In the late 1980’s two scientists named Fleischmann and Pons declared to the world that they had harnessed the power of cold fusion. Cold fusion would allow mankind to generate untold amounts of power. It would bring electricity to destitute nations. It would change the world as we know it. The problem was that Fleishmann and Pons falsified their experimental records. No one could duplicate their experiment because they never achieved what they claimed in the first place. As a result, cold fusion and the scientists that touted its validity became a laughingstock in the scientific community. When they set out, Fleischmann and Pons truly believed in the possibility of cold fusion. They believed it so badly that they ignored or explained away any results that were not consistent with their expected findings. Quite simply, they ignored evidence. They ignored the truth.
In almost every aspect of life, we seek the truth. We expect truthful relationships with our spouses. We cringe when we learn that our political leaders turn from the truth. We employ millions of scientists to learn the truth about the workings of our world. When we search for truth, we hold fast to the notion that if two “truths” contradict one another, one must no longer be considered true. We understand and appreciate absolute truth as a society in all aspects of life except for one: when we seek the truth about ourselves, we are told that we should honor and respect everyone’s beliefs as “individual truths”. We are told, in essence, that truth is relative.
Let’s examine for a moment a few implications of “relative truth” as opposed to absolute truth. Mathematics and science can be eliminated. After all, both are a quest for absolute truth. For that matter, education is basically the passing of knowledge from one person to another. Since the so-called knowledge that you pass down may not coincide with the truths that I hold, we may as well do away with education altogether. We’ll just set aside time to search deep within ourselves and see what we come up with. The good news is that ignorance is bliss, so we will be a happy-go-lucky people until we run out of food.
Relative truth is a myth. We all know it; we just, for some reason, don’t want to acknowledge it. We know that mathematics is defined by absolute truth. We know that science relies on an absolute truth. We know that the world consists of either/or scenarios. Either 1+1=2 or it does not. Either the earth is round or it is not. Either there exists a God or there does not. To acknowledge that there both is a God and there is not is nonsensical.
Fundamentally, I think that even those who profess to believe in relative truth are really speaking of relative perception. There is no doubt that two people may perceive opposite things, but this does not change that which is perceived. Let’s say, for instance, that two people stand in front of a wall. One is blind; the other is not. For the blind man, the wall is absent. Does this mean that the wall exists for the other man but not for the blind man? If you said “yes,” does your answer change when the two men begin to walk forward? If the blind man professed that there was no wall, he would simply be wrong. He would not hold the truth, relative or absolute. His insistence that the wall is nonexistent would not cause the statement to be true; it would simply cause a headache when he discovered that he was wrong.
When exploring the idea of relative truth, people often call upon things like Plato’s cave allegory, existing as characters in some dreamer’s dream, or existing within a computer program. Something that I find humorous is that in each of these scenarios there exists an absolute truth:
In Plato’s cave allegory, we find a man in a cave who sees only the shadows cast by those outside the cave. The man perceives the shadows to be truth. Of course, the premise of the allegory tells us that the man is indeed in a cave (the absolute truth).
In the dreamer’s dream, the dreamer himself is the absolute truth.
In the Matrix, the perceptions of those within the Matrix are not consistent with reality. The reality (absolute truth) is that the people live out their lives in a computer program.
Human beings cannot truly even fathom the concept of relative truth. When we make up scenarios, we give premises that contain absolute truth. When we utter sentences like “truth is relative” we are essentially saying that it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. The very sentence contradicts itself.
“Truth is relative” has been uttered so often that it has become something of a catchphrase in American society. Ours is a society that teaches honor and respect for all people. Certainly honor and respect are valuable notions and it is important that we show respect when we interact with one another. At what point, though, did respecting individuals come to mean that we must give credence to any idea that comes from any individual? People often hold to ideals that defy logic and reason. Such ideals are rarely challenged, and when they are challenged, those who contest them are seen as intolerant or uneducated. As a society, we have taken to coddling people regardless of what comes out of their mouths. We reason that since truth is relative, the people aren’t “wrong”; rather, they simply know relative truths that differ from our own. We then extol our own virtues for having shown respect. The funny thing is that this coddling is really the ultimate form of disrespect. We look at people as being so fragile that they couldn’t possibly handle hearing that they are wrong. We have no respect for their strength and we only profess respect for their opinions.
Truth is absolute. If it is not absolute, it is no longer truth. Truth is not always provable, but it cannot be refuted by facts. When it comes to religious views, you may believe that we all hold pieces to the puzzle. You may believe that we’re all wrong. You may believe that God honors all who seek with admission into Heaven. You cannot, however, believe that all beliefs are true (i.e. that each holds “relative truth”) without discounting logic and reason.
Randy’s Philosophical Statement of the Week:
When a tree falls in the forest, it always makes a compression wave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Absolutely right! There is only one ultimate truth (rationally speaking).
The point of the Allegory of the Cave is that we cannot know absolutely if we know the absolute truth. This is because we only have our relative perception to enlighten us.
Does a bug know that humans exist? Probably not, because compared to ours, the bug's perception is limited. The Allegory of the Cave is acknowledging the real possibility that there is truth which we cannot yet know fully, because our perception is too limited. The cave allegory is about perception as it relates to truth, though of course, the lesson is humility.
Great post!
oh, I forgot..
Does a falling tree in the woods always make a compression wave?
Without an observer we cannot know for sure, but I still think it's an entirely reasonable assumption!
But it's still an excellent koan.
Nice comments, Steve. I almost feel bad about having to make my first post a "truth" post becuase I know we have been talking it to death on your blog, but it is really the foundation of everything.
In my comments regarding the cave, the dreamer, etc, I'm trying to make the point that we can't even discuss the concept "relative truth" without bringing some absolute truth into the equation... basically, that we cannot even conceptualize "relative truth". You are right, though, to point out the the allegory was not originally used as an argument for "relative truth". It is just one of those that seems to always creep into the discussion.
More about the tree in my next post. It will discuss the question of "What can we know?"
yeah, It's a really important topic for sure.
I have always argued that we all believe in an objective truth. It's just that we are limited to our perception (both individually and as a species) to find it. I definitely think we're on the same page.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year guys. no comments from me yet, believe it or not.
Very interesting post randy. I love talking about stuff like this it reminds me of my college days arguing with my friends at denny's, ihop, or anyplace that served coffee. Truth is interesting to me becuase it differs from person to person. If you truly believe in something then it is true to you. But truths constantly change as information is accounted and discounted for. I had forgotten all about the allegory of the cave from philosophy 101. Yes I think it shows how truth can be limited for people because they put all their attention and focus on what they have always done or what has always been told to them and if they would just step back outside the cave then they could see the other landmarks of life.
Awesome post Randy. I definitely agree with you that truth is not relative, contrary to what our postmodern society seems to think. Truth, by definition, is the same for all people at all times, whether they choose to believe it or not. Perception changes, yes, but truth does not.
Michelle- If truth varies from person to person, would that mean that believing something MAKES it true? So if I sincerely believe that the world is flat, then it is? I would disagree and say that the world is either round or it isn't. If I believe it's flat, that belief isn't "true for me," it's just wrong.
Michelle,
It sounds like you're referring to the "relative perception" idea that I spoke to. The main idea here is that our perceptions (or what we believe) cannot influence truth. Truth is absolute and it is our job to find it.
In the cave allegory, the man in the cave was incorrect when he thought that the shadows were all there was to life. That's the point. He was incorrect because absolute truth exists. Plato does illustrate that KNOWING the truth is difficult (or perhaps impossible). I will dive into knowledge in my next post.
The world was round before we ever knew it to be.
Gravity existed prior to Newton.
We may not know the truth, but it doesn't mean that there isn't truth.
Randy,
I think I agree with you almost entirely, but what if "truth" does change with your perspective? Such as labeling the speed of an object? Doesn't relativity suggest that there is no objective truth in this case since the answer depends on your personal motion?
You probably know more about this than me, so I thought I would ask your opinion.
When you observe an object and its speed is recorded relative to a tree, you do not cause its speed to change (relative to the tree) by also recording its speed relative to you. So, when you label its speed using yourself as reference instead of a tree, you haven't changed the truth; rather, you have changed that which you are measuring.
If I ask "how far away is Arlington?" we will give two different answers relative to our positions. When we give these different answers, we're really giving the answer to two different questions:
You may be answering "how far from Steven is downtown Arlington?"
I may be answering "how far from Randy is Six Flags Over Texas?"
If the question is "How far away from Randy's house is Six Flags Over Texas if I drive [route A]?" we should both give the same answer. There is only one truth for each question.
That's true, but still, when measuring speed, distance, height, time, etc. it is 100% contingent on your point of reference. There is no fixed, default setting to turn to. It's all in flux constantly. The universe changes in appearance depending on your rate of speed, and you can't even measure your rate of speed unless it's in comparison to something else's rate of speed.
I'm not saying we disagree on anything here; it's just fun to talk about how crazy the universe really is.
Sure. We haven't even delved into general relativity... or quantum mechanics for that matter. Some science is more difficult to grasp than any of these religious/philisophical questions.
Post a Comment