2. TRUTH
2.1 What is Truth?
2.1.1 Truth
2.1.2 Relativism about Truth
2.2 Two Mistaken Lines of Thinking Supporting Relativism about Truth
2.2.1 Belief and True Belief
2.2.2 True Belief and Rational Belief
2.3 Another Mistaken Line of Thinking Supporting Relativism about Truth
2.2.1 Sentences and Propositions
2.4 A Final Mistaken Line of Thinking Supporting Relativism about Truth
2.4.1 Relational and Non-relational Properties
2.5 Consequences of Relativism about Truth
2.6 Chapter Summary
2.7 Exercises and Practice Questions
2.1 What is Truth?
2.1.1 Truth
The philosopher Saint Augustine once said of time: “What then is time? If no one asks me, I
know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.” Augustine’s point about
time can really be made more broadly about many of the concepts that philosophers investigate.
Everyone feels completely comfortable using the concept of time in the course of their ordinary
lives. Throughout the day we ask and give answers to questions like: “What time is it?”, “How
much time to we have?”, and “How long will this take?” But if you stop and ask yourself or
anyone else what time is, you’ll realize that even though our thinking relies on the notion of time
at every turn, we don’t have much of an idea what time is.
Truth is another example of a concept that we routinely depend upon in the course of ordinary
life, but that we rarely stop and think about. We talk and worry a great deal about the truth,
whether our beliefs are true, whether someone is telling the truth, and so on, but we rarely stop
and think about what truth itself is. By contrast, it is the very profession of career philosophers to
think about what truth is. Specifically, the branch of philosophy that is tasked with investigating
matters related to our beliefs about the world—such as, “What is truth?”, “What is it for a belief
to be true?”, “How can we distinguish true beliefs from false ones” and related questions—is
called epistemology (As a helpful contrast to understanding what epistemologists do, one might
note that the branch of philosophy that is tasked with investigating the fundamental aspects of
our world itself rather than our beliefs about it—such as the question I mentioned earlier, “What
is time?”—is the branch of philosophy called metaphysics).
However, perhaps unlike time, we do have a very rough idea of what truth is that nearly
anyone—professional philosopher or not—can agree to:

Truth is a relation to the world; specifically, the relation of corresponding or matching
the world.
Although philosophers tend not to think of things like truth by filling in the blank for a definition
like I’ve done above with “Truth is ____”. Rather, philosophers often think in terms of a
formula for what it is for something to be, for example, true. A sentential formula is not a
sentence, but contains variables and becomes a sentence upon appropriate substitutions for these
variables. Below is the same definition of truth as above, but rewritten as a formula (note that
“iff” is the standard abbreviation for “if and only if” which itself means “just in case” or “is
equivalent to”):

x is true iff x corresponds to how the world is, otherwise x is false.
2.1.2 Relativism about Truth
Everything we had to say about truth in the previous section can seem too obvious to even bother
stating. Yet it is surprising how often and how easily we lose sight of what truth so obviously is.
Consider, for example, how common it is for people to think that what’s true for one person isn’t
always true for others. Or, what is true at one time or place, isn’t true at other times and places.
This is what philosophers call relativism about truth and many if not most people would
readily agree to such a view if it were put to them.
However, once we have stopped to explicitly define truth even in this simple and obvious way, it
immediately becomes puzzling how truth could be relative given what truth is. How can truth be
different for different people? The world is either one way or it is not, and so what’s true would
seem to have to be the same for everyone. If truth is a correspondence with the world and all of
us inhabit the same one world, then the set of truths would have be the same for all of us.
This is part of the reason philosophers almost universally agree on rejecting relativism about
truth:

Rejection of relativism about truth: Whether something is true or false, it is the same
for everyone.
So if what truth is so clearly conflicts with relativism about truth, why do so many people seem
to naturally come into thinking that truth is relative? Furthermore, if relativism about truth is so
universally rejected by philosophers, why do we ordinarily slip into thinking it? Relativism about
truth is partly the result of several common misunderstandings. Once we thinking about it
carefully and clear up those misunderstandings, we realize that relativism about truth is almost
certainly incorrect.
Relativism about truth is the common mistake of thinking that truth and falsity can be different
for different people. However, it will be helpful if instead of talking about relativism in the
abstract, we focus on a specific phrase that encapsulates it. Consider the phrase, “X is true for Y.”
What this phrase implies is that while X is true for Y, it might not be true for people other than Y
or people in a different situation than Y. This is relativism about truth. Let’s look at the several
lines of thinking that bring people to use such a relativistic phrase.
2.2 Two Mistaken Lines of Thinking and Relativism about Truth
2.2.1 Belief and True Belief
Take an ancient school child who believes the Earth to be flat. The Earth looks flat, everyone
tells the school child it is flat, and the school child has no reason to think it would be any other
shape. In fact, the school child has never even considered the possibility that it could be any
other shape (for example, that the Earth might be a sphere).
Mistaken Line of Thinking 1: “The school child believes the Earth is flat, which is to say,
the Earth is flat is true for that school child.”
This line of thinking is the result of misunderstanding the difference between a belief and a true
belief. The term “belief” in ordinary conversation is used in many varied ways. Sometimes
people use “belief” to indicate that someone is unsure of something, other times they use it to
indicate that something is a deep conviction of theirs. Technically, the term “belief” simply
means something a person “thinks is true”. So to say, “Y believes X” is just to say “Y thinks X is
true”.
Of course, belief is something that comes in degrees. Some things I am very sure of being true,
while others I just barely think are more likely to be true than false. But in its technical meaning,
the concept of belief just means anything that I believe is more likely true than false. Another
way of putting this is that I believe anything that I think has a 51-100% likelihood of being true. I
disbelieve anything I think has a 0-49% likelihood of being true (that is, something I think is
more likely false than true). And I have suspended belief about anything I have no idea whether
it is true or false (50-50%). Whenever I consider some idea, I can then either believe it,
disbelieve it, or suspend belief concerning it. There are of course things I’ve never considered,
and which I neither believe, disbelieve, or suspend belief about. However, once a belief arises in
my thought, I then will either believe it, disbelieve it, or suspend belief about it.
Now, to think something is true is different from it actually being true. A true belief is one that
matches or corresponds to how the world is. So while a belief is something I think it true, a true
belief is something I think is true and also happens to be true. So we can immediately see that
believing something and it being true are very different. Just because I believe something doesn’t
make it true for me, rather it just means that it is something I think is true. Whether it is true, we
need to check the world. The ancient school child thinks it is true that the Earth is flat, but that is
clearly different than it being true for that school child (and everyone else) that the Earth is flat.
This brings us to another somewhat obvious seeming philosophical result once we state it
clearly:

The truth or falsity of a proposition is independent of how anyone believes or feels
about that proposition.
While the idea stated above is simple, in application it can be difficult to get right. Let’s start by
looking at an easy case:
(1) The Earth is spherical.
This proposition is true and its truth clearly does not depend or change however anyone might
feel or think about it. Its truth depends on the physical shape of the world, not on what anyone
thinks or feels. The truth of proposition (1) does not in anyway depend on how many or how few
people believe proposition (1), how you believe about proposition (1), or anyone’s evidence
regarding proposition (1). The truth of proposition (1) simply depends on the physical shape of
the world.
However, things get more complicated when we realize that propositions can be about beliefs.
For example:
(2) Nearly everyone believes the Earth is spherical.
This second proposition clearly does depend on what people believe. However, it is important to
notice that this proposition only depends on what people believe because this proposition is
about what people believe. Proposition (1) didn’t depend on how people believe because it was
about the shape of the Earth, while proposition (2) only depends on how people believe because
it is about what people believe.
Furthermore, notice that the truth of proposition (2) doesn’t depend on what people believe about
proposition (2). The truth of the second proposition depends on what people believe about the
first proposition. Which is to point out that the truth or falsity of propositions can depend on how
people believe or feel if they are about how people believe or feel. However, even so, while the
truth or falsity of propositions can depend on how people believe or feel about a proposition,
these propositions can only be about how people believe or feel towards some other proposition.
The truth of proposition (2) does not depend on how people believe or feel about (2) itself, but
how people believe or feel about proposition (1). And the truth of proposition (1) does not
depend on how people believe or feel about (1) at all.
To put it another way, we don’t make a proposition true just by believing that proposition. We
don’t make it true that “the Earth is spherical” just by believing that “the Earth is spherical.” The
truth of this proposition depends on the shape of the Earth, it does not depend on what I or
anyone else believes about the shape of the Earth. However—and this is where it gets tricky—
notice that we also don’t make it true that “Nearly everyone believes the Earth is spherical” just
by believing that “Nearly everyone believes the Earth is spherical.” Even if we all believe that
“Nearly everyone believes the Earth is spherical” we might all be mistaken about what nearly
everyone believes about the shape of the Earth. We do, however, make the proposition that
“Nearly everyone believes the Earth is spherical” just by all believing that “the Earth is
spherical.”
To introduce some technical philosophical terms, a fact is the actual way the world is, and a
proposition’s truth-maker is the fact or facts that make a proposition true if it is true. Notice,
given the way these terms are defined, while there are true or false propositions, there are not
true or false facts. What we might be tempted to call “false facts” are no facts at all, while what
we might be tempted to call “true facts” are just “facts”. So, what makes the proposition that “the
Earth is spherical” either true or false—its truth-maker—is the actual shape of the Earth—the
fact of how the Earth is shaped. The truth-maker of the proposition “the Earth is spherical” has
nothing to do with the facts about what I or anyone else believes the shape of the Earth to be.
However, the fact that is the truth-maker for the proposition “Nearly everyone believes that the
Earth is spherical” is whether nearly everyone actually believes the proposition that “the Earth is
spherical.” The truth of this proposition still doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about this
proposition, but since this proposition is about what people believe regarding some other
proposition, its truth does depend on what people think about some other proposition. Or, to put
it more generally with the bit of technical terminology we just learned, the truth-maker for a
proposition is never a fact about how anyone believes about that proposition, but the truth-maker
for some proposition are facts about how people believe about other propositions.
2.2.2 True Belief and Rational Belief
Mistaken Line of Thinking 2: “The school child has every reason to believe the Earth is
flat and no reason to think it is a sphere, which is to say, the Earth is flat is true for that
school child.”
This line of thinking is the result of misunderstanding the difference between rational belief and
true belief. When we think of this school child’s belief, we don’t want to say that it is all wrong.
After all, it is the belief all of the school child’s evidence points to. However, the school child’s
belief isn’t right in the sense that it’s true, but rather in the sense that it is what is rational for the
school child to believe. It is false, but it isn’t all bad since it was the rational thing to believe for
the school child.
While a belief is just what I do think is true, a rational belief is what I should think is true. I often
believe things I shouldn’t, which is another way of saying that many of my beliefs are not
rational beliefs. However, to say that a rational belief is what one should believe isn’t very
informative. What makes a belief one I should have? Is it that a belief is a true belief? Are true
beliefs the only beliefs I should have? If something is a true belief does that then also mean it is a
rational belief; that is, the belief I should have?
In thinking about these questions, it is important that we notice that blame for bad beliefs
depends on a belief lacking evidence rather than being false. If you believe that what you are
giving me is aspirin, but it is in fact poison, then I will not blame you simply because your belief
was false but only if your evidence supported the belief that it was poison but you believed that it
was aspirin anyway. If all of your evidence supported your belief that what you gave me was
aspirin (for example, that’s what it said on the bottle and you had no reason to think otherwise),
then while your belief was unfortunately false, it was what you had every reason to believe and
so I won’t blame you for giving me the poison. However, whoever put the poison in that bottle
might need to be talked to. Similarly, while the ancient school child’s belief that the Earth is flat
is false, the school child isn’t to blame for having the belief since it was what was most likely
true given their evidence. Part of the reason we want to say that the belief is true for the school
child is because of our sense that the school child did no wrong in believing that the Earth is flat,
but in fact this is because that the school child’s belief was supported by their evidence, not that
it was true.
What thinking about blame for beliefs seem to show us, is that a rational belief (i.e. a belief we
should have) is not true belief but those beliefs that are supported by our evidence. That is, a
belief is rational for me to have, if given all of my evidence, it is more likely to be true than
false:

A belief is rational if one’s evidence supports it, disbelief is rational if one’s evidence
is against it, and suspending belief is rational if one’s evidence is conflicted or neutral
towards it.
What we aim for when it comes to belief are true beliefs. However, there is no direct way for us
to check for whether or not one of our beliefs is a true belief. But what we can check directly is
our evidence to see which of our beliefs are more likely to be true than false. Therefore, what
aiming for true beliefs amounts to, is pursuing beliefs supported by evidence.
Now, it is important that we don’t fall into the mistake of thinking a rational belief is always true,
or that a true belief is always rational. A rational belief can be false as in the case of the school
child or my friend who gives me poison instead of aspirin. Furthermore a true belief can be
irrational. For example, given the odds, it is irrational for anyone to believe that they have a
winning lottery ticket, but for someone it is true. This is another pretty much universally
accepted view among philosophers:

Fallibilism about rationality: A belief can be both false but rational or true but
irrational.
Since rationality depends on one’s evidence and truth depends on how the world is (was or will
be), they don’t always go together. What our evidence supports might be more likely to be true,
but that isn’t the same as being true.
2.3 Another Mistaken Line of Thinking and Relativism about Truth
2.3.1 Sentences and Propositions
Mistaken Line of Thinking 3: “Allan is hungry while I am not, so X is true for Allan and
false for me.”
This line of thinking is a result of the fact that we don’t always say what we mean. In fact, it is
probably impossible to ever completely say what we mean. Consider if I were to turn to you and
say, “It's sunny out.” First off, I did not say where. Suppose that I were to try and be more
specific and instead said, “It's sunny out within Seattle city limits at 1pm on June 1st 2011.” But
even then I haven't explicitly stated which Seattle I am referring to. Furthermore, I should
probably specify that I am referring to Earth rather than any alien civilization that might also
have a city named Seattle, that I am speaking English rather than any sort of code, which time
zone I am using, that I am not joking, and on and on. I doubt there would be any end to the task
of completely specifying what I had meant even by the short sentence, “It's sunny out”. Which is
to say, it doesn't appear to be possible for me to ever completely say what I had meant even
though what I had to say was pretty simple as things go.
So if it is impossible to ever even come close to completely saying what we mean, how are we
able to communicate anything at all? After all, it's not like you would have had any trouble
understanding what I had meant by, “It is sunny out.” Context. I can and really should just say
“It’s sunny out” even if that is a radically incomplete expression of what I had been thinking
because whomever I might be talking to will be able to rely on the context of my utterance to
know my full meaning. Even though I didn’t say so explicitly, a listener would know I meant that
it was sunny in the Seattle area because I was in Seattle when I said it. Any listener would know
what date and time I meant, but the date and time when I spoke it. A listener would know I
wasn’t joking from my tone, body language, the conversation that led up to my saying that “It’s
sunny out”, etc. Which is to say, I don’t need to say and it would even be a waste of everyone’s
time if I said anything that my listeners will be able to realize from what they know about my
context. In fact, if I said more than context required, then my listeners would probably be
confused because they would assume that I must have meant something special by not just
letting context do its work. For example, suppose that at 1pm I said, “It’s sunny out at 1pm”
instead of just letting my listener realize that I had meant “at 1pm” from my context. My listener
would be right to be confused from the stress that puts on the fact that it’s 1pm rather than any
other time. They might ask, “Why was it not sunnier earlier? Did the weatherman say it wouldn’t
be sunny at 1pm? What’s special about 1pm?”
What context allows is for us to move from merely what someone has said or written, to what
someone meant. This brings us to the important sentence-proposition distinction. A sentence is a
mere string of sounds or marks. When I say or write, “It’s sunny out.” the sentence is the
organization of the shapes or sounds I’ve produced. Context then allows us to figure out the
meaning behind this mere string of sounds or marks. That is, from context we can figure out
what meaning I was trying to express using the sentence I spoke or wrote. Unlike sentences,
meanings are not sounds or marks but rather whatever it is that sentences (together with context)
express. In philosophy, meanings are often referred to as propositions. Through the context in
which I spoke the sting of sounds of the sentence “It’s sunny out” we can realize the full
proposition I was expressing (that is, my meaning).
Surprisingly, perhaps, it is by overlooking these dry, abstract facts about the difference between a
sentence and the proposition a sentence might be used to express that often gets people entangled
into a relativism about truth. Considering the mistaken line of reasoning at the beginning of this
subsection, the point it is making is that if Allan and I both said, “I am hungry” What Allan said
would be true but what I said would be false, but since we said the exact same thing, “I am
hungry” must be true for Allan and false for me and so truth—in this case at least—is relative.
However, now with the distinction between what people mean (the propositions they are
expressing) and merely the sentences they use to express what they mean, we are in a position to
realize where this line of reasoning goes wrong. Allan and I have spoken the same sentence, but
we were clearly expressing different propositions (i.e. different meanings). Allan was using the
sentence to express “Allan is hungry” while I was using it to express the proposition “Fyfe is
hungry.” These are clearly not relative. The first is true for both of us, while the second is false
for both of us. Once we use context to realize who was meant by the word “I” in both of our uses
of the sentence “I am hungry” then the mistake is cleared up.
But doesn’t that still mean that the truth of the sentences is relative? No, because sentences aren’t
what philosophers term truth bearers. A truth bearer is the sort of thing that can possess a truthvalue (that is, truth or falsity), and sounds or marks can’t be true or false. They are just physical
vibrations of air or physical markings made in some way. What’s either true or false are the
propositions or meanings that with the help of context, we use sentences to express. When it isn’t
important for us to be exact, we can label sentences either true or false depending on whether or
not the propositions/meaning they express are true or false. But literally, only propositions can
possess a truth-value (that is, be true or false). A physical rock can be real, but it can’t be true.
Only propositions about the rock can be. Similarly, a book isn’t true or false, the propositions it
expresses are true or false. A person isn’t true or false, except metaphorically in the sense that
they are loyal, faithful, or the propositions they express are true or false. The only thing that can
bear the property of truth or falsehood, are propositions (i.e. meanings).
2.4 A Final Mistaken Line of Thinking Supporting Relativism about Truth
2.4.1 Relative Properties and Non-Relative Properties
Consider the following scenario:
Brandon: Vegemite is delicious.
Charley: Vegemite is eatable, but not delicious.
Brandon: You are so wrong!
There is something fishy about Brandon’s attack on Carrie for being wrong, despite the fact that
Brandon and Carrie really do seem to believe different things about vegemite. This brings us to
another sort of route to relativism:
Mistaken Line of Thinking 4: “Both Brandon and Carrie are correct for themselves.
Brandon is mistaken in accusing Carrie of being wrong. She is right for her; he is right
for him. The truth of matters of taste is relative, so truth can be relative.”
First off, it is important to note that this isn’t really relativism about truth. It is relativism about a
small set of truths, relativism about truths concerning personal taste. However, if any truths are
relative, then there would be a problem with the definition of truth we began this chapter with. A
true proposition either corresponds to the world or it does not, so unless Brandon and Carrie live
in different worlds, it becomes difficult to understand how truth could be different for each of
them even only in matters of personal taste.
What’s key here is the distinction between a relative property and non-relative property. Take
the following list of examples:
Brandon is human.
Brandon is tall.
Brandon is taller than Carrie.
Brandon loves Carrie.
The first two examples on the above list concern non-relative properties: being human and being
tall. They are simply things Brandon either has or does not have. By contrast, the second two
examples on the above list concern relative properties. It makes no sense to merely state that
“Brandon is taller” or “Brandon loves” since the property “taller” and “loves” concerns
Brandon’s relationship to a second thing. Taller than whom? Brandon loves who? Relative
properties do not need to involve more than two different things (e.g. Brandon might love
himself, so Brandon loves Brandon), but they do at least require two things even if they happen
to be the same two things.
So what does this show us about vegemite and whether or not vegemite is delicious? Well, there
does seem to be something relative about vegemite’s deliciousness, which is what leads us to
think Brandon is mistaken in claiming Carrie is wrong. But is it that truth is relative? That would
be hard to understand given what truth is. The properties truth and false are things possessed by
propositions depending on whether they correspond to how the world is. Given that the world
can only be one way, truth would seem to have to be a non-relative property. So what about the
proposition:
Vegemite is delicious.
Does this proposition have the property of truth for Brandon but the property of false for Carrie?
Perhaps looking for relativity in the property of truth is to look in the wrong place. Instead, it is
more plausible to think that it is the property “delicious” that is relative. This leads us to once
again to simply taking Brandon and Carrie to be expressing different propositions. The
proposition “Vegemite is delicious” just makes no sense since delicious is a relative property.
Just like the property taller and loves, there must be some further thing Vegemite is delicious to.
For example:
Vegemite is delicious to Brandon.
Vegemite is eatable, but not delicious to Carrie.
That is to say, the proposition “Vegemite is delicious” isn’t true for Brandon and false for Carrie,
rather both of the above propositions are true for both Brandon and Carrie (and all the rest of us).
Vegemite has the relative property of delicious concerning Brandon but not Carrie, but the two
propositions concerning that fact has the non-relative property of truth. The reason we find
Brandon’s response odd then, is not because the property truth is relative but because the
property delicious is relative and Brandon seems to be missing that fact.
What makes it difficult to understand what Brandon means when he accuses Carrie of being
mistaken is that if Brandon means that vegemite is delicious to him and Carrie means that
vegemite is delicious to her, then the propositions they expresses do not conflict. Does Brandon
misunderstand Carrie and think she is talking about how vegemite tastes to him? If Brandon is
talking about himself and Carrie is talking about herself, then there is no real disagreement
between them. Not because truth is relative, of course, but because they mean different things. So
is Brandon just confused when he tells Carrie is wrong?
Brandon seems to think he is disagreeing with Carrie over whether or not vegemite is delicious.
Brandon and Carrie even seem to be disagreeing about whether or not vegemite is delicious.
However, this is what we might call a fake disagreement rather than a real disagreement. In a
real disagreement, there must be one proposition that two people are disagreeing over. A single
proposition that one person believes is true and the other person believes is false. To illustrate
with an example, consider again the school child who believes that the Earth is flat and us today
who believe the Earth is spherical. We are in real disagreement with one another, but it is
important to realize where our disagreement with the ancient schoolchild actually arises. The
proposition that the Earth is flat and the proposition that the Earth is spherical are two
propositions, so by themselves cannot give rise to a real disagreement. Again, a real
disagreement is over one and only one proposition. Where our disagreement with the ancient
school child actually arises is from the fact that we don’t only believe that the Earth is spherical,
but from the fact that we also believe that the Earth isn’t flat. This is where out real disagreement
lies. While the ancient school child believes the proposition “The Earth is flat” we disbelieve that
same one proposition.
Now, if Brandon and Carrie are expressing two different propositions, then there also would be
no real disagreement. Brandon is expressing a proposition about his relationship to Vegemite and
Carrie is expressing a proposition about her relationship to Vegemite, but these are different
propositions and so this is only a fake disagreement.
Perhaps Brandon is confused, but I would think he is probably just jokingly giving Carrie a hard
time. It is hard to tell without further context. Alternatively, perhaps Brandon might believe that
deliciousness is a real feature of the world and that he perceives it correctly while Carrie does
not. That is, perhaps Brandon thinks that delicious is a non-relational property that vegemite has.
Many ordinary people and even philosophers believe that properties like “beauty” are nonrelational properties that something in the world can either have or lack. If Brandon takes
deliciousness to be a real feature of the world and that he correctly perceives that vegemite has it
while Carrie misperceives vegemite, then their disagreement would be real.
However, whether or not we think beauty is a real part of the world, the deliciousness of
vegemite is probably just a subjective matter of taste (i.e. a relational property). Consequently,
what is so odd about Brandon’s accusation that Carrie is wrong in not finding vegemite delicious
isn’t that truth is relative, but because deliciousness is relative and both he and Carrie should
only be expressing propositions about what is delicious to them. It’s not that “deliciousness” is
something objective but that truth is relative, it’s “deliciousness” is something relative.
Truth is clearly not a relative property, but many other properties are relative. Not only is
deliciousness as well as all other properties of taste probably a relative properties, but as we saw
before that rational belief is also a relative property. Whether a belief is rational for someone to
have is relative to their evidence. Which is to show that the reason people often slip into
relativism about truth is that when a proposition is about a property like deliciousness or
rationality, they tend to confuse the fact that deliciousness and rationality are relative properties
with truth being a relative property.
2.3 Consequences of Relativism about Truth
Believing that truth is relative is something people often mistakenly fall into. We have just
explored the four major easy lines of reasoning that bring people to hold such a position and
showed why they are mistaken. Now I want to talk about why relativism is both so tempting and
so dangerous.
Earlier I talked about time and how we rely on the concept but rarely stop to think about what
time is. One reason to stop and think about what time is, is because perhaps we are using the
concept incorrectly in ordinary life and clearing up what time is will help us in our use of it in
ordinary life. Another reason is simply a healthy intellectual curiosity about the world and this
thing, time, which we talk and rely upon so often. Unless someone is a physicist, the first reason
is probably untrue. Philosophical investigations of time have had very real effects on the
development of theories in physics. However, our ordinary life isn’t likely to change if we have a
better conception of what time is. However, common misunderstandings of truth really do affect
everyday life.
People often pull out the phrase “true for” when they need to politely end a dispute, as in “Well
that’s true for you, but not for me. Let’s leave it at that.” Asserting relativism about truth is a way
of ending a dispute because it would make any further argument pointless. There wouldn’t be
one truth that one of us could have wrong and the other one right and we need to sort out whom,
but everything can stay exactly as it is because we can both be right. Of course, when used to get
out of an unnecessary argument that’s going nowhere and only making people angry at one
another, this is a perfectly good use of relativism. I’d even be willing to pretend I’m a relativist if
it will get me out of an uncomfortable political argument with my family at thanksgiving dinner.
However, it is easy to see how, if this idea begins to genuinely take hold in your own mind, it can
have harmful results. Relativism about truth works to get you out of an argument because it
undermines the purpose of continuing to pursue what’s true. It instead simply reaffirms whatever
everyone already thinks and means that there is no use thinking further about whether those
beliefs are correct. But if you begin to really be a relativist, then it will undermine your reasons
and motivation for pursuing the truth.
For most people, I don’t think they slide into relativism about truth and then become
intellectually passive. Instead, people are either intellectually lazy and slide into relativism to
support their laziness, or intellectually cowardly and take up relativism to let them hold onto the
comfort of what they already believe. Relativism usually rears its head when someone hasn’t
bothered to think through their long held beliefs and you just showed them why they are
probably wrong. The problem then isn’t that they might assert relativism to politely escape your
conversation with them, but that once you’re gone and they are left shaken in what they believe,
relativism will give them the excuse they need to dismiss and forget what you told them and to
not only stick with their beliefs but also undermine any need for them to at least think them
though. The affect relativism about truth has on everyday life is how it is used to as an excuse
not to think—to seriously think though—what you believe and whether what you really believe
is true. A clear understanding of why and a serious acknowledgment that a proposition can only
be either true or false but never both, can go a long way towards helping us be better about being
more careful regarding what we believe and whether those beliefs are true.
2.4 Summary
This chapter has been about truth. However, we haven’t had much to say about what truth other
than the common sense definition we gave at the beginning of this chapter that truth is the
relation of corresponding or matching the way the world is. For most of this chapter we’ve been
concerned with the sorts of mistaken lines of thinking that lead people into thinking truth is
relative. First, this involved getting clear about the differences between belief, true belief, and
rational belief:
A belief is when someone thinks a proposition is true.
A true belief is when someone thinks a proposition is true and that proposition is true.
A rational belief is when someone thinks a proposition is true and that proposition is
more likely to be true than false given the person’s evidence.
The first mistaken line of reasoning we examined involved mistakenly concluding that a
proposition is true for someone just because they think that proposition is true. But, as we have
discussed, thinking something is true (a belief) and what one thinks it true actually being true (a
true belief) are different.
The second mistaken line of reasoning we examined involved mistakenly concluding that a
proposition is true for someone because they have good evidence that the proposition is true.
But, as we have discussed, a proposition that one believes being supported by one’s evidence (a
rational belief) and a proposition that one believes matching the world (a true belief) are also
different.
With regards to the difference between truth and rationality, I find the following visualization
helpful in driving home the way in which these are two very different relationships:
A proposition or a belief about a proposition.
Truth
(A relationship between a
proposition and the world)
{
Our world.
}
My evidence.
Rationality
(A relationship between a
proposition and a person’s
evidence world)
The third mistaken line of reasoning we examined involved overlooking the difference between
the sentence someone speaks or writes and the meaning they are using that sentence to get
across.
The fourth mistaken line of reasoning we examined involved a confusion between truths about
relative properties and relative truths. While the truth of “Vegemite is delicious” might seem to
be relative, it is actually the property of deliciousness that is relative.
Along the way, we have learned a good bit of philosophical technical terminology introduced:
Epistemology and metaphysics, truth, formula, relativism about truth, truth-value, belief,
true belief, rational belief, real and fake disagreements, relational and non-relational
property, sentence, proposition, context, meaning, type and token, falibilism about
rationality, evidence, truth-bearer, iff.
We have also learned about several philosophical discoveries:






Truth is a relation to the world; the relation of corresponding or matching the world; x
is true iff x corresponds to how the world is, otherwise x is false.
Rejection of relativism about truth: Whether something is true or false, it will be the
same for everyone.
A belief is rational if one’s evidence supports it, disbelief is rational if one’s evidence
is against it, and suspending belief is rational if one’s evidence is conflicted or neutral
towards it.
Fallibilism about rationality: A belief can be both false but rational or true but
irrational.
The sentence that someone writes or speaks is not the same thing as the proposition
they are expressing (that is, their meaning).
Propositions (that is, meanings) are the truth-bearers; that is, propositions are what
possess the properties of truth or falsehood.
2.5 Exercises and Practice Questions
1. If Adam says “I fed the dog” and then Bob responds in a raised voice “I fed the dog", which one of the
following can we conclude about what Adam and Bob said.
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
They uttered the same sentences but different propositions;
They uttered the same sentences and the same propositions;
They uttered different sentences but the same propositions;
They uttered different sentences and different propositions.
2. If Carrie says “I fed the dog” to David and then David later informs someone else “Carrie fed the dog",
which one of the following can we conclude about what Carrie and David said.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
They uttered the same sentences but different propositions;
They uttered the same sentences and the same propositions;
They uttered different sentences but the same propositions;
They uttered different sentences and different propositions.
3. T/F: “The same sentence can be used to express different propositions.”
4. T/F: “Different sentences can be used to express the same proposition.”
5. What 3 key features of the context help to determine which proposition is expressed by the following
sentence: “I won't be here tomorrow”? (Note: 1 feature is already answered for you)
Who is “I”? / Who is speaking?
_______________________ _______________________
6. What 2 key features of the context help to determine which proposition is expressed by the following
sentence: “It’s sunny out”?
___________________________________ ___________________________________
7. Suppose that I ask who’s hungry and both Jim and Frank answer at the same time, “I am.” Using this
example, explain the distinction between a sentence and a proposition.
8. We often talk about true sentences and true beliefs, but sentences and beliefs cannot literally possess
the property of truth. Sentences and beliefs are not truth-bearers; propositions are the only truth-bearers.
That is, propositions are the only sort of thing that can possess the properties of truth or falsity. So what
do you think someone means when they call a sentence or a belief true?
9. Explain in detail the mistake that is made in the following claim: “The statement that there are an odd
number of pebbles in Pebble beach is neither true nor false since no one know how many pebbles there
are in Pebble Beach”?
10. T/F: “Jones's belief that he would get the job must have been irrational, since it was false.”
11. T/F: “Edwin's belief that he would get the job must have been rational, since it was true.”
12. T/F: “Since Smith and Jones have a real disagreement about whether there will be increased inflation
next year, one of them must have a false belief.”
13. T/F: “Since Smith and Jones have a real disagreement about whether there will be increased inflation
next year, one of them must be irrational.”
14. T/F: “If a person considers a proposition, then the person must either believe the proposition or
disbelieve the proposition.”
15. Kripe’s evidence all strongly supports the proposition that “Bob stole Kripe’s car” and so Kripe comes
to believe the proposition “Bob stole Kripe’s car”. Which of the options can we conclude about Kripke’s
belief from this information alone? Select all that are correct.
(A) Kripe's belief is true.
(B) Kripe’s belief is rational.
(C) Kripe’s belief is false.
(D) Kripe’s belief is irrational.
16. Dave has a true belief that there are 10 Pizza Huts open in Seattle right now. Charlie has a rational
belief that there are only 5. What can we conclude from this information alone? Select all that are
correct.
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
Charlie’s belief is true.
Dave’s belief is true.
Charlie’s belief is rational.
Dave’s belief is rational.
(C)
(D)
(C)
(D)
Charlie’s belief is false.
Dave’s belief is false.
Charlie’s belief is irrational.
Dave’s belief is irrational.
17. Mary has a rational belief that there are 5 chairs in the classroom right now. Destiny has a false belief
that there are 5 chairs in that same classroom. What can we conclude from this information alone? Select
all that are correct.
(A) Mary’s belief is true.
(E) Mary’s belief is false.
(B) Destiny’s belief is true.
(F) Destiny’s belief is false.
(C) Mary’s belief is rational. (G) Mary’s belief is irrational.
(D) Destiny’s belief is rational. (H) Destiny’s belief is irrational.
18. Gary has a false belief that there are 7 chairs in the classroom right now. Harold has an irrational
belief that there are 7 chairs in that same classroom. What can we conclude from this information alone?
Select all that are correct.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Gary’s belief is true.
Harold’s belief is true.
Gary’s belief is rational.
Harold’s belief is rational.
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Gary’s belief is false.
Harold’s belief is false.
Gary’s belief is irrational.
Harold’s belief is irrational.
19. Ian has an irrational belief that there are 15 chairs in the classroom right now. Juliet has a false belief
that there are 15 chairs in that same classroom. What can we conclude from this information alone? Select
all that are correct.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Ian’s belief is true.
Juliet’s belief is true.
Ian’s belief is rational.
Juliet’s belief is rational.
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Ian’s belief is false.
Juliet’s belief is false.
Ian’s belief is irrational.
Juliet’s belief is irrational.
20. Suppose you overhear Jackson and Maria saying the following things to one another:
Jackson says, “Immigrants should be allowed into this country.”
Maria says, “I disagree. I don’t think they should.”
From what you've overhead alone, it is not clear whether Jackson and Maria are engaged in a real or fake
disagreement. Below you’ll find one scenario involved where Jackson and Maria are engaged in a real
disagreement and one scenario where they are engaged in a fake disagreement, which is the real
disagreement and which is the fake one?
Scenario 1: The only one proposition involved in their disagreement is “Illegal immigrants should
be allowed in the country.” Jackson is asserting that proposition while Maria is denying it.
Scenario 2: There are two propositions involved in their disagreement are “Legal immigrants
should be allowed in the country” and “Illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country.”
Jackson is asserting the first proposition while Maria is denying the second.
21. The truth-value of proposition (1) appears to depend on how people think while the truth-value of
proposition (2) appears to depend on how people feel:
(1) Nearly everyone believes that women have one less rib than men.
(2) Steve is very well liked.
However, as we have learned in this chapter, the truth-value of a proposition never depends upon what
anyone thinks or feels about that proposition. Does this mean the two specific propositions listed don’t
really depend on how people think or feel despite how they appear to?
22. Below are incomplete explanations for what would be true of Leroy if he had a belief, a true belief, or
a rational belief in the proposition, “The Earth is flat.” Fill-in the blanks to complete the explanations:
Leroy possesses a belief in the proposition “The Earth is flat.” iff…
____________________________________________________________________________________.
Leroy possesses a true belief in the proposition “The Earth is flat.” iff…
_________________________________________________________________________________ and
____________________________________________________________________________________.
Leroy possesses a belief in the proposition “The Earth is flat.” iff…
_________________________________________________________________________________ and
____________________________________________________________________________________.
23. Suppose that two people were both to say “I am 5 feet and 2 inches tall” but one person was being
honest and the other person was lying, then despite the fact that they uttered the same sentence one person
said something true and the other person said something false. Cases like this tempt people into
mistakenly thinking that truth is relative (i.e. that something can be true for one person and false for
another). Explain the mistake they are making.
24. Suppose that just like we have every reason to believe that the Earth is a sphere, that a particular
ancient Egyptian school child had every reason to believe that the Earth was flat when he was alive. Cases
like this also tempt people into mistakenly thinking that truth is relative. In particular, they want to say
that both our belief that the Earth is a sphere is true and say that the Egyptian school child’s belief that the
Earth is flat is also true. Explain the mistake they are making.
24. A proposition is true if it matches the way the world is, otherwise a proposition is false. However, in
ordinary conversation we often use “true” to describe things that aren’t propositions and in a sense that
doesn’t mean “match the way the world is”. Below are several examples of different ways in which “true”
can be used in a non-literal sense. Determine and explain the metaphorical sense in which “true” is being
used in the examples below:
He’s a true friend.
Walk true north for 500-meters and the treasure will be at your feet.
She has a true interest in other people’s welfare.
Don’t just focus on his words, stop and reflect on the true meaning of his statements.
I truly believe that the Giants will win the Super Bowl.
Christianity might be true for you, but not for me.
It was true for him that the Earth was flat, after all he had every reason to think it was.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, our course is true and beyond the
predawn darkness, better days lie ahead.
Humans are naturally good just isn’t true to my experience.
25. A belief is the mental state of someone thinking a proposition is more likely to be true than false; that
is, a belief is when someone thinks a proposition has anywhere from 51-100% probability of being true.
However, in ordinary conversation we often use “belief” in ways that do not match this technical meaning
of the term. Below are several examples of different ways in which “belief” can be used in a loose way
that does not match its precise technical meaning. Determine and explain the sense in which “belief” is
being used in the examples below:
I don’t believe that the world will end in 2012, I know it!
Tell me the truth! I don’t want to hear what you believe, I only want the facts.
I have no idea if what he says is true, but I believe him.
You have to believe in yourself to succeed.
It is probably true that someone named “Steve” is male, but I won’t believe it until I have reason
to think that he or she isn’t just one of those rare cases of a woman with a distinctively male
name.
26. Suppose two people were to have the following conversation:
Brandon: “Vegemite is delicious”
Carrie: “Well that might be true for you, but definitely not for me.”
What many people mistakenly take a conversation like the one above to show, is that truth is a
relative property. Explain the mistake these people are making using the distinction between
relative and non-relative properties. To help you in constructing your explanation, you might
think about the difference between the following two ways of characterizing what Brandon and
Carrie are talking about:
(1)
The proposition “Vegemite is delicious” is true for Brandon.
The proposition “Vegemite is delicious” is false for Carrie.
(2)
The proposition “Vegemite is delicious to Brandon” is true.
The proposition “Vegemite is delicious to Carrie” is false.