More on "Truth"

 

One of my friends, John, sent me this article – “Is Truth Objective or Subjective? Here’s What Science has to Say”.

Before I continue please take a moment and read that title again asking yourself this question: is this question an honest one or a perverse (“turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.”) question? We will address that specifically later in this essay.

First, let us summarise the main points of the article. It starts off by saying that Scientific truths are objective (based on observational facts) and that is correct. Then it identifies what they describe as “subjective truths”. If two people are shown a colour (an objective truth) each person likely will describe that colour by a different name. As each person sees what they see that must be a truth and since the colour names are different that is a subjective observation, and this must be a “subjective truth”.

At first blush that seems to be correct. Except it is not. The “subjective truth” is not a truth at all but an opinion. Take for example the parable of several blind people being shown an elephant. From Wikipedia:

“The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.”

In the article the subject example is not an elephant but a colour. Each observer, based on their personal experience, finds a different name for that colour, yet they are describing the same colour. Each is giving their opinion. And there lies the problem; our language is truly diverse with many words having multiple meanings. Even the words “true” and “truth”. Here it is okay to use the word “truth” for an observational fact, and for a subjective opinion that the person who made it believes.

Now let us come back to the question I posed: “is this question an honest one or a perverse question”? Did you catch the use of the word “or”? The writer is trying to trick you with words in believing that truth can either be objective OR it can be subjective. And the use of or implies that it must be one but not the other! In other words, an opinion can replace objective facts!

Note that the article itself is far more balanced in that we can have objective and subjective “truths” at the same time. The problem here is that the authour is “perverting” the meaning of truth; they are taking the word and applying it dishonestly. Even though an opinion may be correct, based on the analysis given, that does not mean that it is true. Did you catch what I did there? I used a different word, “correct” for what the authour would have used the word “true”. This is a good example of how language can be used to manipulate thought by using words out of context and thus implying a meaning that is not appropriate. Yet the mind typically is unable, or unaware that a trick is being played on them.

As another example here is a meme I just came across:

 

It summarizes pretty good  how language can be perverted to cause people with good morals to do bad things. An example of one of these "anti-bad guy squads" of course is Antifa, which I have written about before exposing them for what they are. Another is Black Lives Matter - a racist organization that tries to cloak itself in the guise of being anti-racist.

This is why “propaganda” is so effective. It takes “truth” and twists it in such a way that it no longer means what it should to bend the observers mind. Not unlike the magicians use of misdirection. The switch is done right in front of you, yet you are not even aware.

Geologists are well suited for identifying “truth” and “opinion”. The reason is that we are always faced with trying to draw conclusions based on limited information. These conclusions we know for sure are just opinions because we have so little supporting “facts”. But as we acquire more facts, we can become more assured in our opinions or let the facts take us in a different direction completely; you let the data take you where it does and only  accept, or reject, just to support your belief.

With a magician it is easy to address; you know there is no such thing as magic so it must be a trick. With media it is far harder. My rule of thumb is that if you find a media source using deception in one instance then it is likely safe to believe they use deception in others. So, treat them like the magician and do not believe anything they say, or at minimum doubt everything they say until such time as you can verify independently. An excellent first pass is look for the presence, or absence, of facts. If no facts are given, then do not trust at all the opinion presented.