Absolute truth
Scientific truth
Legal truth
Authoritative truth
Intuitive truth
Faith-based truth
Absolute truth is also called mathematical truth. The method for determining mathematical truth is to the start out with a conjecture and then demonstrate by a series of logical steps that the conjecture is true. Once a conjecture is proven, it becomes a theorem and can then be used to prove other conjectures. Thus a mathematical proof is series of steps relying on theorems, mathematical logic, and axioms to show that some conjecture is true. Every step in the series must be true. Each step is like a link in a chain; break one link in the chain and entire chain fails.
Axioms are mathematical propositions that have not been proven, but are accepted to be self-evident. It has always been offensive to some mathematicians to admit that some fundamental proposition vital to the field had to be thought of as self-evident rather than proven along with all the other theorems. David Hilbert (1862 - 1943), a German mathematician, took on the task of proving all the axioms (Hilbert’s program), but Kurt Godel (1906 - 1978), an Austrian-American logician, proved by his two incompleteness theorems that there are propositions that are true but cannot be proven. To this extent, one must concede that there is always some element of uncertainty even in mathematics. Anecdotally speaking, it can be argued that axioms must be true since they are the foundation of the house of proven mathematics and the house has not collapsed. In conclusion, once a theorem is proved, it is proved forever and is not subject to change.
A scientific truth is an idea or proposition that has been vetted through a process called the scientific method and found to be true. Stated differently, it is a proposed explanation for some observable facts. After it is proven true based on the evidence, it is promoted to theory. Scientific theory is a proven hypothesis. As such, it is the highest level of certainty that can be achieved by science. The theory of relativity and the theory of gravity are two well-known scientific theories. Sometimes a theory is called law, as in the law of gravity.
Unfortunately, the word “theory” has a different meaning when used by lay people. In everyday speech John might say, “I have a theory that Mary wants to date me.” In this sense it is a suspicion, a feeling, or at best some conjecture (or hope). If someone says the “evolution is only a theory,” this is equivalent to saying “Mary only won a gold medal at the Olympics.” If someone thinks that there is a higher award than the gold medal in the Olympics, then they are ignorant of the facts. If they are aware of the facts and still persist in claiming “Mary only won a gold medal,” they are being dishonest. To say that some scientific fact is only a theory is to say that it is only the highest level of truth obtainable in science, and indicates the author of the statement is either ignorant or dishonest. Still, even with the high level of confidence that scientific theories are held, there is almost always some degree of uncertainty. This is the major difference between science and dogma.
The process of proving any given hypothesis uses two logical methods, inductive logic and deductive logic. The inductive method is a “bottom up” method in as much as it starts at the bottom by making observations and/or conducting experiments. Deductive logic starts with existing theories and then deduces from them some hypothesis which is then proved or disproved by observations and experiments.
A hypothesis is a formally developed idea backed by supporting data with sufficient credibility to gain the attention of the accepted authorities in the field of inquiry and is now ready for vetting or peer review. A hypothesis must also make some predictions that can be independently verified by someone else. The results are written as a paper and then submitted to the editors of a technical publication devoted to the field of interest most closely related to the subject under consideration. All major fields of interest have many professional organizations such as the American Institute of Physics, which in turn publish a number of journals such as Applied Physics Review. At any rate, the first challenge for a hopeful hypothesis is acceptance for publication. The editors do not want to risk their standing in the field by publishing some idea that is then proven to be false or worse yet lacks any serious merit or consideration. These editors normally use a group of experts to critically review submissions and if they feel that the hypothesis has merit it is then published.
Now the hypothesis undergoes major vetting. Scientists and other experts around the world will read the paper and, of course, vigorously challenge both the methods, data, and conclusions. These people are by nature skeptical of anything new. There is also considerable ego and personal jealousy involved. The more radical the idea is the more it will be resisted. Radical in this context refers to what extent the idea is in opposition to some widely long-held truth. It has been said that one of the most important ingredients of scientific advancement is the death of older scientists.
Early natural philosophers (now called scientists) understood that sound is a wave propagated through the atmosphere by bouncing off the molecules of the gasses that make up air. This was easily demonstrated by securing a bell inside a glass jar, and then tightening the lid on the jar. Shake the jar and the bell rings. If all the air is removed from the jar, a vacuum is created. Now if the jar is shaken, the bell will not ring. It actually still “rings” but without the medium of air the sound of the bell cannot be propagated.
Given the way sound works, it seemed reasonable to conjecture that light (also a wave) must have some medium for light to propagate itself through the atmosphere and through space. After all, at night we can observe the light coming in from the stars. Air as a medium has to be eliminated since the atmosphere only extends up about sixty miles from the surface of earth. Luminiferous aether (or simply aether) was concocted out of the whole cloth of intuition to provide the medium thought necessary to propagate light. It was thought to be invisible, undetectable, and ubiquitous. This was the accepted unchallenged truth going all the way back to Newton and earlier.
Albert Michelson became interested in light in 1877 while teaching chemistry at the United States Naval Academy where he conducted experiments concerning the speed of light. He, of course, never questioned the existence of aether. In fact his objective was to prove its existence as a theory instead of just a useful conjecture. His idea was that as the earth moved through aether on it way around the sun, the speed of light would be faster when the earth was moving away from the sun and slower when moving toward the sun. He thought that aether constituted a head wind while the earth was moving toward sun and a tail wind while moving away from it.
His technique was to split a bean of light into two beans, one in the same direction of the earth’s movement and one in the opposite direction. His hypothesis was that light would move slower when encountering the aether head wind. He persuaded Alexander Bell to fund the construction of an interferometer, a device that could time the speed of light. To his total surprise and disappointment he proved that the speed of light was constant (186,282 miles per second) and that aether did not exist. In 1907 Albert Michelson and his assistant Edward Morley received the Nobel Prize in physics for their work. This episode demonstrates an important feature of science; scientists learn just as much from failure as they do from a success. After all, Michelson’s goal was to prove that aether exists but he was wrong and proved the opposite.
Truth, of course, is very important to the criminal justice system. The objective is to serve justice by punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent. In a sense a trial is a play performed by judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses for an audience of jurors. The judge is responsible for ensuring that the trial is conducted according to the laws (rules). The prosecutor presents and argues the evidence including witnesses in an attempt to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. Defense attorneys have the responsibility to challenge the evidence and witnesses and at their option present their own evidence and witnesses in an attempt to convince the jury that the defendant is not guilty. The jury is the sole determiner of the facts of the case. They decide what evidence is true or false, and which witnesses are telling the truth and which ones are not. There are two critical points that should be noted; first the defendant is assumed to be innocent and second, the prosecutor has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It should also be pointed out that a verdict of “Not Guilty” is not the same thing as innocent. In fact courts in England have a verdict of “Not Proven” instead of our “Not Guilty.”
Finding the truth in a civil legal case is similar to a criminal proceeding with two major differences. First, in a civil court case the defendant only has property, reputation, or money at risk rather than life or freedom as is the case in a criminal trial. Second, the standard for a verdict is by the preponderance of evidence. In other words, the evidence only has to slightly favor one side or the other for them to win.
Albert Einstein once famously said, “Blind obedience to authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” This seems obvious and is accepted by most people, but in reality people are often convinced of the truth of some idea or concept based on some authority. Authority, of course, can be useful in judging the truth of something. This is especially true in cases where the matter in question is within the authority’s area of expertise. In many circumstances, laymen must rely on authorities in the field. The key point in Einstein’s quote concerns the word “blind.” The more consensuses there among the experts, the more confidence one can take in their conclusions.
Intuitive truth is a feeling that something is true. Although in many cases it may turn out to be true, intuition is not sufficiently reliable to be used without other supporting evidence. In science intuition is extremely useful in forming a hypothesis. Richard Feynman, an American Nobel Prize winner in physics, related an anecdote that may help explain why many people have more trust in intuition than is warranted. In college while he was working on a paper in the middle of the night, he suddenly had a terrible feeling that his grandmother died. A minute later his telephone rang. It was a wrong number! Feynman then pointed out that people only learn about and count the cases when intuition turns out to be true; they never remember or count the failures.
Mark Twain defined faith as believing something that you know is not true. Faith can also be described as accepting a hypothesis without requiring any evidence. Faith is similar to intuition and like authoritative truth is the least reliable of all the “truths.” The problem with intuition and faith is reasonable people can arrive at entirely contradictory conclusions without any way of resolving the conflict. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
The seven varieties of truth discussed in this essay lie on a continuum of reliability in which mathematical and scientific truths are the most reliable and intuition and faith the least. While this scale is very useful in determining the truth of any idea, the following considerations can provide invaluable assistance to the process:
Burden of proof
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
Miracles
Probability
Vested Interest
The author or originator of any hypothesis has the burden of proving it. This burden cannot be shifted to the skeptics. Failure to prove an idea false does not make it true. Shifting the burden is a popular method of argument for many advocates. For example, supporters of Creationism versus Evolution (Darwinism) employ burden shifting by attempting to discredit evolution on some point and them claiming Creationism true by default. Even if evolution was proven wrong, this would not make Creationism true. The fact that Creationists expend more effort on discrediting evolution and very little effort supporting Creationism with evidence is a strong indication that their claims have little merit. It should be noted that Intelligent Design and Creationism are one and the same. Creationism was repackaged as Intelligent Design in a failed legal attempt to force it into public schools as an alternative to Evolution.
The idea that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence provides a useful metric for evaluating the truth or falsity. For example in 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made an extraordinary claim that they had created energy through a process of cold fusion. Keeping in mind that our sun is powered by the “hot” fusion of hydrogen atoms in a process requiring tremendous heat and pressure, it would be a major accomplishment to produce energy through fusion of atoms without the great heat and pressure. After a brief period of excitement in the scientific world the evidence failed to convince and Pons and Fleischmann were discredited.
It is important to understand what constitutes a miracle. The natural universe is that part of the universe that can be explained by the four basic laws of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. These four laws are also referred to as the four energy sources in the universe. The supernatural universe is simply that entity that lies outside of the natural universe and is explained by some supernatural force or deity. In this context a miracle is some event or occurrence that cannot be explained by the basic laws of physics at this time. Attributing the cause of some event to a supernatural cause when there is a possible natural explanation, is a common error in argument. Daniel Dennett has a beautiful way of demonstrating this idea. If he is debating someone and they play what he calls the “faith card,” he responds by saying “you are wrong.” When his opponent asks, “Why?,” he answers “because Lucille says so.” He then explains that Lucille is a friend of his and she is always right.” Relying of God to support an argument is equivalent to citing Lucille. They both are conversation killers and do not contribute anything useful to the discussion. Attributing some unknown phenomenon to a supernatural entity does not advance human knowledge but retards the process of searching for answers. Isaac Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity had he accepted a supernatural explanation and stopped investigating. The history of scientific advancements is filled with examples of natural explanations that were once explained simply using the “God argument.”
Some people confuse a low probability of some event occurring as a miracle when it occurs. For example the chances of winning the Powerball lottery are one in 175,223,510. By comparison the odds of being struck by lightning are one in 280,000. People are struck by lightning and win lotteries all the time, the result of the laws of probability.
In politics there is an axiom called the “Power of the Desk” which has been described as “where you stand depends on where you sit.” For example knowing that someone is the head of an oil company provides a strong indication of their position on the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels. It would be unreasonable to think that oil companies could be a source of objective data on climate change. Also, one should be skeptical of any conclusions coming out of “research” funded by them. The tobacco industry funded "research" to determine if smoking was a health hazard and if nicotine was addictive. Predictably their “scientific” studies indicated that smoking did not cause diseases and was not addictive! Similarly the advocates of teaching Creationism as an alternative to Evolution are supporters of fundamentalist religious groups that hold the Bible as the literal truth. They turn the scientific method upside down by started out with a dogma and then look for ways to support it.
Everyone at some level is searching for the truth in every aspect of their lives. Understanding the various ideas in this essay can be useful as we make decisions in our day-to-day lives, but in the end it is an idiosyncratic process. Perhaps being consistent in the methods used is as important as the conclusions reached. Also, I think it is useful to view “truth” as a journey and not as a destination. Or as Robert Browning said, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
