truth as objective and good

Blake Daniel Brown
Paths to Knowledge/Sr. Seminar
31 January 2009

Truth: What is the Case?

In True to Life, Michael Lynch discusses the concept of Truth. From the beginning he argues that our understanding of truth affects both our personal and our political lives. Without going any further into the book, I reflected on that opening statement. I contemplated what I took to be true beliefs that I had and considered their implications for my life and prima facie agreed with Lynch. Then I delved deeper into the text and he began to discuss the four truisms of truth. My red flags immediately went up and my highly skeptic side came to the fore. Truth is “objective,” “good,” “worthy of inquiry,” “worth caring about for its own sake”; I was concerned because of the many possible pitfalls I thought of concerning each proposition. But I was intrigued, so I read on (plus, it’s an assignment, and I value the “good” of successful and rigorous studentship). In this post, I will discuss truth as “objective”, and truth as “good.”
“Truth is objective.” When I first thought of the objectivity of truth, I couldn’t help but immediately think in absolutes and universals, so I was worried. Lynch apparently holds the same worries though so I was calmed. What I took away from his discussion of the objectivity of truth was essentially that truth is something against which we measure and value. Though we do not know in most any case what the case is absolutely or universally, we are capable of approximating, and it is against lower case “t” truth that we approximate. We are taught, for example, in mathematics that two and two is four. Based on justifiable reasons, i.e. mathematical laws and principles, we can assert and maintain that when two and two occur together, their sum is four. We can tell someone that they are incorrect if they maintain anything else to be the case. Even though we don’t know if universally two and two is four (because we do not have a universal [Godly] perspective) we can justifiably say that according to mathematical laws and principles that two and two is four.
So we conceptualize truth as objective in the sense of reference. Referring to x given principle, or to x justified principle, then y. I have no problem with this, for the most part. Briefly, my problem with this notion is it appears to be asserted on an ineffable ground. What does this mean? We know two and two to be four based on mathematical laws, which are based on what? Consensus; scientific rigor? Maybe my concern is unwarranted, and in many ways I see how my concern is not necessarily a live problem; like, I still maintain that two and two is four anyway. For now, I will let my problem rest and continue on.
Lynch then discusses truth as good. He asserts truth as good based upon the evaluative dimension it necessarily entails. Basically, we value wrong ideas/beliefs as “bad” and right ideas/beliefs as “good.” Lynch discusses that “good” and “bad” aren’t necessarily moral categories; they can be cognitive categories also. Two and two equaling five is a bad cognitive idea/belief. Why? Because in real life two and two do not equal five, and it could even cause harmful side effects to maintain this as the case. In engineering and construction, we must adhere to the “good” cognitive principles of mathematics; otherwise buildings may be improperly constructed, leading to a cave-in or something worse.
What I continue to struggle with in Lynch’s text, is upon what grounds are these truths asserted? Is there an epistemological category I am unaware of that makes possible these assertions? Do we base truth on our experiences of trying out hypotheses until we find one in accord the desired outcome? Is truth based on semantics? Whatever the answer may be, I am interested in further study of this text, and further considerations of truth.

Chapter 4 & 5 whitney michaels

Is it a copt out for Lynch to say that truth is only good, all things being equal and is there a way to argue that this makes the pursiut of true completely subjective. The idea of justified true belief seems more important to Lynch than getting to the actual truth. I don't feel like he proves to the reader in these chapters that truth is good in and of itself, it seems in some way that by stating the philosophy of other "antitruthists" with a greater amount of evidence then he provides his own arguments, that he is convincing me at least to question his reasonings. Where in these chapters does Lynch provide evidence that turth is good in and of its self. Additionally, I tend to agree with the pragmatic standard as well. Why should I pursue something that doesn't benefit me?
I agree that inquiry is important to discover and formulate or beliefs and that it is dictated by our own values and experiences. However, how does this get us closer to the objective truth. I feel like our inquiries are more likely to simply create, as Lynch disscussed, a system of beliefs which when put together are true in context, but possible not true in reality. As long as we are not harming anyone in believing these falsitudes is it still ok to believe? What I am really asking is what is the difference between false beliefs which truely apply to our belief system and are justified and believing the truth? Which is more important?
I feel like Lynch is not asking us to pursue the truth in these chapters, but rather justified belief which is relative to our own system of beliefs and I find this to be inconsistent with the rest of the book.

Chapters 4 and 5

I would like to quickly say something back to Jasmine's post. You mentioned that you are a person who would rather know certain things, like a cheating spouse, rather than not know them. I think to that, Lynch would say that he admires your spirit and your courage, but that not everyone is as equiped as you to handle such a truth! In keeping with his idea of truth being valuable, but people's emotions and mental state also being valuable, it being good for someone to know about a cheating spouse is definately prima facie good.

I was glad to see that Lynch goes out of his way to talk about the value of other aspects to life in addition to truth. Essentially, my interpretation was that "Anything worth doing is worth doing, but not to excess." Doing what is good is always good, but taking care of yourself is also good. You can't persue many of the truths you might want if you don't have your own life in order.

I found Lynch's information in chapter 4 to be the most compelling. Doing what is the highest on his list of prima facie good is a good idea to me in concept, but I think there would be a lot of violent disagreement between people on which was the prima facie good. For example, someone who's really sick and attending a friend's program. Some people would split this decision more closely than the example with the drowning child. Which is the greater good? Making your body physically better by sleeping in, or not letting a good friend down? In this case, either those from the outside would disagree about the answer, or the person who is sick would hold all the cards. People from the outside can't quantify how ill the person is per say, and they can't quantify exactly how good a friend you are. In this sense, it's hard for someone to necessarily pick the prima facie good because it's so subjective. Because I'm the only one who knows just how sick I am, no one can really say my decision is wrong, so what I felt was the prima facie good is entirely my subjective opinion.

A True Pragmatist!

As we get deeper and deeper into this book, I'm beginning to like the author's style of argumentation more and more. It seems to me that one of the goals of writing this book is to urge a return to "sound reasoning," whatever that might mean, and reasonable decision-making. The author's arguments are appropriately similar. He presents a position (pragmatism, for example), and shows how that position in its extreme or classical form fails. He then highlights the positive characteristics of a certain position and points out how we as a society can put those positive attributes to good use. It's a very moderate book, and is in some ways dull in its moderation (in a good way, really). Perhaps we're entirely too accustomed to the Ann Coulter types to appreciate an individual who, quite frankly, represents a dose of common sense. I particularly like that he constantly acknowledges the presence of and even describes exceptions to his arguments/"truisms" while still upholding the basic tenets of the argument. 

And a short note on pragmatism.

Most of us were probably exposed to pragmatism as a philosophical idea in high school and were told the old tree-squirrel story. In thinking through this concept, however, I was particularly intrigued by Lynch's objection to classical pragmatism on page 67: "A second important problem for pragmatism is that it can't account for the truth or falsity of some types of propositions at all. The best example is truths of the past." If  "belief is true just when it is pragmatically justified in the long run," than pragmatism calls into question the value of history itself if a certain historical fact simply has no relevance to anything (67). Fascinating!

Darwinism and the pursuit of the truth.

It is sometimes better to assume something is true without extensive research. 'Quick and dirty habits of belief-formation are often better than precise, labor-intensive ones.' In contrast to this idea Lynch points out that in most cases it is better to know more about your environment. Additionally you will be more likely to achieve your goal if you know more; including survival. I think Lynch's point here interestingly matches up with the idea of darwinism. The longer an animal could survive, it would be more likely to reproduce and pass down the genetic mutuations that enabled said animal to survive. Just like in human evolution the smarter the 'cavemen' were and the more they learned about there envirinment (the use of tools, weapons, clothing, fire) the more likely they were to survive. This process of learning was mankind's earliest attempts to find the truth and come closer to the truth. Even in the earliest of our mankind we were attempting to discover the truth. At the time this pursuit for truth wasn't for academic reasons but to simply survive. Now do you think truth matters?

Kevin

Matt I see where you are coming from. However, I think you might have missed the idea in the example about building the bomb. While he was arguing that it might have been a mistake to seek out the truth about how to make use nuclear power he was not trying to say that there were not also good reasons, he just chose not to talk about them. He does agree that if the good reasons out weigh the bad or are equal to it then sure he was trying to argue that when the bad greatly out weigh the good. I thnk a better example of his to consider would be the study about how long it takes people to freeze to death in various temperatures of water by forcing people to freeze to death. That study to my knowledge has not produced any real benefit that would not have been gained otherwise.
I was a huge fan of these chapters because before them I was really skeptical about this idea that knowledge is good to care about for it's own sake. When first presented I had taken the stance that the other three truisms are true but the only real reason I care about truth is because I like to be right, because being right prevented mistake and allowed for greater success. This is different than the pragmatist argument in that I still held to the belief in absolute truth I just didn't really care to know about truths that were irrelevant to life or anything I was interested in. After chapter 4's discussion of why I shouldn't really know how many threads are in his carpet I know understand my complaint as not really being relevant to the issue. I was more concerned with whether or not I ought to care enough to find out all truth even stuff that is considered to be a waste of time. However, I do agree that truth ought to be cared about for its own sake but that does not mean that all truth needs to be pursued.

The dangers of knowledge?

Early on in Chapter 4, Lynch asserts that knowledge can sometimes be a bad--even innately destructive--influence. "Knowledge is power, and if power corrupts, absolute knowledge may corrupt absolutely." (I just need to get this out of the way: I found that statement a little humorous... the equation of cliches reminded me of that old "girls = evil" proof.) In the wrong hands, he says, knowledge can be plain scary--and even sometimes in the right ones.

For this reason, he states many times in the chapter that knowledge is dangerous, and that the truth can hurt. But even if a truth may hurt, that doesn't mean that its pursuit is reckless. And nuclear weapons--used as Lynch's prime example of how the truth is hurtful--also stand as an example of why it's often important to pursue it regardless of the pain, but not because truth is worth caring about for its own sake, either. We know that America wasn't the only state with a developing nuclear program, and we know that was a big reason that so much effort was put into our own, to get stuff working before anyone else did. Regardless of whether you think the use of America's nuclear weapons was wise or not, I'm sure most people would agree that there could have been much more devastating consequences had one of the Axis powers developed the technology first.

And therein lies the problem with assuming that the only choice when presented with a truth that hurts is either pursuing it or leaving it buried for eternity. Sooner or later, odds are the truth will be found, regardless of one person or group's actions. Newton was a genius, but without him, we'd still probably know about gravity--even if it took slightly longer to figure out.

So now I'm pretty sure I'm wading into some sort of undefinable moral ground, but not everyone treats the knowledge they obtain in the same way--some use it for good causes, others, not so much. And while many truths can hurt, those same truths can also unlock new things that are quite literally awesome. It often depends on the holder of the knowledge how the truths are used. So if you have good intentions*, it is imperative that you do get to these truths first--even if they have the potential to hurt. Otherwise, you're only making it that much more likely that someone else will do exactly that.

*I know when I say this, it's completely unverifiable and probably dangerous in its own right. Who are the good people? Who can we trust with dangerous knowledge? Well, we don't know. But if we're assuming that there are good people and people that are less good, even if we don't know who they are, we should still be rooting for them. Even if we can't really do anything about helping them.

I agree with Kathy in so much as truth cannot be separated from morality and ethics, and I think chapter 4 points that out. I thought the important idea from this chapter is that truth may not always be the right answer. In the initial chapters, it seemed that Lynch was advocating truth above all else, but we see now that other factors are important to consider - "while truth is value, it is not the only value." (50)

I also like what Lynch said on page 51, "Life decisions aren't like mathematics. We cannot decide in advance what we should do, because what we should do depends in large part on the particular details of the situation in question." This brings the idea of truth into real life. However, it might seem a bit contradictory to the truisms he presented in the early chapters. I would like to discuss how this statements changes the implications of those truisms, or if others don't think that it does.

Chapters 4&5

It's true the truth can hurt, ch.4, and at times we may feel like we were better off knowing a lie or nothing at all. Ignorance is bliss? Is it? In this chapter he mentions cheating in a marriage as one of the things that we may want to just be lied to about or a health condition but I can't say that's true for me. Even though the truth hurts I would rather know the truth than be living a lie. Maybe knowing the truth in these situations could fix something in your life, rekindel a relationship or a miracle cure. Nothing will happen if you do nothing. I would have to disagree with Meredith when you talked about Iraq and the WMD not impacting our lives. We went to war in search of a lie and whether you have a personal tie someone there or an issue involved I think that we are all highly impacted by the fall of our economy that is partly because of this extremely expensive and untruthful war. This is percisely the reason why we have to seperate truth from power because once the powers at be are at work establishing what our truths should consist of there is no rationalizing or critisism that can quickly intercede.

I like the very last lines of ch.5 (74) and though this summarized Lynch's point well and even made me chuckle, "I do hope my claims made withstand refutaion, certainty, but that is not my only hope. I also want them to be right. To think otherwise is to confuse the love of truth with the love of winning." We would all love to win all the time but then we would be reverting back to simple minded relativism and we would be infallible. Nice idea but this is impossible to achive. I could understand where the utilitarian ideas about truths come from after all knowing the truth can produce a lot of good things for us. However, I feel like the truth is bigger than that and I'm going to have to agree with the truisms that the truth is worthy of inquiry. This book has taught us that we are not perfect and the truth is not perfect but seeking the truth can help us to become better and more knowledgeable people and still be good just because it's the truth at the same time.

Truth and Optimism, or Pessimism

To begin, I would like to disagree a bit with the previous post. She stated that the simple fact of whether or not Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction was inconsequential because the troops still invaded. While this is a reality and cannot in and of itself be argued, it was important for the public to know that weapons of mass destruction did not exist in that particular location. Without invoking a large political debate involving the abilities of the past administration, knowledge of the mistake is critical because it simply reminds Americans that nothing, perhaps even the knowledge disseminated by their own government, is infallible. Blind belief is nothing short of ignorance, which is dangerous.

The most interesting part of Chapter 4 to me was page 49. Throughout the reading and discussions in class, I was surprised that truth, as well as belief, was discussed in such a black and white manner. The discussions seemed to ignore the human justification that exists in every judgment made, whether by the lofty philosopher or the lowly college student. As Lynch writes, the "good" of a belief is most often determined when measured against reality, amongst other factors that could include morality, ethics, etc. On pg. 49, he writes that "persons, desires, characters and actions...are most often called morally good or bad. This is because such things are the subject or object of responsibility; that is, they are fit for praise or blame." Enter the so-called grey matter between the black and white of truth and belief. Can we honestly separate truth from morality and ethics? I understand that Lynch attempts to with the Nazi example in the beginning of the chapter, but he seems to agree that no one would value the truth of the temperature at which a human can sustain life in cold water over the lives of the Jews. Thus, does a separation really exist?

Chapters 4/5

The first question that this reading raised for me is, how would Lynch define the relationship between truth, understanding, certainty, and knowledge? Is it possible to have one of these without the others? Are any of these four things possible, or, like truth, does their merit come in the search?

Also, when discussing pragmatism, Lynch brings up the idea that truth is important only when it gets us what we want. Although I think that Lynch disagrees with this and instead argues that truth is important in and of itself, I find myself having a hard time agreeing with him. The ideas that he introduces about pragmatism, I feel, are more persuasive than those against them. Though we may always want to search for the truth, I have a hard time believe that it has any large impact on our life. For instance, although the truth is that there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what impact did that have on our lives? We were still in Iraq. That truth became unimportant to certain political powers because it didn't get them what they wanted. Although I wouldn't argue that the truth itself was unimportant, the impact on our daily lives made it seem unimportant. I feel that the more persuasive arguments in this book are still that truth is intertwined with power and getting what we want. 

Is Truth relative

I was waiting for class before I posted just in case I would get totally demolished in my argument but since did not cover this topic in class I thought it was valid to address it here. That being said page 35 shows how the conversation stopper: "it's a matter of opinion", and one of the truths t hat people have a hard time attaining has to deal with religion. It seems like the case study of religion showcases how the question of truth and how nothing is The Truth has relevance because of how many people have justified beliefs in believing in their respective religions for the reason they do. There are few other e prevelant  xamples that I could look toward to showcase the differences in beliefs that do not involve politics. I think that this however will make more sense as we head into chapter four and five and we analyze the reliability of truth and maybe that could help determine how some religions have remained strong while others have weakened.

In Chapter 3, the author addresses a point that I've been grappling with for some time. On page 33 he states that "one reason that people sometimes favor relativism - even simple relativism - over objective theories of truth is the sense that that relativism encourages greater toleration..." Lynch then goes on to write that it "is a confusion to think that belief in objective truth necessarily implies a lack of respect for other ways of life and other types of belief. The cause of intolerance is not objectivity but dogmatism" (33).

Alright, let's take the example of slavery, which I think we can all agree is "bad," to use a parsimonious and concise term that we can probably all agree on. And for the sake of engaging in a discussion based on mutual definitions, let's define slavery as the ownership of another's labor as well as extensive control over other aspects of their lives (really a terrible definition). In the pre-colonial societies of Africa, slavery was sometimes built into the very fabric of certain societies. In some places it was a brutal practice...in other areas, slavery was viewed as a means by which to avoid starving and sometimes advantageous to other types of work. As Lynch pointed out in Chapter 2, "certainty" is probably dangerous and unattainable. If one were to grant that slavery in 13th, 14th and maybe 15th century Africa (we're talking about indigenous slavery here) was a vastly different practice than that of slavery in the US and was less harsh (but was nonetheless irrefutably slavery), where are we left with regard to this relativism business? Are we justified in swooping in and judging these people?

Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Lynch writes that we can never be certain of a truth, but that we can only decide whether or not it is justified, because if something is justified it is likely to be true (p. 26). Our criminal justice system implements this idea in the trying of criminals, and sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted. Is it right to risk sentencing these innocent people when we cannot reach a certain truth about whether or not someone is guilty of a crime? Is proving beyond reasonable doubt really enough here? Or is it acceptable to risk making mistakes about such weighty decisions that affect these people's entire lives? Is it better to try to protect the community by locking up people who may actually be innocent, or to be more cautious in these decisions that have such far-reaching consequences? I guess I'm wondering what gives us the right, when we can never know the absolute truth, to sentence people?

Fearing Uncertainty

I agree with Michelle's opinion that Lynch went a bit too far in his second chapter with his claim that one can never be certain about anything. I understand the point he is trying to make and I agree that many of my beliefs could be contradicted, but I believe there are at least some things of which I can be certain. For example, if I see someone with my own eyes right in front of me, I can be certain that person is right in front of me. Although, I suppose Goldman would argue I could in fact be seeing that person's identical twin and for that reason could not be certain.

I guess the reason I'm having such a hard time accepting the fact that nothing is certain is because, to paraphrase Lynch, it is human nature to fear uncertainty. As college students, we've spent a majority of our lifetime in school acquiring knowledge and now we are told that we cannot prove anything is actually true and, as we discussed in lab, that even defining the concept of "knowledge" is now a difficult task.

I have to admit that I'm in favor of the "simple relativism" Lynch speaks of in his third chapter. I like the idea that my beliefs are true simply because I believe them. That is not to say my beliefs are unwavering and cannot change, but at least it provides me with a little certainty. After reading Lynch's argument against simple relativism, I understand that there are definite flaws in attempting to define truth as relative, but in my opinion there are also flaws in Lynch's argument that truth is entirely objective. The concept of truth is much more gray than simply black and white.

Relativism, Dogmatism, Pluralism

I was glad to see that Lynch was proactive about attacking the Kant issue with regard to what exactly is attainable knowledge based on what can be considered fact. Saying that we can know facts but never be entirely certain about a truth makes a sort of working definition of truth, making it possible to form a base on which one can postulate further. Knowing something without a shadow of a doubt isn’t for what we should strive, so taking it out of the equation by still holding truth as an attainable goal. Being someone immersed in the sciences for most hours of the day, I equated it to something like cell theory. We can never be absolutely certain that cell theory is true, but we have evidence that points to cell theory. Due to the scientific evidence gathered, we can use that truth to then extrapolate further and use that knowledge to combat disease.

One thing I would have to say he left out of the discourse was his discussion on dogmatism and relativism. I do agree with his statement that many people have used their “Truth” dogma to commit heinous acts toward others, many in the name of God. However, I also believe that those who subscribe to the simple relativism can cause their own incorrect conclusions based on their interpretation of everything being relative. To use a bizarre example, there are multiple websites springing up that young women are setting up praising “Anna,” giving tips to other girls on how to slip into the mental disease of anorexia and hide it from your friends and family. Although I hope most people would be horrified by these websites, simple moral relativism might allow the misinformed to just think of it as a diet that can be monitored safely. Even though there isn’t a “Truth” dogma that conjures up images of the Spanish Inquisition, ignoring things that are clearly wrong and trying to say it’s just okay relative to someone else plays into Lynch’s idea that simple moral relativism is lazy.

I hope Lynch goes further into his idea of plural truths. I think this idea can be further extrapolated to help combat some of the more ignorant Truth seekers out there.

Truth & Certainty

I agree with what Laura has to say about the way we generally perceive truth as certainty. It complicates our understanding of "the truth" because we live in a society that, according to Lynch, does not understand what truth really means - which is what we have been discussing in class. I like how Lynch uses the court room example because when we first started attempting to define truth, I thought of it in comparison to innocent until proven guilty, in the sense that what we/I believe to be true, is true in my mind until I disprove it. That idea helps me sleep at night.

I would like to comment that it kind of makes me mad that Lynch is suggesting that I can never be certain about anything. I'm not sure I can really be convinced that I'm not typing on my lap top right this instant. Obviously, as we discussed in class and as Lynch points out in the reading, there are questions that can be posed at me that would probably get me to agree that fine, maybe I'm not really here... maybe I'm dreaming... etc., but for the most part, I probably won't stop actually feeling certain that I am typing. Because that would give me a headache. I can see an argument against what I just said by saying that I "feel certain" which is comparable to "believing," which I think we separated from "the truth" today in the lab, but I'm still gonna stick with the idea that I'm typing.

Certainty

The idea that I found most interesting from this reading was Lynch's approach to certainty. I have been struggling with the idea of certainty in regards to truth throughout some of the discussions we have had in class. It seems as though certainty is nearly impossible. Lynch points out that, in many peoples' minds, truth and absolute certainty are intertwined. However, he tries to detach the two a bit. It is necessary to acknowledge different levels of certainty. Lynch uses examples to illustrate how he views these different levels, and how we already use these. The example I like the most was the example of the detective only having to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Being able to put the idea of degrees of certainty into an example such as this helped me to understand what Lynch was talking about. I think that Lynch's degrees of certainty may help with the definition of knowledge that we started to examine in lab today. We went through some examples of how justification may not be sufficient in determining knowledge. I'm also struggling with deciding how similar certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon investigation, etc., is to justification.

Chapters 2 & 3

I enjoyed Lynch's explinations in these chapters. I found it refreshing and relieving to know that truth doesn't have to be based on absolute certainty. If we personally believe something to be true and have no sufficent reason for rejecting this truth than it is justified. I felt that this analysis was effective in helping us to obtain truth now that it seems obtainable. I don't agree with simple relativism because it is simple minded in our pursuit of the truth we have to be able to see that everything is not black and white, that would make things way to easy, and boring! Also truth as power is giving way to much power to one party and discrediting others. Power does not equal all knowing and neverwill. However, like Lynch says on pg.41 "context does matter", so as long as we don't slip into not finding truth relevant at all or not worth seeking than relativism can be a good thing. After reading ch. 2 I was more optimistic about being able to obtian truth because I realized that in order to do so all I had to do was challenge what my perspective of what truth is. While I was reading this chapter I kept thinking of the saying that there are 3 sides to an arguement my truth, your truth, and the real truth, whatever that may be, regardless it good to pursue the truth.

Also I'm sorry to my class mates that I will not be attending lab I have another class at this time but I did read the materials and will continue to keep up with what you all are doing and try to offer some insights or questions if you wish to respond that would be great and help me out a lot. I would love to know what you all discussed today and every Monday. The question I had about the articles for today was about conflicting truths; If I believe something to be true and feel that it is justified and you also beliecve something and feel that it is also justified who's truth is true when it is impecable that we don't have conflicting views for avoidence of pointless arguement reasons and also for the pursuit of truth reasons? In other words if I want to believe what is true how do I know when my beliefs are wrong, assuming that I don't have a problem with admitting that I am wrong, justification of knowledge? P.S I chose Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci for my painting

Relativism

I have to say that when I first began reading this book, I thought of myself as leaning toward the relativist perspective of truth that Lynch discusses in Chapter three. I think this is because I tend not to think of things in black and white but try to always look at the gray. The idea that there was this concrete truth about everything out in the world somewhere went against this. When Lynch first began to discuss the arguments of relativists at the beginning of the chapter, I liked most of what was being said. That he compared each person's perspective to having a veil drawn over his or her view of the world made sense. We can never fully see out of anyone's eyes but our own, so our perception is always colored. 

Still, after all this, I started to think about things that I feel I "know" to be true. I feel like I know the sky is blue and I really cannot see this being relative, unless I am colorblind or what I think is blue is not what blue really is. This seems unlikely. Then, once I got to the end of the chapter and Lynch remarked, "Truth doesn't always come in the same form," it all seemed to click. As far as I understand, Lynch is not throwing relativism out, but he is not saying it is the rule either. He addresses, finally, that there are different types of truths. There is a difference between truths of the physical world and those of our human-made world, as he puts it. I still think that truth is a concept near to impossible to pin down, but this distinction seems to make it clearer.

Another idea I found interesting that shows up in both chapters two and three is the concept that certainty is not necessary for truth. I have noticed while reading this book that language often gets in the way of what is being discussed. I think most of us have previously thought that certainty and truth go hand in hand, but it seems that Lynch is trying to separate them. His statement, "We can therefore pursue what is true without trying to aim at absolute certainty," reminds me of another quote, "Happiness is a journey not a place." While happiness and truth are completely different ideas, I feel like truth can still be inserted into this statement and it seems to describe what Lynch is saying. If we look at truth as a destination, then we will always be let down because we can never be certain that we will get there. If we see the search for truth as more of an ongoing process, then we can continuously strive for truth and become closer and closer.

Chap 2 & 3

I found Lynch's attack on relativism especially interesting:

If all truth is relative, then any positive truth claim about relativism itself is contradictory. Therefore, relativism is self-refuting in its dogmatic claim that all truth is relative.

On the surface, this seems like a very reasonable argument, but I believe there is some merit with regards to relativism, especially when the "truth" is not mathematically calculable. There is a tremendous difference between the truth value of a physics equation and whether or not Thomas Jefferson liked to collect stamps. I am starting to lose direction, so I will stop here, but if I can further my point at some future time I will do so.

chapters 2 and 3

This section of reading was interesting to me in that it addressed this issue of certainty and also the arguments of relatvism. To me he seems to be saying that the best way we have of deciding whether or not something is true is how well it seems to fit with our other beliefs and whether or not there is other good reasons to believe it. Complete certainty is probably impossible as Lynch sees it yet this does not mean we should not strive for truth because we can still have truth and find justification in believing this...after paths lab today I am very interested in how we are going to go about the idea of knowing, or if we will find a better answer for knowing, now that we have said that being justified in a believing a true belief is not the same as knowing something is true. I know that is not really his strongest concern for this book, instead he is more interested in convincing us of his truism than investigating how we can now the truth. Still it is interesting to think about. His end conclusion on relativism is soemthing I really liked by the time he finished explaining his stance. He seems to be taking a stance that there are objective truths but there can be mulitiple truths at ones, especially dealing with the human constructions in the world. His example I liked alot was the body of law where different laws can be true or false depending on the body of laws which they fit with; like drinking alcohol is illegal in some places and not others and these laws are still true in these places because laws are a human construct that is designed to reflect the needs and values of a society. This idea of looking at truth for the most part I can agree with but with the law example I become a little uneasy. Would this mean that a law created by one country that fits its system of laws is always true. I get that the law would be true insofar as it is true that it is a law but would it have to follow that it is true that it ought to be a law?

I Comment now that I Possess a Book

One of the things that I really want Lynch to tackle is the issues that seem to be a shade of gray when looked at even in an objective manner. Say for example, the statement “Sam’s dog is poorly trained” versus “Sam’s dog is well trained.” It might be the case that Sam’s dog is one or the other, but it could also be the case that Sam’s dog is somewhere in the middle of the two statements. Trying to decipher which one is the actual truth and the method of reaching this kind of conclusion is something that I hope Lynch tries to explain. There are few who would argue with the statement, “Peas are a vegetable” because biologically and anatomically this is true and we regard it as such. However, the statement “Peas are tasty” is a much more difficult truth to find. I’m not sure if there is a truth out there and some of us just have incorrect beliefs about peas, or if our perception makes it difficult if not impossible to ever discover the objective truth about pea tastiness.

I also had an issue with Lynch’s third goal in chapter 1; that truth is a worthy goal of inquiry. While in principle I understand and agree with this sentiment, the example he gave in the book can be compared to another case where it raises questions. He explained that someone can tell themselves that they have a blue flower growing out of their head, but no matter how many times they say it and try to believe it, it will never be the case. He uses this example to show how we have no control over our own beliefs since no one would purposely believe something that’s false. However, after hearing this example, it reminded me of the psychological experiment done with students in math classes. When students who were objectively bad at math (as in routinely were behind and scored in a mathematically low percentile on math problems by getting the wrong answer) were told to repeat to themselves that they loved math 30 times per day, their scores began to improve until one could no longer objectively say they were getting wrong answers anymore. In this sense, was the truth of the situation changed by sheer will? Or is it just a case of changing the circumstances changed the truth? Clearly the students had the potential always, making that true, but it wasn’t always the case that they had obtained said skills. Perhaps it’s just extrapolating an example out too far, but I’m curious to see if he will use an example like this one again.

Caring about truth for the sake of truth is what helps keep the mathematical and scientific communities afloat, and I definitely agree with Lynch on this point. Searching for truth for its immediate value is nothing if not shortsighted. It is through the search for the seemingly impractical that sometimes greater truths and discoveries are unearthed. Even if there is little practical benefit, the intrinsic value of discovering truth needs to keep value in society, just as music and art are of value to us despite their lacking the practicality of other jobs such as retail.

Some thoughts & a link to another article

If we take it to be true that we only believe things that we accept as true (insofar as if we thought something wasn’t true it’d be literally impossible to believe it), should we be concerned with whether the beliefs that we currently have and think are true really are true? That is, should we just accept that we have made no mistakes in our beliefs or should we, at minimum, be willing to change beliefs if there’s evidence of a belief being mistaken or, more challenging, be actively testing our beliefs to make sure that they are true?

One way of looking at the issue of truth is to ask ourselves what do we mean when we claim to have the truth or claim that a belief or statement is true?

A second issue, moving to the topic of knowledge, is what do we mean when we say that we know something? Under what circumstances can we reasonably be said to use know or knowledge correctly?

If I ask people to guess whether Caesar had on an even or odd number of hairs on his head when he died, at least some folks are going to guess accurately. Does this mean that I’m using know correctly if I say that at least some of these folks know whether there was an even or odd number of hairs on Caesar’s head?

The issue that we’re looking at here isn’t whether knowledge is possible (that is, whether we can ever know that we know – insofar as that appears to necessitate a level of certainty regarding the truth of our beliefs) but what are we alleging when we are alleging to know something? Similarly, we aren’t asking if or how we can get truth but what are we alleging when we allege that something is true?

Hopefully this either helps out or, at least, doesn’t make life more difficult for you.

If you found the first article manageable, go on to this one

Fourth Truism

Like some of you, I am not completely sold on Lynch's fourth truism, "truth is worth caring about for its own sake." I suppose I currently hold the view that Lynch describes as cynical on p. 2 of the introduction: that truth is valuable only as a way to achieve a desired result. To me, idealist that I am, the desired result for the majority of humanity is improvement: of technology, living conditions, and whatnot. Our society is constantly striving to discover new truths that will improve our understanding of the world and hopefully lead us to this improvement. There are others, however, who manipulate truth to achieve more selfish outcomes. The attainment of truth can give one leverage over those who do not really know the truth, as Lynch points out often happens in politics. Either way, I have difficulty following Lynch's assertion on p. 19 that truth matters because it is good, and thus is worth caring about. To me, truth is worth caring about because it enhances understanding. It will be interesting to see whether or not Lynch successfully supports his assertion that truth matters for its own sake, because I have a really hard time believing it to be true.

When I began reading this book, I was enthusiastic to discover that the author was concerned enough about truth in modern society (and, obviously, in general) to...write a book about it. In the Introduction, the author accurately pointed out that everyday  American citizens were quick to accept a rapidly changing succession of reasons and justifications for the Iraq invasion ranging from WMDs to democracy to regional stabilization (ha!). As with the Iraq example, American foreign and domestic policy abounds with such instances and often puts civil servants in positions where they engage in acting more than statecraft. We condemn Palestinian rocket attacks while we nicely ask Israel to show restraint, and we trade oil with the Venezuelans and Saudis while refusing to do the same with Iran and Sudan ( purportedly because we object to human rights violations in those nations). I think that in modern politics, there are so many contradictions in policy that most people have simply given up on "truth" and have chosen instead to modify their account of truth on the basis of their beliefs instead of the other way around. Accordingly, I think that Lynch's truism concerning the goodness of truth is particularly important. "More precisely, it is good to believe what is true" (12). 

It seems to me that this book is going to be one of those gentle reminders about the simplicity of truth in much the same way that Michael Pollan's most recent book informed millions of readers that eating vegetables was in fact healthy. In this regard, Lynch's book is both useful and important. I am bothered, however, by some of Lynch's analogies. I think that the basic ideas because the Introduction and Chapter 1 were solid, but I wonder if I'm misinterpreting them. For instance, Lynch states that we don't have to know everything about something in order to talk about it (11). He gives the example of his hard drive, with which he is vaguely familiar in the sense that it is made out of metal and plastic. "Our basic belief in truth's objectivity is like my basic idea of my computer hard drive," Lynch states. "We know the job of true beliefs, even if we don't know exactly how they get that job done. True beliefs are those that portray the world as it is and not as we may hope, fear or wish it to be" (12).

If we don't know much about the hard drive, what evidence is there that we know anything about the hard drive at all? Isn't the formation of a belief in the absence of information the problem in the first place? Is this book about our propensity to jump to conclusions with regard to the truth or about our habit of turning a blind eye to the truth? Or both?

Those Who Seek Truth

I have to admit that I was thinking exactly the same thing as Matt after reading Lynch's statement that only those whose lives are "filled with tragedy and poverty" would choose to live in the virtual "untrue" reality (15). I feel as though a majority of people, in a sense, choose to live in their own worlds, ignoring outside truths. Life is easier that way - less painful. I suppose, however, that since they believe their "world" to be truth then that is their "truth." Who are we to claim that our own truth is the most true? Lynch touched upon this concept of "multiple truths" and though it was initially confusing, I have to agree. Truth is, after all, objective. People that live in their own worlds and do not consciously seek truth believe their world is true just as wholeheartedly, if not more, that someone constantly striving for truth.

So why do some of us consciously seek truth while others seem content with their current truths? Which group do I fit into? Lynch uses the examples of people wanting to know when a spouse has been unfaithful and also of people choosing to be genetically tested so as to know whether they test positive for an untreatable disease. I have to admit that in both of these cases I would seek the truth. Painful though it may be, I would have to know. I think the reason certain people seek truth more than others is because they doubt their current truths. Those people who are stubbornly, arrogantly even, set in their current opinions, fear outside contradicting truths and therefore have no wish to seek them. 

Out of the shadows, into tears

When reading these pages I was reminded of a short story I had read in high school. It entailed a town in which everyone was happy. They enjoyed the best form of happiness in forms that could only be compared to heaven. Not a moment of sadness and not a moment they were not in joy. When the citizens come to a certain age they are taken to a room and shown a child in much agonizing pain. The child is constantly in that state and has been for his life. They are told that this is the  reason why they enjoy their happiness becouse this child suffers for  them. This child has been tortured, will be tortured, and the town will continue in happiness and not change. Every some years there are those that learn the truth, and walk away.

We come to an age in which we are shown the truth and some times we recede to the fact that ignorance is bliss. I am personally guilty of it when I went watched many differant independent documentaries until finally all the realizations of the world's problem wass to much to handle for one winter break that is meant to be fun. When we analyze the truth that is hid from us, we must also try to analyze if knowing would  actually give a venue for change, or would we rather not know and just carry on. Can we live in Iowa knowing that the home for Corn may be root of some world problems like world hunger, energy dependance, poverty, false input markets that we are relient on, and increasing cancer. Most of you may think all of these claims are out there, but these problems do have ties to our own home town of Iowa. If you knew these problems is why we have cheap food, gas, soda's, and other goods while also providing many jobs, would you walk away.     Taking this to the next level, their is a large group that believes that 9/11 was an inside operation carried out by the United States in order to take the U.S. to the next level and keep it way ahead in the global economy by increasind executive privilidge and foreign ocupations in lands with vital rescources. Since this is even harder to ever believe,  if this was true, would America want to know? Should other nations around the World know? What harm is it to cover up and move on?  With the atrocity that America may have done, would we continue to live there in happiness or would we walk away?

What's wrong with the red pill?

I agree with the sentiment of Lynch's fourth truism. If truth is good, then we should care about it for its own sake. But when analyzing this truism, he sets out to prove that we do indeed care about it for its own sake, which shook me a little--I didn't think that was the point.

Starting with his floating tank/Matrix experiment, I don't buy that there would be an across-the-board rejection of such an "untrue" existence. (In the Matrix, don't most of the people approached actually take the red pill? And then there's that one character who took a blue pill and was actively working to get back into virtual reality.) Lynch is correct to say that those whose lives are filled with tragedy and poverty would be inclined to choose the virtual world, but even one individual wouldn't make the same decision at different times. (My attitude is a little more resilient when I'm hopped up on caffeine and taking on the world, versus after being woken up very early in the morning after little sleep.) In a country where most people can't locate Indonesia on a map, I'm just not convinced that everyone is intrinsically motivated to pursue truth. It's not a given.

But that's not even the question here: According to his truism, it doesn't matter whether or not we do care about truth for its own sake--just about whether or not we should.

Theoretically, it makes sense that truth is worth caring about (if it's "good"). But later on, he rejects the idea that there is only One Truth. And that leads me to ask, how do you choose between multiple truths if multiple truths exist? As has been already addressed in other posts, virtual reality is, while an "untrue" simulation of one's previous existence, it can also be looked at as another existence entirely--another set of truths. Is it possible for those two contradictory truths to run parallel to each other? (This is where if I knew a little bit more about physics I'd say something about light being both a particle and a wave, but that's about all I know). If it's impossible to believe both truths (since they contradict; either your world is the real world or your world is virtual), but when both truths can exist, disregarding one would be disregarding the notion of an objective, all-encompassing set of truths, how do you reconcile that?

Matt McGuire

The Value of Truth

I think that Lynch, for the sake of his own argument did a pretty good job of steering us towards the right way of thinking about "truth" in his introduction and in this first chapter. These truisms he lists, describe how we should pursue our study of truth (what it is and why it matters). Truth is a value. When you think of it this way it places a greater meaning to what Lynch believes, just as integrity is a value, or caring or love or trustworthiness. A value is something that influences how we live, as Lynch points out in his introduction. Additionally, he claims the purpose of a philosopher is to point out what is already a part of our everyday lives. Truth is one such point which, until viewed in this way, was just a matter of accurate fact. What is correct and what is incorrect rather than what should we believe, what is good for us to believe, and what is untrue. Lynch wants us to see truth on a higher level. I think that many of us were confused when we first read and try to understand Lynches theory... as Meredith pointed out we feel as though we are talking and reading in circles. The idea of these four truisms, all grounded on the idea that truth is a value, helps to define Lynches objective, to prove to us that truth matters.

I would like to further comment on the relationship between truth and accuracy. I was recently looking over a friends JMC 66 text in which they discussed the difference between the two in the context of journalism. Is it better to produce accurate accounts of an event or to attempt to find out the "truth", a concept which was equally praised and equally ill defined in this text as in "TRUE to LIFE". This got me thinking. What is the difference? Are both equally or exclusively important? The idea of objectivity in truth also comes to mind. An idea, such as the earth is flat, is accurate in our own minds as in reality until we have gathered enough information to prove that it is inaccurate. Therefore are we sure we know what we know to be true without taking the opportunity to discover the truth for ourselves? Certainty, as Lynch claims to be impossible, therefore can never be obtained if truth is to be considered objective.

Whitney Michaels

Sacred Truth

It is often the case in science, philosophy, and society that we take for granted the notion of truth, and take great offense to its scrutinization. Truth is one of few human concepts regarded as impermeable, and we place great value on it and its reassuring nature. To paraphrase the professor of my Technoscience and Culture class, Dr. Schneider, "with the advent of quantum theory and its resulting uncertainties, there are subtle grumblings among the scientific community about the validity of the Newtonian notion of Truth, along with its calculated certainties and its perfect congruencies". Lynch is proposing exactly the opposite; that truth exists and it is right in front of us, objective yet veiled by our own biases. I am not quite sure where I stand between the two!


I think this class (Paths) will prove to be an interesting dichotomy in conjunction with Technosci!

Voltaire, etc.

When reading the first section, I was most struck by Voltaire's definition of truth. As Lynch mentions, he meant for the statement to be a joke because no one can ever believe, or consider true, more than the facts that currently exist. This is perhaps one of the most obvious observations in the chapter. However, as others have mentioned, it brings forward the fluid nature of truth as a concept, as well as a reality. Because it is ever-evolving, truth requires work, as Lynch asserts. However, I disagree with his assumption that belief and truth are always closely tied. Religious zealots are certain they believe in the only truth that exists, whether or not that so-called truth is morally, ethically or scientifically correct. Lynch later goes on to state, "...truth is a property that is good for beliefs to have." In this, he seems to remedy his earlier assertion and balance the need for truth in beliefs. Basically, the relationship is such that each can exist without the other, but that the best beliefs are indeed those that are true.

When thinking about this, I began to consider the concept of personal conviction and its relationship to belief, and, ultimately, truth. I tend to think of personal conviction as the set of beliefs an individual considers true. However, I think that conviction also measures a set of morals and ethics that seem to have no influence on truth. Perhaps this is taking the conversation out of context, but it is simply what came to mind when I was reading the chapter.

"The more I learn the less I know"

While reading this first chapter on truth it reminded of something that my grandmother would say, "The more I learn the less I know." Although we may believe that we know the truth what we believe to be the truth may not be the truth at all. However what I took Lynch's point to be that this dosen't mean that the truth dosn't matter it matters very much. Just because truth is objective doesn't make it any less important of a virtue. Also there is nothing wrong with finding a new truth, "Caring about truth does not mean never having to admit you were wrong (3)." So in order to keep aiming at the goal, the truth, we must keep an open mind, think outside of the box, and admit our mistakes even though it may be hard at times.

Michelle I'm not sure if I'm right or this will help but what I think that he is explaining when he talks about truth being objective is something like this: Let's say you have a neice or nephew who is young around 3 or so and when you ask she/he what your name is he says "Shelly." Does that mean that that child is being untruthful because they honestly have been taught and think that your name is Shelly? After all it is completely rational for this child to have called you Shelly, yet it was mistaken. However, once someone teaches the child that your name is actually Michelle and that child learns that she/he can never truly belive that your name is Shelly agian.

Meredith I agree with your statement about the truth is objective depending on individuals experiences and your talk about the virtual world. I think this is what the author tries to point out when talking about the matrix, but using a reverse scenerio. All the charater Neo knows is what most of us know as "the real world" and he comes to find out the matrix is reality, I enjoyed this example and though it illustrated his point well.

I agree with you all, it is hard to delineate what Lynch is saying because of the repetitiveness in the chapter, but also because the idea of "truth" is something we've used all of our lives and now are suddenly forced to think about it in an entirely different way. I see what Leslie said about the confusion behind reality and truth. What we believe to be true is only true until we prove it false, which as we know from history and the reading (the earth being round and not flat) happens often. Truths are fluid ideas that always have the ability to become untrue. I feel like this topic relates to the three levels of knowledge we discusses in class on Tuesday. The possessive knowledge truths are things that are highly unlikely to be disproved, for example, my name is Michelle. It will probably stay that way for the rest of my life, however, like many truths it can change, but it's highly unlikely. But, if you go to the second of third levels of knowledge, (performative and proactive), these would be fluid truths, maybe opinions, or naive ideas. They may or may not be actually true, but because we believe they are at some time, for that moment they are our truths.
I'm confusing myself now, but I'm trying to make sense of all of this.

In response to the last posed question: "do you think that saying that you care about truth because you like to be right is the same thing or is that using truth as a tool to form right beliefs and opinions?" I think those are two different views of why truth is valued. As Lynch says, "Truth is worthy caring about for its own sake," but I think each individual sees that "sake" as something different. For some, it may be the strength of being right or knowing as many of the answers in life as possible, where for others using others' truths is how they form their opinions.

truisms about truth continueing the conversation

"Truth is objective depending on their individual experiences. Those in the virtual world may be being deceived, but they wouldn't know that. Their world would still be the truth as far as we know it." Merideth, in response to Leslie

If I understand what Merideth is saying in her post then my thinking on this problem you both seem to have come upon is the argument stated by lynch as the difference between the truth, beliefs, and true beliefs. He argues that people in holding beliefs hold these beliefs because they believe these beliefs to be true and we can not make ourselves believe something that we know is false. Yet, just because we believe something to be the truth does not mean it is the truth. He uses the example of phlogiston theory which was believed to be true by scientists yet we now know is not true. When he says truth is objective he means that no matter who you are or what you are these truths still hold true we are just unaware of it. Thus, for those in the virtual world, even though they don't know that they have been deceived the virtual world is not true even if no one is around outside of it know better. It would just be believed to be true but still be false. I think this is what Lynch was getting at when he was talking about truth being objective. There is no truth for me or us and a truth for you or them just a truth, that may be known by some of us or all of us or none of us, but it is the truth for all. And as for the issue of whether it matters what the truth is. I would bet as far as our desire for it goes I think for the most part there is very little people would rather hold false beliefs about if they knew how to obtain the truth. however, for your example of being lied to about the war being different for you than lying to parents about grades, I think a key difference might be that we desire to know the truth but are perhaps not as compelled to tell it. I am curious in the argument for the fourth truism (17) when truth is compared to love in that it is cared about for the sake of itself rather than as a tool, do you think that saying that you care about truth because you like to be right is the same thing or is that using truth as a tool to form right beliefs and opinions?

I believe that Meredith and Leslie have identified one of the points I had the hardest time with in this section of reading. I was slightly confused to begin with about Lynch's example, as it led me to question if truth could be a relative concept. At first, I felt it detracted from the overall argument, and in fact led me away from his point. It took a closer second reading to get another layer of meaning from it.

To those contained within the vat, in Lynch's example, they would perceive that which their mind saw as true. They would believe that where they were was, in fact, real. This would be an honest, and true belief. The delineation here is that it is referring to a true belief, not a true fact. Truth is not a subjective thing; something either is, or is not. Our perception may make us hold a true belief that we know the truth, but it does not mean that we know the truth.

Truisms about truth continuing the conversation

"Truth is objective depending on their individual experiences. Those in the virtual world may be being deceived, but they wouldn't know that. Their world would still be the truth as far as we know it." Merideth, in response to Leslie

If I understand what Merideth is saying in her post then my thinking on this problem you both seem to have come upon is the argument stated by lynch as the difference between the truth, beliefs, and true beliefs. He argues that people in holding beliefs hold these beliefs because they believe these beliefs to be true and we can not make ourselves believe something that we know is false. Yet, just because we believe something to be the truth does not mean it is the truth. He uses the example of phlogiston theory which was believed to be true by scientists yet we now know is not true. When he says truth is objective he means that no matter who you are or what you are these truths still hold true we are just unaware of it. Thus, for those in the virtual world, even though they don't know that they have been deceived the virtual world is not true even if no one is around outside of it know better. It would just be believed to be true but still be false. I think this is what Lynch was getting at when he was talking about truth being objective. There is no truth for me or us and a truth for you or them just a truth, that may be known by some of us or all of us or none of us, but it is the truth for all. And as for the issue of whether it matters what the truth is. I would bet as far as our desire for it goes I think for the most part there is very little people would rather hold false beliefs about if they knew how to obtain the truth. however, for your example of being lied to about the war being different for you than lying to parents about grades, I think a key difference might be that we desire to know the truth but are perhaps not as compelled to tell it. I am curious in the argument for the fourth truism (17) when truth is compared to love in that it is cared about for the sake of itself rather than as a tool, do you think that saying that you care about truth because you like to be right is the same thing or is that using truth as a tool to form right beliefs and opinions?

True to Life

"If we do not know that we are being deceived, isn't it still the truth as far as we know it?" (From Leslie's post)

I had almost the same thought as Leslie did when I was reading Lynch's example of the virtual reality tank on page 15. Lynch makes the point of saying that truth is objective because we don't know everything and we can make mistakes (pg. 11). Once inside the virtual reality machine, our reality would become the life inside that machine. We wouldn't know anything else, and we would have no memory of any other world. Therefore, because we don't know everything, we would make the mistake of thinking that our virtual world was the true world. Others in the real world would say that this world is virtual or fake. However, those living in the virtual world would believe that theirs was real and true. Truth is objective depending on their individual experiences. Those in the virtual world may be being deceived, but they wouldn't know that. Their world would still be the truth as far as we know it.

True to Life Response

The introduction and first chapter of True to Life were a little hard for me to get through. I felt like Lynch was talking in circles, but after a few readings there was one big question that I had lingering in my mind. Do we weigh truths? By that I mean does it matter what the truth pertains to? The opening page of the book explores the government’s “lie” about nuclear weapons and the subsequent war in Iraq. I feel that this untruth is appalling. But I do not find it appalling to lie, or mislead, my parents when they ask how my grades are. But then I suppose that leads to another question: is the opposite of truth a lie?

So, back to my initial question: does it matter what the truth pertains to? Or are all truths treated equally? Do we, as humans, value truth differently depending on where we find it or from whom we hear it? I’m not sure that I can buy Lynch’s arguments until I understand fully what type of truth he refers to. He was right when he said that it’s almost impossible to define truth, yet I think that defining truth is pertinent before I can understand his arguments. While I think Lynch does touch on several definitions of what truth is (such as quoting Voltaire’s argument that truth is “a statement of the facts as they are,” or that it is a means of evaluating our beliefs) he never ties down one concrete idea. And this is really bothering me.

I found his argument that it is not the truth itself that matters but rather where the truth leads us that matters. When we are not told the truth, we feel mislead and disappointed, often losing a little bit of trust in the source of the information. So, maybe it’s trust that we value more than the truth itself. This leads me to wonder if truth really matters, though. If we never know the real truth, we never know that we don’t know the truth. That is (to use a terrible riddle) if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If we do not know that we are being deceived, isn't it still the truth as far as we know it?

I’ve successfully talked myself in circles, but to conclude, I think Lynch is very provocative even though his arguments are still a little confusing to me and I am still trying to grasp exactly what kind of truth he refers to.

Truisms about Truth

First off, this is a great way to set the tone of this book.  The author has already stated that he believes that truth matters (as clearly written on the cover).  To talk about "truisms of truth" is the author's way of having the reader buy into the idea that truth is somehow discoverable.  Furthermore the truisms that he identifies are difficult to disagree with when you are examining truth as a concept rather than attempting to nail it down as a concrete image.  This is what Lynch asks us to do with his first truism "truth is objective."  He cites Voltaire "let us define truth, while waiting for a better definition... as a statement of facts as they are." This effectively sums up the argument for his first point, a truth that is may not be a truth forever.  Lynch says his second point is, "it is good to believe what is true." (pg. 12) This relates to its use both as synonym for good or just and because it seems to give greater meaning to the beliefs that we have that are deemed most true.  The third truism, "truth is a worthy goal of inquiry," is especially relevant in the context of point two.  If truth is good then there is good reason for one to strive to understand it.  The final point, "truth is worth caring about for its own sake," identifies truth as something good just because it is truth.  The examples of alternate realities that Lynch identifies demonstrate how it is better to experience something rather than to appear to experience it.  This final point assumes a compliant reader.  A reader who doesn't agree with the definitions that truth is good or to strive for it is worthwhile may not see the inherent value in truth.

Article for our first lab meeting (Monday afternoon 3-3:50)

In addition to sharing with each other the painting that you have chosen, we will, during our first lab meeting, discuss Gettier's article "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge" which can be found at this link. You will have to have logged into the University's library system to access this article as it is through JSTOR.

Hopes & Expectations

So, we are about to begin a semester together in Paths to Knowledge. This is my first time teaching this class, though I've taught a Theories of Knowledge or Epistemology course at least twice. I'm looking forward to this course and discussing the books and your projects. I'm curious, though, as we embark on this semester what your expectations and hopes are for this semester. What have you heard about me or other Paths classes and what have these things led you to expect? What do you hope you will get out of this class? This is a required course for Honors, what are your thoughts on that? How do you see this course fitting in with the rest of your Honors curriculum? These are questions we'll discuss on the first day of class, but if you want to toss out some ideas here, please feel free.

The way we will keep track of who is writing what is to have everyone "label" their posts with their name (in the bottom right corner of the posting window when your posting). So, if you could get in the practice of "labelling" your posts with at least your name, I'd appreciate it.

Ah, here it is

Well, here we go, our very own blog. This is a place for all of us to fulfill our blogging requirements for this course. I'm going to try to make is so that everyone can post here, but I have a hunch that this will not be possible and that you all will have to post as "comments" to my posts. I'll get to work on this.

Well, there we go. If you are reading this, it's probably because you either are really bored and were looking for something related to our class or you received an invitation to be able to post on this blog site. Hopefully it's the latter.

You all should have received the list of books and I'll be sending out the current version of the syllabus for you in a few moments or, better, when you email me telling me that you've gotten to this site.

I hope that your break has gone and is continuing to go well.

JMc