Question 6: “There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false’. Discuss this claim.
True and false are binary opposites, two notions that are constantly used to differentiate statements or theories that are believed to be correct from those that are incorrect. Their definitions already seem to suggest that there is a fundamental distinction between truth and falseness. Nonetheless, I plan to consider the implications of determining something as true or false, and whether distinctions between these two notions are objective or subjective. The differences between true and false in several areas of knowledge – natural sciences, ethics and history – will also be evaluated, taking into account the ways of knowing utilized. I intend to argue that there are no discernable absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false, because they are notions that are relative to a person.
In natural sciences, theories are investigated so that they can be deemed true or false. This is accomplished through the scientific method, which relies on experimenting and analyzing results. Since this is a structured process, a theory can be proven multiple times by different people to consolidate its validity. The use of sense perception in this case is quite reliable, as the experiment is repeated. Another important way of knowing applied is reasoning, through induction and deduction. Deduction involves applying general rules to a specific situation. On the other hand, induction involves moving from specific examples to a general rule; for example, in physics I completed an experiment during which I investigated the correlation between the height a ball bounced and the temperature the ball was at. Since everybody in the class got the same trend, we concluded that in general, the hotter a ball is, the higher it would bounce. Because this rule was proven by the entire class, it is difficult to argue that this is not an absolutely true theory, distinctive from a false theory, such as ‘the hotter a ball is, the lower it would bounce’. Therefore, it appears that in natural sciences, because an objective truth exists, there are absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false.
However, the flaws in the methodology of science must be noted. Many problems may occur as a result of using inductive reasoning. Twenty students in the same room using the same apparatus proved the aforementioned correlation between temperature and height reached; this is a very limited sample. Similarly, since it is impossible to test every possible situation, scientific theories are only true to some extent. Furthermore, confirmation bias may also influence people to ignore anomalies, as the desire to prove a theory may affect one’s rationality. The way of knowing used to collect data, sense perception, is also flawed. Though people must rely on their senses for everyday life in order to function, what each individual perceives may not be reality. Phenomenalists would argue that what we observe is an interpretation of the truth and never the truth itself. Hence, in terms of our own knowledge, we can never be certain about anything that we perceive. For example, my red is different from the red of a red-green colour blind person. In fact, there might not be an absolute colour at all, since how can we know if our perception is the same as another person’s? Hence, even if there are actually absolute distinctions, it is impossible to be sure if the distinctions we perceive are real or altered by our perception.
In history, the truth is determined through collecting myriad sources which prove that a certain event happened in a particular way. Thus, the absolute distinction between what is true and what is false appears to be obvious – what actually occurred is true and all other accounts are false. The methodology of history is very thorough, taking into account the reliability of sources and using a wide variety of evidence to support a theory. Hence, historical claims are generally viewed as accurate. Though some may argue that historical claims are vague since not every detail of an event can be determined, it is indeed difficult to assert that certain events occurred. For example, how can anyone say that nuclear bombs didn’t fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when there is radioactive residue in those areas, American and Japanese eye witnesses and written accounts of what happened? Additionally, the conditions that a historical argument must fulfill, such as those set out by C. Behan McCullagh, assures that it would be the most plausible hypothesis that fits in with the majority of sources, and is ‘implied less strongly’ than other possible hypotheses.
However, the logic used to determine how an event occurred is problematic as it can be influenced by one’s nationality or culture. A clear example of this is the recent debate over whether the Diaoyutai, or Sentaku, Islands belong to Taiwan or Japan . Whilst some would argue that there should be an absolute truth underlying the issue, I believe that both sides have valid reasons to believe that the islands belong to them. The Japanese government declared that the islands are intrinsically part of Japan , as the islands have been historically used by the Japanese. On the other hand, the Chinese government argues that when the Japanese signed the Potsdam Declaration, the ownership reverts back to Taiwan . Both are correct in their own ways, since the nations are simply interpreting events from different perspectives. Depending on the individual, and which side he or she supports, a viewpoint would be distinctively true; hence, in general there is no absolute truth. Moreover, even the conditions set out for historical reasoning are redundant, since it still allows a person to think that a claim is more plausible than another because of bias. Thus, the existence of absolute distinctions between true and false historical claims is questionable.
The concepts of truth and falsity are also present in ethics, as different ethical theories attempt to define when a statement regarding morality is true or false. The divine command theory states that God dictates morality; in other words, what God commands is good, and what he prohibits is bad. This is usually based on the teachings of the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments. Since God’s will is objective, there must thus be absolute distinctions between true statements and false statements regarding morality. Another ethical theory that can be considered is utilitarianism, in which happiness is the indicator of morality, aiming for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Consider the statement ‘nuclear bombs are beneficial for the world’; this could be determined as true because the existence of nuclear weapons has been a factor that has prevented nations from raging war on each other. Since people are happy as there is stability, according to utilitarianism this would be a truthful statement. Again, there appears to be an absolute truth that is distinguished from falseness.
Divine command theory has been criticized heavily, and is opposed by the Euthyphro dilemma. Essentially, this dilemma is a question: ‘Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?’. If the answer is the first part, then morality would be independent of God; since God is the creator of the Universe, surely he should be responsible for creating morality as well? Thus, the answer must be the second part. Yet, if the second part is the answer, does that mean if God commanded murder, it would be a morally righteous act? These questions are difficult, if not impossible, to answer, suggesting that divine command theory is flawed and cannot be used. Utilitarianism has similar problems: since happiness is an emotion, which is subjective, moral statements can only be deemed true or false by an individual. The opposite of the aforementioned statement, ‘nuclear bombs are not beneficial for the world’, can also be logically said to be true according to utilitarianism. I could argue that since there is a risk of accidental detonation, people’s lives are at risk. Hence, they are unhappy with the existence of nuclear bombs, which renders the statement true. If this is the case, utilitarianism does not provide an absolute truth, which means that there are no absolute distinctions either.
In order to be functional, anything that has sufficient evidence to prove it correct is deemed true, and is distinguished from false notions. This occurs in the natural science, as scientific theories are proven to be true through extensive experimentation. Although this suggests that there should be absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false, the flaws in sense perception and reasoning reflect the limited accuracy of scientific theories. On the other hand, historical claims, especially statements simply declaring that an event had happened, are much harder to debunk. Yet, the validity of such claims is also questionable because of the effect of emotion, such as bias, on logic. Finally, though divine command theory and utilitarianism seem to be objective in determining what moral statements are truths, true and false in ethics is actually dependent on subjective judgment. I believe that though an individual may perceive there to be absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false, these distinctions cannot be translated into reality.
Thanks for following this site once again!
No comments:
Post a Comment