To tell the truth
Kamakshi Balasubramanian
All of us in education will agree that all knowledge is useful. Once gained, every piece of knowledge moves us forward in the search for more knowledge. Often, this search begins when we seek to refine the knowledge gained. Let us take knowledge in language to consider this point. Dictionaries, for example, are constantly improved to make the explanations more contextually relevant to the times, among other things. There are other refinements that lexicographers (dictionary-makers) introduce as they discover new aspects of language systems.
We also strive to deepen our knowledge of every phenomenon being studied. Medical research is a prime example of such efforts to deepen existing knowledge. Our knowledge of the circulatory system has evolved over time to explain innumerable phenomena in living organisms, refining our understanding of those phenomena and deepening our knowledge of the circulatory system itself.
In many ways, knowledge once gained is perhaps the strongest impetus for the human mind to advance that knowledge further. Thus, everything we know and have learned has an immense implication for what we shall discover or uncover in our ongoing pursuit of knowledge.
Truth and knowledge
In previous articles in this series, we have talked about justification as a key component of establishing knowledge claims.
The next key aspect of establishing knowledge claims requires that the claim be true.
Knowledge based on falsehood is dangerous in the extreme. (This is not to say that knowledge that is true is not without its dangers).
In a classroom, it would be worthwhile to pause here to understand how knowledge and truth are inseparable, and how truthfulness is a key component of knowledge. How does one do this?
To start with, students can complete a simple “true” or “false” exercise, with a jumble of statements.
Examples: Clouds bear moisture (true); penicillin is an antibiotic (true); rice is a protein-rich grain (false); petroleum is getting scarce (true); three children born together are called twins (false); a typical set of playing cards has 48 cards (false); hypnosis can replace anesthesia in surgery (true); the sun sets in the east (false).
Unless the teacher sets a time limit, such an exercise is likely to develop into a virtually endless (and heated) discussion or debate. The reason is that not all statements are obviously “true” or “untrue”. Truth is an abstract idea, and therefore, in many cases, “true” or “false” claims are likely to be debatable.
Next, the teacher could identify things from the list that the students can (by consensus) accept as “true,” followed by two questions. Is there a “true” statement here that represents what can be called “dangerous knowledge”? In what way is it dangerous? This need not be discussed in class, but it can be assigned for a poster activity or a written commentary on a news report about how a piece of knowledge led to a dangerous outcome (for example, what happens if hypnosis is used indiscriminately).
Once students engage in examining the truthfulness of a knowledge claim, the question will inevitably arise about how to establish something as “true”.
Establishing that a knowledge claim is true
For our purposes in the study of Theory of Knowledge, true knowledge relies on a three-way definition of truth:
1. Truth is public.
2. Truth is beyond anyone’s belief.
3. Truth is eternal.
Truth is public: This means that if something is true, you and I, and everyone else should be able to have access to that fact, information, idea, concept, phenomenon, etc.
If I say that water is colourless, everyone should be able to see that fact or test that fact and verify that water is indeed colourless. You can think of many other such examples for discussion in a classroom.
Truth is beyond anyone’s belief: When we learn about the Earth as a magnet, it does not matter whether we believe it or not. The Earth functions as a magnet, regardless of one’s belief. Supposing a magician demonstrates that a metal coin does not fall down but stays in the air, then someone might use that as proof to justify the belief that the Earth is not a magnet. Except in the hands of the magician who is professionally trained, and has the necessary assistance or equipment, a metal coin will fall to the Earth if dropped. So, one’s belief does not affect the phenomenon in the physical world. How often do we hear that the world is going to end on such and such a day? That belief has not affected the truth that the world has gone on to exist.
Truth is eternal: This implies that what is once true is always true. If I had a fever yesterday, that fact will never change. I may be well today, but what was true about yesterday is true forever about that past event. This characteristic of truth is a fundamental principle on which legal systems rely to dispense justice. This is the reason why perjury is treated as a serious offense under law.
How do we establish that something is true?
Here again students can engage in an activity.
The teacher writes down statements that are accepted as true, say, in our study of birds and their behaviour.
Statement 1. Birds native to colder climates migrate in the winter to warmer climates.
Following this, students are asked to make true statements that relate to cranes, Siberia, Siberian cranes, etc. These statements could look like the following, all of which are true.
• Siberian cranes migrate in the winter to warmer climates.
• The Siberian crane is native to Siberia.
• Siberia is a cold region of the world.
• Not all cranes migrate to warmer climates in the winter.
Many more statements are possible. Each of those would “cohere” with the first true statement. This is one way of establishing the truth of any claim. One uses a previously accepted truth to establish a new claim.
This is the Coherence theory of truth.
Statement 2. “The accident was the result of a head-on collision between two cars,” declared the policeman on duty.
Following this, students are asked to say what would convince them that the policeman’s statement is true.
• He has a photograph of the scene of the accident.
• He has eyewitnesses.
• The cars are still at the accident site and anyone can see them.
In this example, each statement requires that there is a physical reality that we can perceive by sight. The truth of each statement “corresponds” to a physical reality that is available to our physical sense. It could be our sense of sight (as is the case in our example), or it could be smell, touch, taste, and sound. This is close to evidence-based justification, discussed earlier.
This is the Correspondence theory of truth.
Statement 3. “Generosity is a virtue.”
Students are asked to say how anyone can know this to be true.
• Generosity makes one well-liked.
• Being generous makes one happy.
• The opposite, stinginess, is unattractive.
The truth of each of these statements is based on one’s limited experience and is usually related to its “usefulness value” in life. This is called the Pragmatic theory of truth.
(Note: What about statements such as “miracles occur” or “heaven exists”? The truth of these and similar statements is based on faith, and these are personally held truths. One cannot question the validity of the truth of such statements, but it is difficult (if not impossible) to subject them to the requirement that truth is public or that it corresponds to a physical reality that can be perceived and tested for validity).
Summing up
Any introduction to knowledge as a concept must acquaint the learner with three components that establish knowledge claims. The first is justification (which I discussed in a previous article), the second is truth (the subject of this article), and the third is belief, which I shall address in a future article.
Truth, as we all know, is central to knowledge, but it is a very difficult concept to define because truth is seldom, if ever, absolute. We also have to differentiate between truth in the world of perception and metaphysical truth. That is the reason why in Theory of Knowledge, we have to be careful to define truth relying on established theories with a sound understanding of the nature of truth.
The author is an educator and writer with significant experience teaching at secondary and tertiary levels. She can be reached at papukamakshi@gmail.com.
