Scan barcode
neme's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.5
Really interesting breakdown of the different types of truths that we see everyday, some solid examples too
icywaterfall's review against another edition
3.0
There are many different types of truth and it can sometimes be confusing that they are all understood by the same word: ‘truth’. So here are several different types of truths and what they connote.
- Many people still believe in divinely mandated, eternal truth which would lead them to reject outright scientific truth. But this is an oversimplification; there is hardly a dividing line in the sand between those who believe their eternal truths literally and metaphorically. The reality is that most people are a bit of both; even those who lean towards the literal interpretation are still wont to reject scientific truths. But it must be said that, while they are more than mere fictions, they do not belong to the list of objective facts about the world. When religion and science accept that their truths are of a different quality, coexistence is then possible.
- The two most common validators of epistemological authority (authoritative truths) are expertise and the divine. The question then becomes: when is it right to accept an authority’s version of the truth? First ask: is this a domain in which anyone can speak truth? If we believe there are truths to be had, secondly, we ask: what kind of expert is a trustworthy expert in this domain? Lastly, we need to ask whether this particular person can be considered an expert. Then, and only then, can we defer to the opinions of experts.
- There exist esoteric truths, which are hidden from the public. It is when the public at large believes that the ruling class are hiding truths for their own benefit that this goes too far. Having good reason to believe there are numerous concealed truths is not a reason to believe most claims to have uncovered them. We need to be appropriately skeptical without being indiscriminately cynical.
- Rationalism was the outcome of reasoned truths, the idea that we can generate absolute truths using only reason. But Heisenberg and Hume were right in saying that reason can never generate the absolute truth, and reason could only analyse the relationship between concepts and not the things the concepts relate to. Reason should not be used on its own, but should be used in conjunction with experience, evidence, judgment and sensitivity to ambiguity. Reason shouldn’t be denigrated too much, but neither should it elevated beyond the heavens either. Reason is an imperfect tool with imperfect users, but only by reasoning could we discover the limits of reasoning.
- Some truths (relations of ideas) are true by definition but tell us nothing about the world. Empirical truths, by contrast, cannot be established by pure logic, which means that they cannot be established with 100 percent certainty. Empirical truths are always under the ‘threat’ (if it can be called a ‘threat’) of revision.
- Many people still believe in divinely mandated, eternal truth which would lead them to reject outright scientific truth. But this is an oversimplification; there is hardly a dividing line in the sand between those who believe their eternal truths literally and metaphorically. The reality is that most people are a bit of both; even those who lean towards the literal interpretation are still wont to reject scientific truths. But it must be said that, while they are more than mere fictions, they do not belong to the list of objective facts about the world. When religion and science accept that their truths are of a different quality, coexistence is then possible.
- The two most common validators of epistemological authority (authoritative truths) are expertise and the divine. The question then becomes: when is it right to accept an authority’s version of the truth? First ask: is this a domain in which anyone can speak truth? If we believe there are truths to be had, secondly, we ask: what kind of expert is a trustworthy expert in this domain? Lastly, we need to ask whether this particular person can be considered an expert. Then, and only then, can we defer to the opinions of experts.
- There exist esoteric truths, which are hidden from the public. It is when the public at large believes that the ruling class are hiding truths for their own benefit that this goes too far. Having good reason to believe there are numerous concealed truths is not a reason to believe most claims to have uncovered them. We need to be appropriately skeptical without being indiscriminately cynical.
- Rationalism was the outcome of reasoned truths, the idea that we can generate absolute truths using only reason. But Heisenberg and Hume were right in saying that reason can never generate the absolute truth, and reason could only analyse the relationship between concepts and not the things the concepts relate to. Reason should not be used on its own, but should be used in conjunction with experience, evidence, judgment and sensitivity to ambiguity. Reason shouldn’t be denigrated too much, but neither should it elevated beyond the heavens either. Reason is an imperfect tool with imperfect users, but only by reasoning could we discover the limits of reasoning.
- Some truths (relations of ideas) are true by definition but tell us nothing about the world. Empirical truths, by contrast, cannot be established by pure logic, which means that they cannot be established with 100 percent certainty. Empirical truths are always under the ‘threat’ (if it can be called a ‘threat’) of revision.
More...