What is, and how to find, Truth?
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:12 pm
Quoted from my book "Humane Physics":
Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded.
So Newton’s equation: “force equals mass times acceleration, where mass is an unchangeable constant attribute of material bodies”, was a truth until Einstein, by his special theory of relativity, suggested experiments that produced results contradicting Newton. At that point Newton’s ‘truth’ became ‘false’ and required modification.
Truth can apply to physical observation, directly with our senses or indirectly with instruments, or to a theory (which is usually a statement about cause-and-effect relationships). Physical observations have to be repeatable and consistent at ever-increasing accuracy, to be considered true; theories have to produce predictions verifiable by observation.
The only intolerable state is contradiction.
Life is not different from science - only more complicated. Basic principles still apply. A while ago, telling my students how to find truth, I used the example of Hercule Poirot. Imagine that you are a detective. A murder has been committed and you need to find out the truth. You question suspects and witnesses. Some tell the truth, some lie; you have no idea which. You collect all the evidence, all the statements from those interviewed, and build a model in your head. At that point “the little grey cells” ought to do their job.
You arrange the known facts and statements in such a way as to have a minimum number of contradictions in the model. You discard those that cannot be used without contradicting most of the other facts. Then you try to come up with a theory that agrees with the largest number of ‘facts’ and is supported by your personal experience, the experience of those you trust, and discard as ‘untrue’, all the rest. Then you think you know what the truth is. You draw logical conclusions and test these in real life. If they check out, you can be reasonably sure. You will never be absolutely sure -- truth is still only those theories that have not yet been contradicted.
Applying this method to our understanding of the human condition is no different. The keys to a reasonable confidence in knowing truth are to
• have extensive personal life experience (needs observation)
• learn as many facts as you can (needs a lot of reading)
• keep all of these facts in mind (needs a good memory)
• try to form a theoretical model (needs pattern recognition ability)
• be completely open minded (needs intellectual integrity)
Then you can be reasonably sure, in the relative sense. In the absolute sense you can be only 50% sure. Either you are right, or you are wrong. However, we can only do the best we can do. For all practical purposes, I can call it truth: 'my truth'. And it stays true until someone proves it false.
Unfortunately, when the topic of truth comes up, most people assume we are talking about metaphysics or quantum theory and the conversation becomes highly philosophical and highly impractical. To consider Heisenberg for my modest purpose of learning the truth about the reason we are unhappy and the changes we have to make to set it right is like considering Einstein to plan a car trip to Florida.
We also have to deal with another misconception of our age: it basically claims that no one has a by definition superior value system or opinion; that my opinion is just as good as someone else’s. While I understand the necessity of devaluing arguments based solely on authority, I find that we managed to swing to the opposite extreme (as usual) and tried to be completely egalitarian when evaluating competence and ability.
There are more and less intelligent people, more and less educated, experienced, knowledgeable, wise, honest, etc. people in the world. It is still true that some younger people could learn something from some of their elders, some experts still know more about their fields than some laymen.
Convictions are not entirely relative with identical weighing factors. Before I evaluate it, I like to know how a person arrived at his opinion, what it is based on, how many factors were considered, how much factual knowledge it incorporated.
Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded.
So Newton’s equation: “force equals mass times acceleration, where mass is an unchangeable constant attribute of material bodies”, was a truth until Einstein, by his special theory of relativity, suggested experiments that produced results contradicting Newton. At that point Newton’s ‘truth’ became ‘false’ and required modification.
Truth can apply to physical observation, directly with our senses or indirectly with instruments, or to a theory (which is usually a statement about cause-and-effect relationships). Physical observations have to be repeatable and consistent at ever-increasing accuracy, to be considered true; theories have to produce predictions verifiable by observation.
The only intolerable state is contradiction.
Life is not different from science - only more complicated. Basic principles still apply. A while ago, telling my students how to find truth, I used the example of Hercule Poirot. Imagine that you are a detective. A murder has been committed and you need to find out the truth. You question suspects and witnesses. Some tell the truth, some lie; you have no idea which. You collect all the evidence, all the statements from those interviewed, and build a model in your head. At that point “the little grey cells” ought to do their job.
You arrange the known facts and statements in such a way as to have a minimum number of contradictions in the model. You discard those that cannot be used without contradicting most of the other facts. Then you try to come up with a theory that agrees with the largest number of ‘facts’ and is supported by your personal experience, the experience of those you trust, and discard as ‘untrue’, all the rest. Then you think you know what the truth is. You draw logical conclusions and test these in real life. If they check out, you can be reasonably sure. You will never be absolutely sure -- truth is still only those theories that have not yet been contradicted.
Applying this method to our understanding of the human condition is no different. The keys to a reasonable confidence in knowing truth are to
• have extensive personal life experience (needs observation)
• learn as many facts as you can (needs a lot of reading)
• keep all of these facts in mind (needs a good memory)
• try to form a theoretical model (needs pattern recognition ability)
• be completely open minded (needs intellectual integrity)
Then you can be reasonably sure, in the relative sense. In the absolute sense you can be only 50% sure. Either you are right, or you are wrong. However, we can only do the best we can do. For all practical purposes, I can call it truth: 'my truth'. And it stays true until someone proves it false.
Unfortunately, when the topic of truth comes up, most people assume we are talking about metaphysics or quantum theory and the conversation becomes highly philosophical and highly impractical. To consider Heisenberg for my modest purpose of learning the truth about the reason we are unhappy and the changes we have to make to set it right is like considering Einstein to plan a car trip to Florida.
We also have to deal with another misconception of our age: it basically claims that no one has a by definition superior value system or opinion; that my opinion is just as good as someone else’s. While I understand the necessity of devaluing arguments based solely on authority, I find that we managed to swing to the opposite extreme (as usual) and tried to be completely egalitarian when evaluating competence and ability.
There are more and less intelligent people, more and less educated, experienced, knowledgeable, wise, honest, etc. people in the world. It is still true that some younger people could learn something from some of their elders, some experts still know more about their fields than some laymen.
Convictions are not entirely relative with identical weighing factors. Before I evaluate it, I like to know how a person arrived at his opinion, what it is based on, how many factors were considered, how much factual knowledge it incorporated.