All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered, the point is to discover them. –Gandhi
The Consensus Theory of Truth. This theory is rooted in the idea that truth is what the ‘vast’ majority of the people believe. In our example from PART I, if the vast majority of the people at the game affirmed that this certain player did play in the game (and you were not there to see it for yourself) then you could accept their affirmation as truth. This theory of truth is frequently drawn on by folks in order to confirm that what they are saying is true. This ‘truth’ can easily be disconfirmed and turned into ‘fallacy’ – ask any politician who uses this theory as a means of telling us the truth. [Note: the word ‘consensus’ is/ can be misleading for we are not talking about ‘true’ consensus; we are talking about the ‘majority’s’ position.]
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth. Pragmatism holds that truth is whatever is useful and profitable to us, and whatever brings us benefit. For William James, one of the great pragmatists, this meant that truth was ‘changeable,’ rather than something concrete and absolute. James believed that it often takes a long time to figure out whether something is true or not, based on whether it ‘works successfully’ [much like one trying to distinguish the true prophet from the false prophet; only over time can you really be sure who is who]. For example, when it came to God, James said that there was no real proof for God’s existence and so there was very little ‘reason’ as to why one should believe that God does exist. However, James believed that if a person found that believing in God help’s one live a virtuous life and a more fulfilling life, then for that person, the truth is that there is a God.
How do we know if a claim is true? Put simply, what kind of evidence counts depends upon what kind of claim is made as regards what is ‘true.’ Here is one:
Opinions. These are never false, because the evidence is in the mind of the person giving the opinion. For example: ‘I don’t like lima beans.’ Is this statement true or false? In order for you to know you have to be able to enter into my mind – this is impossible (at this time anyway). Since it is impossible, there is no ‘reason’ to doubt my statement. Of course, opinions don’t count for much when it comes to ‘persuading another about a truth’ – for all of us have our own opinions.
In order to decide if evidence is convincing we first of all have to know what type of claim is being made. Claims come in at least three types:
An Empirical Claim. This claim makes a statement about the world. For example: The moon is made of green cheese. We need scientific knowledge in order to test an empirical claim. Scientific knowledge is public information gained by careful observation, experiments and confirmations. Today, we have a great deal of evidence that the moon is made up of certain types of rock, not green cheese.
An Analytical Claim. The claim makes the statement about the meaning of words or other symbols. For example: The Constitution gives us freedom of speech. We need knowledge about words and symbols in order to test an analytical claim. We might consult a document (e.g. The Constitution) or a dictionary or some other reference in order to discover how people have agreed to interpret a word. This is no easy task; ask anyone who has attempted it. [Consider: ‘Freedom’ – Progressives and Conservatives do not embrace the same definition for this word/concept.]
A Valuative Claim. This claim makes a statement about what is good or bad, right or wrong. For example: People should read books and not watch reality t.v. programs. To test a valuative claim we generally appeal to standards of value. In this case, the standard might be the value of literacy. Valuative claims are rooted in deep assumptions about empirical claims (reading and watching t.v.). For example, we might assume that reading makes us more literate than watching reality t.v. programs; we might assume that being literate is important when it comes to being a good citizen; we might assume that being literate is more valuable than being illiterate. Responding to valuative claims requires us to decide which value standard is higher. Like analytical claims, engaging valuative claims is challenging if not daunting.
So, here are two ‘simple’ questions to help guide us: What kind of claim is being made? What evidence supports the claim? The search for the truth is not an easy search. I end this brief exploration with one more question: Is the search for truth worth my time and energy? Mark Twain remind us:
If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.
Searcher-Seeker 