Epistemology, What is truth?

“Truth” is a difficult word to define.  According to the  dictionary it is defined as “a statement proven to be acceptable or true.”  This is an example of arguing in a circle by claiming truth is something that is true.  To avoid the various pitfalls inherent in defining abstractions, the following  classification system of truths will be employed:

                                  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?"

       

Baptists, The American Taliban

 Discussing religion is always dangerous and filled with risks but as they say “fools rush in where angels dare to tread.”  At the risk of appearing trite, I will begin at the beginning.  I was born with  a mental state that has been described as tabula rosa (blank slate).  I have since modified this view and  now believe that the human brain comes with pre-wired tendencies. For more on this subject please read Genome by Matt Ridley.   At any rate, considering the human mind at birth (or even at conception) as a blank slate ready to record all life experiences is sufficient for my purposes here.

I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my parents for sparing me from what Richard Dawkins calls child abuse, i.e., religious indoctrination.  I cannot recall my parents ever  mentioning the subject of religion.  If they were philosophical thinkers, they did not  share their epistemological conclusions with me. I was left happily to my own devices to discover my own inner world.

Of course no man or child is an island.  I grew up in a small southern town where the water was filled with fluoride and the air with racism and Baptist dogma.  They were everywhere and I thought that everyone in the world was Baptist until my older sister proved to be more than the public school system could handle and was dispatched to a private Catholic school.  At about the same time I discovered  my uncle was Jewish and my religious world was “complete.”

At public school most of my pals were Baptists and it was under their influence (and their parents) that  I was recruited into attending Sunday school and church services.  I was not much moved by the experience and was bored by the entire matter and began to look for any excuse to duck out on it.  Of course, they did  not give me up easily and dispatched church deacons and fellow students who had a way of making me feel guilty about my erratic attendance and questionable devotion to their religious views.

By the time I was a teenager my interest and enthusiasm was almost nil and probably would have died completely if I had not started dating a very pretty girl a fellow classmate from my high school.  At the time I thought that church attendance was noblesse oblige and it was a major faux pas not to conform. I incorrectly assumed that my girl friend felt the same way. Today even after fifty-six years, she still rightfully blames me for getting her involved with the Baptists.

Once a year our Baptist Church brought in a visiting evangelist whose job was to inject enthusiasm and fear into those who might be wavering in their faith and to build up the church membership rolls.  These charismatic performers and master manipulators vacillated between waxing poetic about the love of God and the threat of eternal damnation.  They claimed that every time the holy spirit knocks on your heart and you reject the invitation to accept Christ, your heart turns a little harder until eventually it turns to stone at which point you would be lost forever without any chance for salvation. It was during one of these emotional sessions while the choir sang Will You Be Ready?, we went forward and accepted Christ and after being baptized became  Baptists. 

Around this same time my cousin was invited by one of her school friends to attend Sunday school and services at a local Congregationalist Church. Sometime later she decided to be baptized and become a member.  The Congregationalists had higher ethical standards than the Baptists and required parental approval.  Her father thought that she should defer important decisions like this until she was older and more mature and refused to give his permission.  Years later while in graduate school she converted to Catholicism and married a Catholic.  Today she is the mother of nine children and divorced.

After I enlisted in the Air Force, I discovered one benefit of being a Baptist when as part of my duties as an administrative clerk I had the duty of collecting biographical data from newly arriving airman at the base including their religious “preferences.”  Things seem to be going well until the base chaplain who happened to be a Baptist called me to complain that he was meeting a number of Baptists who were actually Presbyterians or Episcopalians.  It turned out that many Presbyterians and Episcopalians did not know how to spell their religion and simply wrote “Baptist” for their religious preference.

I remained a nominal Baptist until the Air Force sent me back to college to complete my undergraduate degree.  It was there at age twenty-four that I discovered and read Ayn Rand and Bertram Russell and became an atheist. I wrote a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention tendering my resignation and found out you cannot resign.  I was informed that the only way I could be removed from the Baptist rolls was to join another religion.  Today I consider myself a “cured” Baptist.

Joining the  Baptist Church was the most embarrassing thing that I ever did.  In my defense I would like to reference the fact that the part of human brain responsible for critical thinking is not fully formed until around the age of twenty-five.  Recently the president of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a declaration that wives should submit to their husbands on all matters of faith and family.  Perhaps bronze-age thinking such as this prompted Kinky Friedman (one-time candidate for Governor of Texas) to remark that the problem with Baptists is they don’t hold them under water long enough.

According to Wikipedia in 2002, there were more than thirty-three million Baptists in North America of which sixteen million are Southern Baptist.  Due to their literal interpretation of the Bible they are anti-science and very conservative. They deny evolution and global warming.  They oppose guy rights and women’s rights and tend to hold racist views.  Their history includes support for slavery and segregation of the schools.  They also supported miscegenation laws and were anti-immigration.

The Baptists are the most vocal in their condemnation of other religions and their teachings’ especially Catholicism.  It was not unusual to find Baptists in the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan and some even served as the Grand Wizard. Their fundamentalist views has led many to describe them as well as the other evangelicals as the American Taliban. Baptist have among their ranks people such as Fred Phelps, Pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas who makes a practice of disrupting  funerals of our fallen military heroes carrying signs declaring, “God hates Fags.”   

I continued as a self-proclaimed atheist for many years until I embarked on a self-discovery program of reading, thinking, and writing as a way of clarifying my positions.  I read books on theology, religion, physics, biology, and psychology.  I found that I could not reconcile atheism with science. I learned that is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Atheists and theists are both willing to accept their position without any proof or evidence instead relying on appeals to authority and/or faith.  Mark Twain defined faith as believing in things that you know are not true. 

My conclusion is deism is the only position that I can reconcile with the sum total of my education (formal and informal) and experiences.  Deism allows for the possibility that a supernatural force set in motion a process that created the universe and everything in it but is not  involved in the day-to-day operations except through the application of the laws of physics. The “God” of deism does not monitor our behavior, perform miracles, answer prayers, provide for our salvation or modify the laws of nature in our favor. 

Related Blog:   Why Religion?