The Measure of Truth
How do we know what is true and what is not? How do we weigh the validity of another’s opinion, or even the validity of our own?
Some time ago, Julia made a post on the comfort of knowing the truth. This resulted in a comment discussion on the nature of truth, where most of the comments confused truth with fact. So I thought I would return to this discussion.
Broadly speaking, there are three general types of truth.
The first is logical truth, which encompasses logical and philosophical reasoning, as well as mathematical formalism. Logical truths are based on deductive reasoning. Starting with a series of basic concepts or axioms, theorems or consequences can be logically deduced. If the axioms are true, then the resulting theorems are also true. The immense power of logical truth stems from the fact that deductive reasoning is a central aspect of human thought. Regardless of our cultural background, humans logically deduce in the same way. This is why, regardless of its cultural origin, the results of mathematics are always the same. Despite their vast cultural differences, the ancient Chinese and the ancient Greeks both deduced that the value of pi was 3.14…
Despite its power, there are two major weaknesses to logical truth. For one, logical truths are only as true as your axioms. Your axioms are simply assumed to be true, without any proof. For this reason logical truths are always conditional rather than absolute. Another weakness is that logical reasoning cannot answer every question. As the mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated, any sufficiently complex logical structure will contain results which cannot be proved or disproved. There will always be logical unknowns.
The second type of truth is scientific truth, which forms the basis of modern science. The basis of scientific truth is not a set of axioms, but a set of facts. The fundamental tenet of science is that it is based in reality, at least in the kind of reality that can be tested. There are some (usually critics of evolution or global warming) who would argue that scientific truth can only encompass repeatable outcomes, but in fact scientific truth is derived from a confluence of evidence. Evidence does not need to be repeatable, but multiple pieces of evidence must point to the same theory. Scientific truths are logical truths consistent with the evidence.
The power of scientific truth can be seen all around you. We depend upon science for our very survival, and without it our modern society would collapse. The pursuit of scientific truth has reduced and in some cases eliminated the plagues of disease and suffering which have haunted humanity. It has provided humanity with a deeper understanding of our universe and our place within it. It has also given us powerful tools which we have used to do both great good and great evil.
The central weakness of scientific truth is that it too is conditional. The most elegant scientific theory can be torn asunder by a single verified experiment or piece of evidence. Throughout history, new evidence has destroyed theory after theory. Evidence destroyed the truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. It destroyed the truth that illness was caused by “bad air”. It destroyed the truth that Earth is only a few thousand years old. In many ways this is part of the power of science, because it prevents scientific truth from being dogmatic. New evidence forces us to let go of old truths in exchange for deeper, more subtle truths. But this is no comfort for those who want truth to be absolute and unchanging.
The third type of truth is emotional truth, which forms the basis of religion and culture. Emotional truths are intuitive. They are not derived logically or scientifically, but rather stem from the fact that they simply feel right. The power of emotional truth stems from the fact that we are deeply emotional creatures. Our rational, reasoning minds can easily be overridden by emotion.
Emotional truths play a vital role in our lives. As social creatures we need to know when to trust others and when not to trust others. Our emotions are key to this. Emotional truths allow society and religion to bind us together into communities. Logical and scientific truths may be tenuous, but emotional truths you feel to your core. So deep is the power of emotion that for many people emotion is their only measure of truth. For them, all the logical or scientific evidence in the world can be trumped by a single statement: I don’t believe it.
Therein lies the central weakness of emotional truth. Deeply held emotional truths are not subject to criticism. They are absolute. The Bible is the word of God because you feel it to be true. Christians are bigots because you feel it to be true. Liberals hate America, Conservatives hate children, and God hates fags. It must be true because you feel it to your bones. How could it possibly be false?
Like everyone else, how I view the world is based on all of these truths. As I scientist, however, I find it difficult to comprehend how people cling to certain emotional truths in the face of logical and scientific ones. For me, scientific and logical truths override emotional truth. I simply can’t accept as true anything which is contradicted by evidence. I’m not wired that way.
How about you? Do you prefer emotional truths over scientific ones? Are there other truths you think I’ve omitted? Or do you think I’ve got things completely wrong?
Be Brave. Be Human. Discuss.
Brian
October 11th, 2007 21:24
Hey Brian- Interesting thoughts, again. It reminds me of a conversation that I’ve had now with each of my three kids, as they have come of age in their thinking and the topic of a spiritual life has come up.
I have told them that I believe/perceive that we, as humans, have several dimensions to our lives. The most obvious is the Physical Life: we eat, we move, we touch the world.
The second and third dimensions I speak about are our Emotional and Intellectual Lives. I discuss the importance of knowing the difference between the life of the mind and the life of feeling. Too many people have feelings and mistake them for ideas or thoughts, but our feelings are important in their own place, too. I tell my kids we need to be attentive to both, in the right time and in some kind of balance/relationship with each other.
The last domain I discuss is our Spiritual Life. I have experienced a drive, what I know as the call to, and hunger for, some connection to and practice (in the eastern sense of daily engagement) in the transcendent quality of life. For some, this is a relationship with a personal God/dess, or with a pantheon of them. For others it is a connection to a non-personal but sacred level of experience. I tell the kids that I believe, from my experience, that life is experienced fully only when we include all four aspects of our humanity in our active lives.
I put all this out here because your three reminded me of my four; not as a trumping with a bigger number ( though I did, and so there! Nyahhh!) But more seriously, do these relate to your three kinds of truth, or am I just rambling more than usual? Some might say that only my first type is verifibly true. Others seem to say that emotions and even ideas are actually just measurable (and ultimately will be predictable) neurological bio-chemical events, and that it all comes down to scientific fact. But I am brought back to experiences like Yeats’ when he writes:
“I went out to the hazel wood/ because a fire was in my head”
{the whole poem is here (www.bartleby.com/146/9.html)- read it.} Yeats said that he had the story as true experience from an old man he met in the west of Ireland.
There are times that inspiration and connection to something greater seems to inspire, lead, guide, even consume us; at all events, it brings meaning to our lives in ways that data does not (generally) do. What kind of truth is that?
To be fair, before I go, I should answer at least one of your questions: I do not prefer emotional truths in the face of scientific evidence; that may be different from being more responsive to spiritual truths than scientific thinking. Perhaps even that is a false choice. One of the cool things about modern Buddhism is that, as the scientific study of Mind vs. Brain brings new knowledge to light, the Dalai Lama and other leaders are revising their teachings to incorporate that knowledge into their teachings about the Nature of Mind and the Study of Being.
Yours in a desultory non-philippic way-
Nick
October 16th, 2007 02:14
Hello Brian and Nick,
Thank you for this lovely detailed account of types of truth. I think that for myself, emotional truth has its own validity and illumination. It helps me perceive the world differently from the logic or factual evidence.
I hope that, like you, I favour the rational over the emotional when they seem to be pointing in different directions. But emotional truth speaks a different language — metaphor, allusion, symbol, rhythm.
However, when I am suffused in feeling, be it joy or grief, you cannot comfort/connect with me through logic or fact — ‘time heals all wounds’ doesn’t help me, though it might be factually true. In this case the emotional truth of the situation is the primary one and the others need to make way.
So, like Nick, I hope I don’t cling to emotional truths in the face of strong factual evidence. Nevertheless, emotional truths call something more from me than logical or factual truths. It’s great when they are all aligned and I am in a state of wonder at the majesty and power of something like the Theory of Natural Selection.
October 17th, 2007 17:32
Brian and co… I wonder whether others are having the same problem I am with the BH site?
When I come in via the main URL, I see the latest post with the video. The page loads only partially, and the white background does not appear, so the text is mostly unreadable. It is only when I scroll down, peer hard and click the heading of another post ‘Perfected’ that the page appears properly.
It’s happening in Firefox. In Explorer the video doesn’t appear though the text is readable. You might want to try removing the video? Or something.
Cheers
Gillian
October 17th, 2007 18:44
Gillian,
That’s odd. But I’ve converted the video to a link, so that should fix it.
Brian
October 23rd, 2007 03:01
Hi Brian,
The difficulty I have in responding is accepting the statement that truth is Intellectual, Scientific, or Emotional, each of those being separate and distinct.
May I propose that Intellectual truth comes in two flavors, Logical and Intuitive. I am confident that both Theorists and Experimentalists use both of these methods to arrive at truths, both small and large. These are means of manipulating facts, observations and processes to arrive at new (hopefully valid) truths.
Scientific inquiry is a systematic approach to verify what is.
As our understanding of nature is limited, by definition, new facts will continue to emerge as we continue to increase our understanding of what is.
I would suggest that Spiritual and Religious understanding is an inquiry by our human nature into that which cannot be proven, that which is not completely susceptible to a logical or scientific answer. Some inquiries are not at all suitable to answers in an objective sense, or a provable sense. Most humans have some sense of the divine, across all peoples, across all cultures. While it cannot be proven that this sense is responding to an objective real being, neither can it be proven that our sense is not responding to a real divine being. Surely we shall not discount as emotion that which is sensed but not objectively provable.
How we are here is a scientific inquiry. Why we are here is a spiritual inquiry, or it is at least until we find the instruction manual that we have all wished for on occasion.
We cannot reduce Religion and Culture to mere expressions of Emotion. Religion is an expression of our longing to understand if and how we are more than our flesh and blood. Culture is an expression of our values, our history and our characteristics as a people.
Emotions are our felt reactions to what we experience. They are invaluable warning signs to danger, indicators of our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with our situation, etc. What they are not, is clear, or definitive, or infallibly reliable. One has to use them as indicators, but it is our responsibility to properly interpret what they really mean.
Thanks for the post.
Regards,
Denis