Module V: Truth & Verification
1. Introduction
Truth is essentially a value judgment, a placing of something into a category. What
goes in there has historically been an assertions, primarily descriptive assertions. In
short, historically, it is only sentences that can be true.
While only sentences can be true, it does not follow that all sentences are either true
or false. The sentence, “It is 58 degrees outside, “ can be objectively true….and if it
can be objectively true, it can also be false. But take the prescriptive sentence, “You
should give me ten bucks” – this sentence cannot be objectively true (one could
certainly hold an mental position that there is a moral obligation for others to give
them money, but it is not an objective standard) and therefore cannot be objectively
false either. The sentence is neither true nor false. It is neither. Or how about an
imperative sentence, “ Bob, go get me a beer.” Is this sentence objectively true? No.
Although you may certainly be thirsty and want very much for Bob to bring you a
beer to take care of that problem, it does not follow that this command is objectively
true. To assign truth value to imperative sentences is to put them into a category that
they logically cannot fit into, thereby committing a category error (Δ = putting
something into a category that it cannot logically fit into e.g. Monday is Yellow) . As
you will see below, the Correspondence and Pragmatic Theories allow that truth
value be assigned only to descriptive sentences. The coherence Theory is more
lenient, in theory, allowing almost any type of sentence to be true.
2. Three Views Of Truth
a. Correspondence Theory
1. DefinedCorrespondence Theory of Truth Δ = truth is the condition when
statements match up / correspond with reality
e.g. Assertion: This is my coffee cup
Reality: It is my coffee cup
Condition: The assertion corresponds with reality
2. Strengths and Weaknesses
a. Strengths
i. It has been the most widely held theory in
history
ii. It is necessary for healthy social interaction
b. Weaknesses
i. It requires Metaphysical Realism
ii. It requires an objective standard of verification
3. Ramifications
a. Only descriptive sentences have truth value
b. Truth is objective – there is not such thing as “my
truth”
c. People can hold to truth, or hold to lies, and others can
make objective determinations which is which
b. Coherence Theory
1. Defined Coherence Theory of Truth = truth is the condition when statements within a
system of thought cohere (i.e. stick with, match up) with each other
e.g. Assertion by Betty:
Bob is a nice guy
Betty’s System Of Thought: She thinks all Buddhists are nice
She knows Bob is a Buddhist
Condition:
The assertion coheres with Betty’s
belief system
2. Strength & Weaknesses
a. Strengths
i. Any sentences can be true or false, depending on
what the person already believes
ii. There is no objective truth, only “my truth”
iii. No one can really be wrong and said to be lying
iv. Everyone is right about everything
b. Weaknesses
i. There is no objective truth, only “my truth”
ii. No one can really be wrong and said to be lying
iii. Everyone is right about everything
iv. The system still requires the correspondence
theory to be used for social interaction. No teacher
could teach anything as objectively true. No
parent could ever tell their children that something
is right or true. No society could ever establish
objective standards for the individuals within to
adhere to.
v. It allows for contradictory assertions to be true at
the same time. Bob could believe X and it be
cohere with his other beliefs. At the same time
Betty could believe non-X and this belief coheres
with her belief system. No, using the Coherence
Theory, both assertions are True. Yet they are
Contradictory. As Spock would say, “Tis not
logical.”
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – truth is the condition when statements have been
scientifically proven and have practical value.
e.g. Assertion – Pure water boils at 100C at one atmosphere.
Reality - Pure water boils at 100C at one atmosphere.
Condition- The statement has been scientifically verified and it has
practical application, therefore it is true.
a. Strengths
a. All the same strengths as the Correspondence Theory
b. The scientific method has produced a very solid and believable
base of verifiable true statements
b. Weaknesses
a. All the same weaknesses as the Correspondence Theory
b. That which accepted as true by the scientific community often
changes over time and has detractors within the community
c. Those things that are most important to many people – love,
friendship, devotion, honesty, kindness, forgiveness, and etc. are not scientifically verifiable, and therefore cannot said to be
true.
d. The assertion, “only statements which are scientifically verified
and have practical value” is neither scientifically verified nor has
practical value, and therefore is not to be accepted as true.
Therefore that statement cannot be accepted as true. If logically
collapses on itself (is logically self-defeating).
Correspondence Theory of Truth
Descriptive Sentence
Objective Reality
Asserts X is the case
X is the case
Assertion matches reality
The Correspondence Theory requires three elements:
1) A descriptive sentence
2) Objective reality
3) Correspondence between 1 & 2
All Buddhists are all
non-violent.
OBJECTIVE REALITY All
Buddists are non-violent:
Therefore: there is truth
Pragmatic Theory of Truth
Descriptive Sentence
Objective Reality
Asserts X is the case
X is the case
Assertion matches reality
The Correspondence Theory requires four elements:
1) A descriptive sentence
2) Objective reality
3) Correspondence between 1 & 2
4) Assertion is scientifically proven & practical
All Buddhists are all
non-violent.
OBJECTIVE REALITY All
Buddists are non-violent:
Scientists have not proven that all Buddhists are non-violent
Therefore: there is no truth
Any Sentence In the
person’s head
Other Sentences In
The person’s head
Does not contradict
Coherence Theory of Truth
The Dalai Lama
is non-violent.
All Buddhists are
all non-violent.
OBJECTIVE REALITY: NOT
all Buddists are non-violent
Therefore: there IS truth
3. Systems Of Thought
a. Defined
System Of Thought Δ– a set of related arguments; judged by the criteria of
Consistency
e.g. Buddhism, Capitalism, Keynsian Economics, Evolution…or all the stuff
inside your head at this moment
b. Criteria For Assessment/Judgment
i. Internal Consistency Δ– how well statements within a system of thought
harmonize with each other
e.g Bob believes that there is a god, but Bob also believes that there is no
god. The higher number statements that are contrary or
contradictory to other statements within that system, the higher the
level of internal inconsistency. To see this, one typically is
required to probe into Presuppositions or Values, because the
contradictions are normally not as apparent as the above example.
ii. External Consistency Δ– how well statements within a System of Thought
match up with reality
e.g. Betty believes that she is a bowl of marshmallows. Betty is in
fact a 26 year old female human being. The higher number of
statements that are contrary or contradictory to reality, the higher
the level of external inconsistency.
Presupposition Δ– a background belief that is logically necessary to a position,
but is never actually stated (always found in the form of a complete sentence)
Value Δ– anything held to be of great importance, typically an abstract notion
rather than a physical entity (always found as a word or phrase, NOT a complete
sentence)
Contrary Δ = (in Logic) tending away from, inconsistent with.
e.g. Assertion A: I woke up at 4:15 a.m. today
Assertion B: I woke up at 5:15 a.m. today
Assertion B is at variance with Assertion A, but it is still possible for both
to be true.
Contradictory Δ = (in Logic) a negating proposition, such that it makes it impossible for
both assertions to be true when asserting propositions about the same incident or thing.
e.g. Assertion A: I woke up at 4:15 a.m. today
e.g. Assertion B: I did note wake up at 4:15 a.m. today
Assertion B is directly in opposition to Assertion A, such that both cannot
be true. If one is true, the other has to be false.
4. Verification
Verification (proof) does not, per se, have to do with whether or not a statement is true or
an argument is valid. Verification is the process by which one party attempts to convince
another party of it worth as being accepted. It really is an action attempting to procure
agreement on truth value or validity, and etc.
Judgment Criteria:
1)
2)
Symbols - clear and distinct (well-defined)/ muddy and fuzzy (loosely defined)
Sentences - true / false / neither
3)
4)
Arguments – valid / invalid
Systems Of Thought – internally consistent / internally inconsistent
or externally consistent / externally inconsistent
In discourse, there is almost always a need to define something, especially when it
involves attempting to persuade another concerning an issue that is controversial or
complicated. The first consideration one must tackle is whether one is using a “good”
definition” for the terms. Objectively, a “good” definition is one that has the proper two
stages. But this is not enough. One also has to convince the hearer/reader that the
definition is worthy of adoption and use. Definitions are not self-authenticating. That is
why one so often hears the claim that “Webster defines ______ as….such and such. The
point is that the writer/speaker assumes that the person on the other end will accept
Webster as having the final say on the matter.
But the truth is that definitions and dictionaries are not prescriptive. They do not tell us
how we “should” use a word. They are descriptive; they tell us how the word has been
used in history and in the society. A dictionary is more of a thumbnail history book. If
gives ancient and past usage. Given that, what a dictionary is really giving us is the likely
expectations of those who hear or read the word. If we want to be understood,
semantically, we ought to use our terms with the expected meanings of the target
audience.
So, a good definition is one that is 1) clear and distinct, 2) gives both classification and
analysis, and 3) is acceptable to the audience. If the writer/speaker desires to use a term
with another meaning, she has not done anything wrong, immoral, or in contravention to
the Semantic Police. All she has done is make it likely that either the audience will
misunderstand the meaning or disagree with the usage.
Sentences are judged by their truth value. Sentences can either be true, false, or neither,
depending on which Truth Theory one uses to make the determination.
Arguments are judged using the criteria of validity, so arguments can either be valid or
invalid (or in the case of inductive arguments, have varying degrees of warrant for the
conclusion. This judgment is, of course, totally separate from the truth value of any of the
premises.
Systems of Thought are judged by the criteria of consistency, and this is done so without
reference directly to any truth value of any of the assertions. As once could see if they
considered carefully, internal consistency smells a lot like applying the Coherence
Theory of Truth to the statements and external consistency reeks of applying the
Correspondence Theory to the statements, both of which are a fair assessment, but the
criteria of consistency takes it one step further and looks at the relative number of
consistent and inconsistent statements, recognizing that any system of size is likely to
have some inconsistencies within itself.
A Note on Proof: Proof, as a process by which one attempts to secure intellectual
agreement with another party, is based on the two individuals having an (at least tacitly)
agreed on set of standards. Betty says to Bob, “I have just proven to you that I was in
London, by showing me plane tickets to London from last week. Whether or not Bob is
now in agreement with Betty and holds to be the case the same notions that she does on
the matter, is not a function of how well Betty thinks she has produced evidence and how
well she set forth that evidence. Proof never happens until there is actual cognitive
alignment. The Provee must accept the standard by which something is proved.
If Bob finds the existence of the Plane ticket to be sufficient evidence, then all is good
and Proof has occurred. However, let’s say Bob is a Juror and Betty is on Trial. Will the
production of a plane ticket prove that Betty was in London? I think not. There is a
higher standard of proof required by the jury. And what if Bob is a scientist? There will
be even a different standard of proof required. The point is, it is not up to the Prover to
determine if Proof has occurred. The most the Prover can say is that she has garnered
evidence and argument that is sufficient to her.
When both partied has exactly the same…and I mean exactly the same standards, proof
becomes much easier. Say that Bob is a mathematician and wants to prove to Betty
(another mathematician) that Angle C in Triangle X is 45 degrees. Bob demonstrates to
Betty that Figure X is a triangle, that Angle A is 90 degrees, and that Angle B is 45
degrees. Given that both parties (assumedly) agree on the rules and givens of geometry, it
should be sufficient to prove to Betty that the third Angle is 45 degrees. But what if
Betty is from another galaxy where their geometry assigns 3600 degrees to triangles and
not 180? Will she agree then? No, because she is operating from a different set of rules.
Have I proven this to you?