“They won’t listen. Do you know why? Because they have certain fixed notions about the past. Any change would be blasphemy in their eyes, even if it were the truth. They don’t want the truth; they want their traditions.”
― Isaac Asimov

We were using language and communication not only to express a statement but also to get a better understanding of the things and events around us. Those types of claims were known as four types of knowledge: semantic, systemic, logical, and empirical which could lead us to determine truth. All of them had different approaches and the method used was distinct for each of them.  

Semantic knowledge was one of the most accessible types of knowledge and it was based on the meaning of the words that could be found in dictionaries. The sense of the words was the same in any vocabulary, no matter in which language was translated. That type of knowledge was not questioned, and it was accepted as it was presented because it had the best possible definition and meaning for the words. “Knowledge of words is knowledge of definitions.  Such definitions are set in dictionaries.” 

Systemic knowledge was based on a set of rules related to one another, and any following claim would comply with those standards. That method was mostly used in Mathematics and Geometry, where was presented as a set of rules applied to any other problem of that kind. For example, a triangle had three sides, and the sum of all angles was 180 degrees, and to determine the sides or angles would always follow certain steps to determine them. Those were universal laws that applied and were never changing and were not leaving any space for interpretation as it was proved and demonstrated, and every time it came to the same results. “The result of learning a system of words, or symbols and how they relate to one another and the rules of operating in that system and then any claims made that are consistent with those definitions and rules is called knowledge.”  

Claims could be determined to be true or false with logical knowledge, and this was possible with the ability to verify the relationship between concepts. That type of knowledge was built on laws of logic already accepted and would predict further statements. Usually, when two statements were true the third one was also true by comparison and common sense. For example, if we asked how chicks were born, and we know that a chicken hatched from an egg, and the mother of the chick was the chicken, using rationality we could affirm also that the chick hatched from an egg too. “There are the rules or laws of logic that permit claims to knowledge that are further statements of ideas consistent with the rules and the ideas already accepted.” 

Empirical knowledge was the most commonly used for science based on observation and the use of senses could be determined by the justified true belief. The empirical knowledge could be verified, tested, used evidence, and evaluated. To determine the truth based on that type of knowledge the results needed to be the same every time it was used, otherwise, the results would reflect errors. For that type of knowledge were used four different theories to determine the truth: correspondence, coherence, pragmatist, and scientific. “Scientific knowledge is a result of the practice of the method:  Observation, abduction of a hypothesis, careful observation, refinement of hypothesis, deduction of test for the hypothesis, testing, and experimentation, confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis.” 

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”
― Immanuel Kant

The correspondence theory was based on the belief that a claim was true if it could relate to reality, based on facts. Unfortunately, in the case of the correspondence theory, the statement had to be reflected in real life and was not dependent on our ideas, thoughts, or perception; however, in certain situations, the claims couldn’t be tested and couldn’t solve the problem. “Correspondence does get at a test that cannot be overlooked although its past defenders may have been too narrow in their application. Correspondence may still be too narrowly defined to omit application to a variety of truths. If the truth can be defined as a correct understanding of what is, then a statement should seek to correspond to reality as nearly as it can be understood.” In other words, the results of those tests could be subjective and left space for doubts. However, from a limited perspective, some details could be omitted, and the results could be incomplete. “This theory is a test between what I believe about certain facts and the facts themselves.” In the case of claims about the Universe, God, spirits, and soul those theories couldn’t be certain and able to prove facts, and we would be able to still have doubts and to get results based on beliefs and not on truth. 

The coherence theory demonstrated how scientists could use a system of claims previously accepted to present arguments about extremely larger and minor things. That theory asserted that using a method to perform an experiment at a smaller scale would be also true on a larger scale, for example using the pressure to transform sedimentary rocks into metamorphic ones. In a lab, pressure could be determined, measured, and presented as the result applicable to a larger scale. However, that theory could lead to a couple of problems, and those results could present false judgments or could have errors. Also, the statements applied to a larger scale couldn’t be applied directly and was possible that the truth would be different than the demonstration at a smaller level.  

The pragmatic theory was the principle that a statement was true when it presented real results. “For pragmatists like Richard Rorty, there is no objective truth at all.  All claims need only satisfy the group’s expectations for verification.  Science is just one of many groups with its own rules and criteria.  As there are multiple groups with different criteria there can be multiple truths. “ Rorty, therefore, highlighted nature as “created” rather than “discovered” and he was primarily satisfied with pointing out the mistake of striving to achieve objective reality. The biggest issue with the theory was that it made truth relative and accepted the claims of being true and not true at the same time and that there was no absolute truth and knowledge.  

For the scientific theory were several views that were effective in its different stages: instrumentalist, realist, and conceptual relativist. For the instrumentalist view, one way for the scientific theory to work was through predictions that were verified; that view used the pragmatist theory.  From the realist view, empirical testing provided true explanations for the predictions using correspondence theory. For the conceptual relativist, the scientific theory fitted with a system of beliefs given in a framework, using the coherence theory. In the end, maybe the truth about empirical statements was the claim that fitted fact, aligned with and was compatible with other established facts, and had practical benefits for the people involved. “This may be the best explanation that humans have for what and how they know what they claim to know.  It is not totally satisfying to all critical inquirers, but it is more well-founded within human experience than the position that there is no knowledge at all or that there is no knowledge that is objective, or that there is no knowledge that is certain.  There are types or forms of knowledge and within each, there are the means to establish the justification for making and accepting claims.” 

“The fundament upon which all our knowledge and learning rests is the inexplicable.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

Could there be simultaneous multiple truths for each type of claim?  For any type of claim?  We understood and accepted that one person’s beliefs would not agree with another person’s beliefs and so what may be believed to be true to one person may not be believed to be true to the second person.  Does that mean that they were both correct?  Was entitled to each group and to each person to their own truth? Does that apply to all claims? What was to be done when there was a conflict between two different “truths” concerning claims that were semantic, systemic, logical, or empirical? Does the outcome of the conflict determine what the truth was?   

In the same way, multiple realities based on experiences and beliefs, some people from postmodernism, supported the idea that could exist multiple truths. However, that would not make the justified truth as they were not supported by evidence and doubts would still exist. Therefore, multiple truths were not possible to exist with any of the types of knowledge: semantic, systemic, logical, or empirical.  

For the semantic claim, it was not possible to be and not be true at the same time. According to the dictionary, we could only be on one side of a locked door, and it was impossible to be at the same time on both sides simultaneously. Hence, the claim did not support the theory of multiple truths.  

The systemic claim based on a set of rules the way related to one another stated that the sum of all angles of a triangle was 180 degrees. According to multiple truths, that would mean that the sum was and it was not 180 degrees, both at the same time, which made the truth impossible and conflicted.  

For the logical claims, the statement based on rationality compared to possibilities and concluded the third one. If the daytime was light and the nighttime was dark, they couldn’t exist both at the same time. According to multiple truths, the claim couldn’t apply also, as it was impossible to have two different things at the same time: hot/cold, day/night, dirty/clean.  

The empirical claims it was based on evidence and fundamental for science. However, if an experiment was conducted it couldn’t be true and false at the same time, and a species of birds couldn’t have and not have offspring at the same time. The claim also it was impossible to support multiple truths.  

 “Some people do prefer to live in a thought world where priests and mullahs claim to decide what is true. Others prefer to live in a thought-world where ideas about what is true are lenient, flexible, fuzzy around the edges; where it is possible to sort-of-believe, half-believe, and half-hope, believe in an as if or storytelling or daydreaming way.” In other words, there were people that lived their lives based on beliefs and left others to decide what was the best way for them, without taking those aspects seriously. For those, the truth seemed to not matter, and they would believe the one they trusted and live their life accordingly.  

For another category of people, to know the truth was something important, as they couldn’t conceive a life without knowing what was rational and important to know. For them knowing the truth was a state of achievement, that brought happiness and self-confidence. They were living in a world where doubts and bias were not a way of following their achievements. “And one last good reason for thinking that truth matters, it seems to us, is all about preferences, in the largest and most humanly important sense. It’s about happiness, flourishing, enthusiasm, what makes life worth living, why we prefer being awake to being asleep, and why it’s a privilege to be human. It’s about why the truth matters. Really matters. Not in a dull perfunctory dutiful sense, but in a real, lived, felt sense – “on the pulses,” as Keats put it.” 

For empirical claims, warrants were founded in evidence, and those could be collected, observed, analyzed, and evaluated. In the case of studying reality and merits, were known four types of beliefs: the knowledge based on warranted true principles, lucky guesses or coincidences based on unwarranted true opinions, the one that couldn’t exist known as warranted false theories, and the last one based on unsupported claims that were not truly known as unwarranted false views. For a claim to hold a theory it needed to have justification and facts, and that was based on the amount of evidence need it or the consequences. When we were looking for a claim that did not hold too much value, the evidence would be accepted as little as someone’s word. If the price to pay or to receive was higher, the justification would be much higher, and more valuable evidence would need it. For scientists, the evidence would imply that an experiment to be conducted as many times as necessary and to lead to the same result all the time, therefore it should be based on warranted true principles. In conclusion, claims that were based on justification and accurate standards were the only ones that could solve for truth because the data collected from scientists could be verified and the experiment was conducted many times with the same results. “So, claims to know may be accepted depending on amounts of support that may vary in the type and amount depending on the type of claim that it is.  However, to know something that which you claim to know must be TRUE and truth does not have degrees: because a statement p is either true or it isn’t.”  

“Philosophy … is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

There were different beliefs that lead to conflicted conversations, but the truth would not be found by force, exerting power, or shouting out loud. The outcome of the conflict did not determine what the truth was but using different types of knowledge we could test and identify if that claim was applicable to any known knowledge. If it was a true statement should be founded in at least one of the categories presented above, otherwise, it would only be a conflict without any reasonable result. “This reason is based on the thought that inquiry, curiosity, interest, investigation, explanation-seeking, are hugely important components of human happiness.

In conclusion, in a world with multiple realities, it couldn’t exist multiple truths, therefore there was only one truth. Even if we were not finding it, we were still responsible to look for what was real and true. However, the destination was not always the biggest achievement, and the journey we took in our investigation could be worth all the effort and time invested. “And real inquiry presupposes that truth matters. That it is true that there is a truth in the matter we’re investigating, even if it turns out that we can’t find it. Maybe the next generation can, or two or three or ten after that, or maybe just someone more skilled than we are. But we have to think there is something to find in order for inquiry to be genuine inquiry and not just an arbitrary game that doesn’t go anywhere. We like games, but we also like genuine inquiry. That’s why the truth matters. “ 

“It might seem that the empirical philosopher is the slave of his material, but that the pure mathematician, like the musician, is a free creator of his world of ordered beauty.”
― Bertrand Russell

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *