increase the survival rate of stem cells during transplantation. Though the selection of genetic elements in the regulatory system is based on previous research, researchers tend to emphasise different aspects of the system and choose different genes for the construction based on their own standards. Therefore, apart from the positivism in studying stem cells properties, constructivism is also reflected by the engineering nature of stem cell research.

Constructivism can be dangerous when researchers are pushed by personal interests of pursuing fame and success instead of being motivated by pure academic interest. The field of stem cell research is highly competitive due to its promising future in medical treatments, and the publication of successful results is often given with more rewards. Thus, researchers may avoid publishing negative experimental results, leading to a biased construction of truth. As a former lab director at Harvard Medical School and a leading researcher in cardiology, Dr. Pier Anversa was found out to use falsified and fabricated results in 31 publications related to cardiac stem cells in 2018. Due to his action, the whole field of cardiac stem cell research collapsed and many other articles were retracted from medical journals.

Truth in Economics

Introduction

To understand how truth plays a role in Economics, we first need to know what is the subject itself. As Alfred Marshall, a famous economist puts it, economics is “a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man”. As a result, we understand that most of the things surrounding us can be studied through economics. From our financial system to world trade, but even the smaller things like everyday decisions when an individual chooses between two types of meat or hesitates if taking the metro is worth it or walking is better.

How do we find truth in economics?

Economics tries to study human conduct and preferences although we know how complex the human mind can be : changing behavior in a split second. Because of that, it can be difficult for economists and researchers to establish lasting truths. Especially if we try to predict the choice of one individual, it is impossible to take into consideration all the facts (personal experience, background, personality) that might influence his decisions. As a result economics focuses more on the population as a whole rather than on particular individuals. It has been shown that when studying large groups of people we can distinguish certain traits and behaviors in common between the majority that enables economists to make statistically probable predictions. An example of that can be seen in the Prisoner’s dilemma. Prisoner’s dilemma is an experiment which puts two individual in a position of jeopardy to see if they will stay loyal or turn on each other. By conducting large experiments on a large number of people, economists have been able to say with some certainty that the large majority will turn on each other in positions of stress even if it is not the allocation that will give them the most benefits. This can be transposed on a larger economic scale showing how most people are self-interested when talking about economic or social gains.

Truth in Ethics

When considering the issue of truth in the context of Ethics, it is natural to question whether Ethics is even capable of producing truths given the highly subjective nature of the discipline. While it has been argued that truth cannot exist in an ethical context, a commonly accepted counter-argument embraces truth-aptness, the notion that a statement may be simultaneously true and false, and thus allows certain moral judgements to be defined as true propositions..

Are moral judgements truth-apt?

A statement may be defined as truth-apt if it does not have a truth value (i.e. it could equally assume values of true or false in the same context). There is a considerable case to be made for moral judgments (for example, the statement "it is wrong to kill a baby") being truth-apt.

Firstly, since the truth-value of moral judgements are almost objectively accepted as possessing a degree of transience, it follows that an individual's judgement of a moral statement at any one time does not necessarily define the truth value of that statement. For example, an individual may change their perspective on an ethical issue such as abortion as they are influenced by different experiences, perhaps shifting their judgement of the statement "abortion is wrong" as true to false over a period of time. We cannot definitively say whether either judgement is correct, implying that moral judgements such as these are truth-apt, capable of assuming truth values of true and false at once.

Furthermore, as Michael P. Lynch puts in, moral judgements are "subjected to the norms of epistemic appraisal". It is a convention within the discipline of Ethics that moral judgements should be sufficiently supported by reason and evidence. If a statement fails to stand up to challenge due to insufficient evidence or a weak argument, then that statement loses its authority and there is an expectation that the the truth-value originally assigned to that statement should be reconsidered. This point is highlighted by the distinction between judgements of morality and judgements of taste; when judgements of taste (for example "running is fun") are contested, there is not an obligation for the individual to reconsider the truth-value of that judgement in the same way as there is for judgements of morality, which are held to a different standard of academic discourse.. This relates back to the transience of the apparently arbitrary truth-values we assign to moral judgements, and strengthens the argument for truth-aptness.

Correspondence theory of truth

Beyond the issue of truth-aptness, we encounter the question of whether moral judgements can ever be justifiably interpreted as true. Working on the assumption that moral assertions assume the same definition of truth as other types of propositions, the correspondence theory of truth can be applied to moral judgements in order to address the issue of truth in Ethics.

The correspondence theory of truth defines truth as correspondence with facts, so for a moral statement to be true, it must correspond with facts. This means that the concepts that the statement deals with must have a direct grounding in the real-world.

Moral Realists interpret the correspondence theory of truth with the claim that moral statements describe moral objects and properties that exist in the real world. Thus, when we state a moral judgement, according to the Moral Realist, we are presenting a proposition which corresponds to moral facts and can therefore assume a truth value of true or false. This relies on the semantic assumption that the language used in Ethics is capable of expressing a certain moral reality.

Expressivists reject this interpretation, claiming that moral statements cannot possibly have truth values because they do not describe facts grounded in reality. The Expressivist makes the semantic argument that moral statements merely describe attitudes towards real-world objects and properties, rather than those objects and properties themselves. According to correspondence theory, the expressivist must therefore deny the existence of true statements in Ethics. This implies that statements such as "abortion is wrong" or "donating to charity is right" cannot be reliably assigned truth values of either true or false because they deal with attitudes, not concrete facts.

Determining truth within Ethics

If we assume that true propositions can exist within ethics, we encounter the question of how the truth value of a moral statement can be determined. A common methodology used to determine truth within Ethics typically relies on treating moral statements as hypotheses that we can test against our intuitions by examining our responses to thought experiments. This process lends itself to an analogy of the scientific method; the hypothesis is the moral statement, the experimental procedure consists of working through an abstract thought experiment, and rather than relying on empirical observations, our intuitive reaction to the imaginary scenario is treated as evidence that may point to the truth value of the moral statement. A familiar example of this is the trolley problem, a thought experiment used to help determine the truth value of utilitarian statements such as "an action is right if it maximises the sum-total of well-being in the universe" by treating our intuitive reactions to the hypothetical scenario described in the thought experiment as data.

Truth in Philosophy – different visions and definitions for John Locke and René Descartes

Empiricism according to John Locke

Empiricism considers that it is experience that constructs our knowledge. According to this theory, we can only access the truth through our senses. John Locke believes that the human mind is born with no knowledge at all, before any type of experiences, the spirit is a “blank sheet” with nothing written on it, all of it said in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1968). Empiricists say that you first need to do “tabula rasa”, a clean slate of all our preconceived ideas in order to conceive the truth through our senses and our experiences. All truths told to us or the education we are given on the world could be false, making our senses the only reliable source. This theory was greatly criticized by the rationalists who argued that when you had a hallucination, it was our senses deceiving us and that we had to focus on our understandability.

Idealism according to René Descartes

René Descartes states that you don’t only need a clean slate on all preconceived ideas but you need doubt of everything, including doubt of doubt – “époché”. According to him, the ‘Cartesian Doubt’ is the only way to find truth; having to doubt preconceived ideas, the different senses, and eventually attain the hyperbolic doubt, where one would doubt about every object and the entire world surrounding them, accepting only laws of math and physics. Through this process, one is able to prove his own existence. If one is able to doubt his own existence it means they think and therefore exist: "cogito ergo sum” (I think thus I am). After describing this elaborate process, Descartes establishes 4 rules in order to guide one's spirit towards truth. 1. Never accept anything as true without knowing it from experience. 2. Divide every difficulty that we examine into different steps to avoid misconceptions 3. Keep order in your thoughts, starting with the simplest objects then turning to the most complex ones 4. Do for every truth a general review to leave nothing aside.

Human Interpretation at the Core of Scientific Truth

Truth in Science is based on empirical evidence and it aims to mirror the reality that exists in the world. In other words, it aims to present an objective truth. A subjective truth, on the other hand, is a truth based on a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Science aims to arrive at truth that is free of human subjectivity. However, to what extent is that possible?

Human interpretation in scientific context

Scientists aim to obtain evidence in a way that is free of the scientist’s subjectivity (meaning, free of their biases arising from personal preferences and experiences). Individual subjectivity tends to be gradually filtered out and replaced by agreed-upon evidence. For example, if two people are observing a building from different distances, they will perceive the height of the building in different ways (because of how the building appears to them from their standing point). To eliminate this subjective interpretation, measurement standards and measurement tools are used. But in order for those to be widely recognized as true and to be used, there first needs to be an agreement on their definition and function. An example would be the universal agreement on the definition of a meter. This process of agreeing involves interpreting the object or phenomenon being measured and the possible tools and ways it can be measured.

Human interpretation in temperature measurements

One type of measurement that relies heavily on interpretation is the one of temperature. Thermometers are tools used to measure temperature by relating an unobservable quantity (to humans) to an observable quantity. Humans cannot directly observe temperature, so to measure it, thermometers relate it to the expansion (or length) of a gas or fluid in a glass tube. In essence, thermometers measure temperature by assuming that length is a function of temperature. The keyword in the sentence above is “assumption”, which relates directly to interpretation. In reality, the truthfulness of the function of length = f (temperature) cannot be tested as it requires a measurement tool that directly measures temperature without relating it to any other standard (which does not currently exist within the discipline of Science). Furthermore, in 1724, the German physicist Daniel Fahrenheit introduced the first-ever temperature scale that divided the freezing and boiling points of water into 180 degrees. However, the development of this scale also heavily relied on interpretation as it is not entirely clear why the divisor was chosen to be specifically 180 and not another value. This is not to say that the scientific way of measuring temperature is inherently wrong, in fact, it is especially pragmatic in our lives. The aim is to point out that although temperature measurements are seen as purely objective, human interpretation stands at the core of the measurement process. It could also be argued that because a level of interpretation was involved in arriving at that scientific truth adds a level of subjectivity to it.

Truth in Translation

Literature can give many forms of truth. It has the ability to teach the reader about different reactions and social scenarios and in multiple universes, dimensions, from different perspectives and narratives and in different time periods. Through this it allows individuals to understand and feel an experience they may have never felt before or in a new way. In this sense literature can act as an interpretive truth, but also as a realist truth, where it can have the potential to mirror reality. When these works of literature are translated, translation being a sub-discipline of literature and language, aspects of these truths have the potential to be lost, gained or manipulated.

When considering the great works of English Literature, many would lean towards the canonical playwright, poet and actor, William Shakespeare. His writing is filled with layered metaphors, rhyme and meter, and of course emphatic phrases that have made their way into the english language, and still provoke discussion in the modern day. For example, the famous line from Hamlet, “to be or not to be”. Different languages have very different approaches to this infinitive. English language, only has one infinitive to describe a state of ‘being’ has led to great ambiguity over what “to be, or not to be” truly means, which is perhaps why this quote is so famous. The ambiguity allows space for discussion and multiple truths to be drawn from it. In Spanish however, we have two infinitives for the verb ‘to be’: estar and ser. Ser is the more official of the two, used to describe vocation, nationality and so on. Estar is used to describe feelings, actions and temporary states of being. So how does a translator decide which should be used in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? There are truths that are lost from either choice.

Another example is in the Mandarin translation of Plato’s Republic. This book follows Socrates over the course of an evening attempting to find a definition of justice. He uses the Socratic Method and thinks through many different definitions demonstrating the great complexities that can be found in abstract terms such as justice, but also a method for philosophical thought. In Mandarin, the title is translated as 理想國, meaning ‘ideal state’, which brings new truths, or perhaps manipulates the truth, of The Republic. This gives the book an aim, taking the emphasis off the philosophical teachings found along the way, and rather, onto the definition of justice which perhaps changes the nature of the text and its desired truths. It is important to note that there is a word for ‘republic’ in Mandarin, and so this choice was deliberate of the translators.

The word ‘utopia’ was coined by Sir Thomas More, deliberately because of its ambiguous meaning allowing perhaps for greater truths to be drawn from it, like with Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be”. If you trace ‘utopia’ back to its Greek roots, it could mean either ‘good place’ (eutopia) or ‘no place’ (utopia) . It seems that More took a deliberate play on the words in English as they are homophones. This leads to a number of potential interpretations, perhaps the good place is no place and doesn’t exist, or perhaps the good place is not a place and cannot not be thought of in mundane terms.

In this way, translations can lead to a greater or lesser number of interpretations which can manifest themselves to be as truths in terms of relaying reality back to the consumer of the literature, and so, the role of translator holds great power in how an entire nation may draw truths from literature.

Truth in Poetry

Historically poetry and truth have not often thought to be associated with each other. Often in writing poems, poets have not been wholly concerned with facts and logic, rather presenting subject matter in a beautiful and abstract way. Kant argues that this deliberate antecedence of the depiction of a subject over logic or factual basis makes poetry a far more important form of art, and separates it from prose by characterising prose as being concerned with linear narratives and logical explanation . ‘Negative capability’, a term coined by Keats in 1817 which later developed into a poetic school of thought, revolves around abandoning the search for essential truths about man or nature, rather creating a vision of artistic beauty even when it created philosophical uncertainties . Keats goes on to argue that rather than detaching poetry from truth, this theory brings poetry closer to the true nature of the world which itself refuses to be defined by a rigid set of philosophical or scientific truths, and allows us to observe a holistic picture of the world and not be forced down a narrow passageway of thought in order for the thesis of a poem to make sense

Heidegger proposes a constructivist relationship between poetry and truth, namely that poetry is a way of building truth through revelation. By looking at the world through a poetic lens we are able to endow the things around us with new meaning and value. Roger Scruton suggests in an analysis of Heidegger’s theory that there is an inherent or essential truth in every object that it is the pursuit of poetry to access or reveal. This truth exists not as a universal standard but rather a product of the relationships and associations we have with the world around us which form the fabric of our daily lives.