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.
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).
Back to Theory of Mind
Copyright
Page Design and Content by Monument Systems. All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2002 by Monument Systems