Theories of Truth: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There appear to be two sides to the coin when determining 'what is truth?'. There is an objective school and a pragmatic school for truth. The objective school represents notions that are true independent of their value to the student. In the subjective school, a notion is true if its acceptance maintains a higher living standard than its dismissal or questioning by the student. The pragmatic truth is maintained by refusal to question its origins and dismissal of possible alternatives if desirable. For example, <!---religious beliefs have a certain pragmatic truth to them, independent of their objective truth content. Similarly, ---> scientific paradigm shifts may be somewhat resisted by scientists who have spent a lot of energy on a certain idea that is being undermined by a new, objective truth. This commitment on the scientists' behalf imparts a subjective, pragmatic property to them, hampering an objective investigation into their origins and possible alternatives. Therefore, considerable resistance can be expected for large paradigm shifts where there exists a correspondingly large gap between pragmatic and objective truth. | There appear to be two sides to the coin when determining 'what is truth?'. There is an objective school and a pragmatic school for truth. The objective school represents notions that are true independent of their value to the student. In the subjective school, a notion is true if its acceptance maintains a higher living standard than its dismissal or questioning by the student. The pragmatic truth is maintained by refusal to question its origins and dismissal of possible alternatives if desirable. For example, <!---religious beliefs have a certain pragmatic truth to them, independent of their objective truth content. Similarly, ---> scientific paradigm shifts may be somewhat resisted by scientists who have spent a lot of energy on a certain idea that is being undermined by a new, objective truth. This commitment on the scientists' behalf imparts a subjective, pragmatic property to them, hampering an objective investigation into their origins and possible alternatives. Therefore, considerable resistance can be expected for large paradigm shifts where there exists a correspondingly large gap between pragmatic and objective truth. | ||
To students of the objective school, the subjective school can be seen as an institution built | To students of the objective school, the subjective school can be seen as an institution built upon logical fallacies and its rectification can be seen as desirable. However, it would be harmful to teach objective truths to students of the subjective school when they benefit emotionally, financially or socially from the subjective truth. Only when truthfulness of a certain notion does not provide any pragmatic benefit to their owner, will and should an objective investigation be readily accepted and encouraged. Where a notion is pragmatically true but objectively false (or vice versa), differences in belief have potential to fuel ardent debate. The fly in the ointment in these cases is often in the differing subscription to schools of truth rather than in any specific argument of the quarreling parties. This could explain the persistence of debates on matters such as religion. Where a notion is both pragmatically and objectively true, both students enjoy a high living standard with the objective student being more inquisitive on the origin of the truth. | ||
Revision as of 00:12, 2 May 2015
There appear to be two sides to the coin when determining 'what is truth?'. There is an objective school and a pragmatic school for truth. The objective school represents notions that are true independent of their value to the student. In the subjective school, a notion is true if its acceptance maintains a higher living standard than its dismissal or questioning by the student. The pragmatic truth is maintained by refusal to question its origins and dismissal of possible alternatives if desirable. For example, scientific paradigm shifts may be somewhat resisted by scientists who have spent a lot of energy on a certain idea that is being undermined by a new, objective truth. This commitment on the scientists' behalf imparts a subjective, pragmatic property to them, hampering an objective investigation into their origins and possible alternatives. Therefore, considerable resistance can be expected for large paradigm shifts where there exists a correspondingly large gap between pragmatic and objective truth.
To students of the objective school, the subjective school can be seen as an institution built upon logical fallacies and its rectification can be seen as desirable. However, it would be harmful to teach objective truths to students of the subjective school when they benefit emotionally, financially or socially from the subjective truth. Only when truthfulness of a certain notion does not provide any pragmatic benefit to their owner, will and should an objective investigation be readily accepted and encouraged. Where a notion is pragmatically true but objectively false (or vice versa), differences in belief have potential to fuel ardent debate. The fly in the ointment in these cases is often in the differing subscription to schools of truth rather than in any specific argument of the quarreling parties. This could explain the persistence of debates on matters such as religion. Where a notion is both pragmatically and objectively true, both students enjoy a high living standard with the objective student being more inquisitive on the origin of the truth.