3 - TRUTH, DIFFERENCES, & UNIVERSAL LAWS
Before discussing any criteria of truth, it is important to
have a definition of truth. "Truth" stems from a belief in constancy
within the universe: truths are constants. When we find an idea to
be reliable, one which we can stake our life upon, we give it the
appellation of "truth." It becomes a constant to which we refer
for guidance.
Without constancy, the entire universe would become unstable and
disintegrate. Planets would leave their orbits. The sun's rays might bring
alternate waves of heat and cold. Mountains could float away. Water might explode.
Without constancy, historical fact would become dynamic and all concepts of
time would be ludicrous. Your birthday would change from moment to moment.
You might suddenly be born in the future and die in the past. "Cause and effect" would
become meaningless as well. Without constancy, the existence of anything would
be impossible and the entire universe would be a void - nothingness.
For anything to exist, something must exert a constant force to
hold it together from instant to instant, from nanosecond to nanosecond.
"Truth" must be a description of such a constant within the universe. If
"truth" exists, it must be a universal constant which we all share.
CRITERIA OF TRUTH
Given that constants exist within the universe, how do we know
if we have found one? How do we test for constancy? The answer is to
use a criterion - a "test for truth." Many criteria have existed in
the past including pragmatism, rigorous consistency, tradition, and
coherence. However, those listed as well as all others have come under
fire for one reason or another.
Pragmatism, or "what works must be true," has misled us on
occasion. Some ideas which appear to work have failed in some
circumstance. For example, a "geocentric" view of the universe
seemed to work well for most Europeans for many centuries, but it
eroded with knowledge gained in the 17th century. With a telescope,
Galileo found small moons orbiting Jupiter, and thus, proved that
the universe is not geocentric.
Tradition, which is a variant of pragmatism, fails as a
criterion for similar reasons. Many traditions were adopted to
help sustain various cultures. Yet, what held true through many
years of practice might fail in the light of new knowledge or new
circumstances. Frequently, this realization comes with the arrival
of another culture with new technology such as when the Aztecs faced
the arrival of the conquistadors. It is believed a similar "shock to
tradition" happened to the Neadertals upon the arrival of Cro-Magnons.
Rigorous consistency, on the other hand, is another strong criterion
and is used frequently in formal logic and mathematics. A "syllogism"
is a fine example of this technique:
If all trees are made of wood, and an elm is a tree, then an elm is
made of wood.
Unfortunately, not everything can fit neatly into such structured logic.
Also, the premises may be suspect. (Are all trees made of wood? How
about a "b-tree" as used in mathematics and computers?) In the end, rigorous
consistency has only limited application.
The coherence theory of truth holds that each bit of knowledge be
consistent and harmonious with all other knowledge. As long as we have
total knowledge available (omniscience) before performing any test, then
coherence is the strongest of all criteria. Unfortunately, no mortal to
date has claimed the required omniscience. Consequently, coherence
must remain only a lofty goal for us to aspire.
So, what do mere mortals do in the meantime? Well, perhaps we
have already chosen an alternative criterion. In looking at the previous
evaluations, each criterion was deemed a candidate until some flaw
or limitation was found during testing. In other words, we took
each criterion for a "test drive," and we tested each one. By doing
so, we also uncovered a very special test. If we are so confident in
any test that we use it to evaluate other tests, then it must take
precedence over the others. Therefore, the ultimate criterion of truth
is the one we have used to test other criteria. So what was it? Entering
into each test, each criterion was approached cautiously. First, the
"target" criterion was applied pragmatically against accepted truths
(using the coherence theory of truth). If any failure occurred, the
criterion was rejected. If the criterion passed the test, it became
a prospect for acceptance but now awaits further testing (acknowledging
the limitation of the coherence criterion). In essence, the test used
to evaluate each criterion was "test for coherence (against present
knowledge), and reject if flawed." This also happens to be the criterion
proposed by William Ernst Hocking, a criterion he termed "negative
pragmatism." - Sahakian, 1966, pp. 9-10
According to this criterion, whatever appears to "work" may or may not be true;
however, whatever fails cannot be true because the truth always "works" (a constant).
If negative pragmatism is the criterion we intuitively use to test other criteria,
then it must be the primary one, and we have implicitly accepted it.
With negative pragmatism as our criterion, we can only find
truth through a process of elimination. Again, we are not omniscient,
and we have scant knowledge of what the future will bring. As such,
we test and integrate what knowledge we have. The better an idea
survives our examination, the more confident we become in its reliability.
When any and all unworkable answers have been identified and only one
workable answer remains, we believe it to be the "truth" - the constant
we have sought. As our knowledge increases and becomes refined, so does
our ability to integrate and evaluate our body of knowledge. Coherence
also increases and becomes refined. The quality of truth and its
reliability, thus, is enhanced by this process of refined integration.
The Theory of Mind website accepts "negative pragmatism" as
its primary criterion of truth with the "coherence theory of truth" as
the ultimate goal. In other words, in our quest for a unified theory
of mind, the more that a proposed theory is consistent with all other
accepted knowledge, then the closer it adheres to the "coherence
theory of truth" and the more that it should be acceptable to all.
Nevertheless, since we are not omniscient, all accepted theories must
be held slightly suspect. Only theories which clearly fail can be
discarded (negative pragmatism).
