User:ClareParlett/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 10/Truth

This is for UCL BASc Approaches to Knowledge (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/current/core/atk) Seminar Group 10.

These content pages will be populated by student content October - December 2018.

- Is there only one truth? Or could there be multiple truths to something?

- Is it possible to elaborate a sole definition for the concept of truth? It seems not; for instance, some scientists are convinced that we cannot even begin talking about truth before having material proofs or demonstrations, whereas some artists believe truth is a matter of feeling it." (Margot)

- The belief among voters that politicians lie is near ubiquitous in contemporary political systems, and politicians, in general, are routinely placed at or towards the bottom of indices of trust

Definition and Etymology
According to The Oxford English Dictionary, Truth [truːθ] is "the quality or state of being true, in accordance with fact or reality” .  The word is derived from Old English triewð (West saxon), treowð (Mercian) which means “faith, faithfulness fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from the German word treuwitho and porto-german treuwaz which means “having or characterized by good faith” and finally from Proto-Indian-European drew-o- which means “to be firm, solid, steadfast”.

The Reflective Nature of Truth
Truth is a crucial subject across many different academic disciplines and the definition of truth is widely debated. For many, objective truths exists in reality and form the foundations of ideas, while for others truth is relative and created by actions, ideas and opinions. Below are some examples of this almost reflective nature of truth, as both something that creates and is created by ideas, actions and objects.

The Truthful nature of Art
In the article "The truth in Art and the Art in Truth" Emma Ferrer offers two contrasting points of view on Art and Truth. These two are the one's of Plato and of Aristostle: the human's essence is to imitate. Humans explore imitation through various forms, one of which is art. Both Artistotle and Plato argue that Art is a mimesis, therefore it a recollection of Truths. Aristotle argued that predetermined, natural truths represent themselves in poetry (see Aristotle's Poetics ). For example a tragedy can be a form of education as it is based on real life people and actions and aims to achieve catharsis.

Truth and natural sciences
Later, others philosophers thought that truth could be defined and found through science, and Descartes' idea of Mathesis Universalis relies partly on that. Discussions on the plurality of mathematical truths originate from ideas such as those held by Descartes. Descartes believed that "first philosophy" (metaphysics) and metaphysical realities formed the basis for natural philosophy (the natural sciences) and in this way considered scientific work as a discovery of universal metaphysical laws.

Truth and Science
However in mathematics and the natural sciences, Kant rejected Descartes proposition that "first philosophy" and its metaphysical truths should define natural philosophy - scientific truths. Instead, he argued that philosophers should observe natural phenomenons and take the observed truths as being true and then understand the preconditions that would be necessary for them to be true. Truth, therefore, becomes not something natural and preexisting, but something humans bring to the world. But in what we consider 'hard sciences', most mathematical demonstrations and assumptions are built on statements already taken to be true which are called axioms. In that sense, the scientific approach to truth is rather different from the philosophical approach: philosophy seeks to define truth, it is its constant aim - a transcendental and insatiable search - and not its starting point.

Truth and Opinion
Indeed, in philosophy, the distinction between truth and opinion is well recognised. However, there are situations where the contradiction between these two concepts can be disregarded, and where opinions are imperative. In Plato's Menon, Socrates argues that although truth and opinion are neatly distinct and dissimilar from one another, opinions can be true.

Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Normative Truth
We can link the idea of opinion and truth to Pierre Bourdieu's theory in La Distinction. He explains how different social classes respond to culture: the upper classes favour the form of the artwork rather than its content: to them, art does not need to be truthful as it creates its own truth. These upper classes constitute what Bourdieu calls "cultural nobility", which is a group that dictates what is or isn't part of culture, what is good taste and bad taste, what is art and what is not, considering the culture of the lower classes as separated from what is considered general, legitimate culture. Therefore this cultural nobility creates a truth for society to live in, defining the limits of general culture and good taste and establishing them as objective truths, and the rest of society follows by conforming to these normative truths created by ruling classes, even as it changes through time and trends. The notion of what is part of legitimate culture, while it may first appear obvious and objective as a sort of consensual truth, is in fact a constructed notion that is normative and excludes the lower classes' culture and opinion, assuming that they don't have good taste or any taste at all and implying, therefore, that taste is not a matter of relative opinion but objective truth. This plays on the idea that opinions can be true and reveal some objective knowledge and truth, and are not to be discussed.

Plato's Notion of Right Opinions
Indeed to Socrates, all opinions are not fallacious, and they are not to be neglected, especially when they have the ability to promote action. Indeed, in some fields, such as politics, morality or ethics, it is impossible or difficult to decry a demonstrable, definitive and absolute truth; but sometimes you need to take a position on certain issues and in order to do so you may be compelled to rely on an opinion or personal evaluations. In the Menon, Socrates indulges in resorting to what he calls a "right opinion" (p.359-365) when failing to define virtue and underlines its legitimacy in this particular case: since there is no such thing as an absolute definition of virtue and of how it should manifest itself in every culture and for every one of us, the only way we can try and lead a virtuous life is by following our believed definition of that ideal value. However, what a "right opinion" lacks before being able to be called a truth, is the cause-effect pattern that human reason carries out to establish truthful statements; in that sense, it can be considered like a starting point and a springboard for coming closer to the truth, like axioms. If we follow Plato's, and thus Socrates', ways of thinking, we can affirm that truthful things do not necessarily imply primer knowledge and that there are many areas of thought where truth is impossible to be found in an absolute impersonal form. Those cannot be taught, but are personally conceived, thanks to some sort of common sense or through the act of anamnesis.

The Representation of Truth according to Aristotle and Plato
According to Aristotle, art can also be a starting point, a mirror from which we can recognize ourselves and which can guide us to the truth on our human mind and personalities throughout the classical "know thyself" search. To talk about Aristotle’s theory first we will analyse Plato’s: he supported the idea that art is an imitation of appearances, distancing humanity from truth. Here truth is represented as the universal “form”of a given thing, which could not be accessed from physical appearances. Nevertheless, Aristotle found that there were many subjective truths: these, unrelated to the universal form of a given thing, were rather related to the human mind. Therefore truth resides in multiple personal truths, showcased through art.

Heidegger and the ontologic characteristic of architecure
In this sense and as stated in Norbert-Schulz's "Heidegger's Thinking on Architecture", German philosopher Martin Heidegger thought the ultimate aim of architecture was to make the landscape closer to human beings and thereby make them be able to dwell poetically. The traits of architecture, such as its shape, spatiality and its very existence at a place, can together reveal a certain truth about the world. Architecture therefore brings truth to the world, rather than being a representation or a demonstration of it.

Introduction
The last decade of 21st century politics is dramatically characterized by what is now commonly named “post-truth” politics and statements. “Post-truth” politics is ‘a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact’, meaning that truth is distorted in order for it to fit one’s ideology or future political, economic or even social acts. "Post-truth" politics has a signifiant role in democracy as it is led by politicians and thus people. The word democracy is originated from Greek words ‘demos’ and ‘kratia’. Often, ‘kratia’ connotes power and ‘demos’ means people. Thus, democracy signifies ‘rule by the people’. However, ‘demos’ has also the meaning of ‘mob’ and it illustrates that politics can be led by the majority of ignorant people. Therefore, the rule of ignorance is perhaps inevitable and it has definitely been questioned whether the factual truth is more significant than "feel true".

Case study: the US and the UK
This new wave of blindly accepted lies is mainly embodied by US president Donald Trump, as The Economist explains. Indeed, Mr. Trump has become this decade’s figure of “post-truth” politics and his lies and actions following them have deeply impacted international relations. When campaigning, D. Trump has made clear that feelings and public opinion matter more than facts, as he for instance doubted Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Truth is now more than ever contested on a daily basis and this movement is emphasized through the wide spreading usage of social media. In fact, the ease at which a piece of information is transmitted through various platforms not only increases the odds that the statement will be changed and mispresented but also increases the number of false (or true) statements. The media is now fighting more than ever against this new “trend” as it becomes the accused. With this new set of rules for international relations and politics, it is highly doubtful that the outcomes of the various decisions made can truly benefit the voting populations. The role of truth, thereafter, has become increasingly insignificant as it merely needs to gratify the ‘mobs’ who will vote. For instance, the referendum on Brexit was held in the UK in 2016 and the outcome was to leave the European Union. However, it was found that both campaigns made untruthful pledge to attract voters, especially funding for NHS was one of main promise that the ‘Leave Campaign’ made. Nigel Farage later admitted he cannot guarantee this to happen, yet it did not have actual impact whatsoever as the outcome of the referendum cannot be reversed. Similar case happened in the US. Brett Kavanaugh, now the an Associated Justice of the US Supreme Court, was being accused of sexual assault that was claimed to happen in early 1980s. During his appointment process, the allegation was debated hastily, nonetheless, the debate was more based on whether he should be confirmed as the Supreme Court Justice regardless of the truth. People who opposed the appointment believed that even if the assault did not occur, he should not be appointed anyway because there was no thorough investigation. On the other hand, some argue he is entitled and well qualified anyway. Thus, no matter what the real truth is, political truth is what benefits them more. Given the current national and international political events, truth is doubted and questioned more than ever. Indeed, truths are put aside and emotions are the new driving force of decision making. This new trend deeply affects the way politics are discussed and the way decisions are made both on a national and international scale.

(Clara, Edward)

Ways of Knowing in Politics
Ways of Knowing (WOKs) are traits which knowers can possess through which the knowers obtain and manipulate knowledge. The field in which knowledge is acquire might determine or at least affect the WOK which I deem by the majority to be the most effective. In politics, the relevant WOKs arguably consist of Language ( MAKE THE POINT THAT THIS LINKS TO REPRESENTATION OF STATISTICS - Language is more than just words, and the way in which we communicate facts will affect impact on people), Reason and - increasingly in a post-truth era - emotion. The increasing use of the latter is seen by many as an issue and a result of manipulation of truth by politicians. The question is therefore, are there ever any reason why emotion would be preferred over reason as way of evaluating knowledge produced in the political world?

Perspectives
The nature of truth in politics depends on the perspectives of the people who engage with it. Opinions in politics are inevitably subjective which allows for there to be several truths, even if those are in direct opposition with each other. This is because the perspective of one individual or group of people might justify a certain opinion. In other words, truth means different things to people, especially when this truth is based on emotion rather than reason. An example is the deep division currently growing in US politics between the Republicans and the Democrats as a result of political polarisation.

Methods in Comparative Politics
When comparing countries, one main challenge is choosing which countries and how many. The choice of method (Small-n/large-V problem, MDSD or MSSD) will depend on the type of comparison, and the study of comparative politics puts great focus on these choices. However, even when this is done efficiently, each state has its own historical development, national institutions, customs and traditions, and so on (http://www.nicat-mammadli.narod.ru/b1.html/b36.pdf). Hence, we can consider whether it is actually possible to compare two countries, and more importantly, if it produces knowledge that we can rely on is true? Can we really make assumptions about the state of countries by comparing it to almost-identical situations? Is it. right to attempt to predict the future by looking at what has happened in the past? A good example of a notion in the practice of comparative politics which arguably assumes too much and attempts to assign a universal truth to the political development of countries is the move towards democracy world wide. It is true that previously the trend has been that as countries endure economic and social development, they move closer towards a societal structure build upon democratic values and norms. However, is it true to claim that this will always be the case? And is there a tendency to claim that a move towards democracy is the preferable outcome, and thereby a wish make it the truth? What can be said about things we wish so badly to be true, that we find examples and evidence that shows us the truth that we want to see? Discuss perhaps the use of statistics and the way in which these cn be manipulated and used to prove whichever point one wishes to (Link this to perspectives aka the eyes at which we look at the statistics with might affect our results, hence undermining reason as a WOK in politics. Hans Rosling is a good source for this). (CASE STUDY FOR STATISTICS! Find example where stjatetistcs is technically accurate however bias result in different representations of the same information).

The role of politicians
Linking all previous subtitles together. Although the previous subtitles have concluded that truth is difficult if not impossible to find in the field of politics, there is different between honesty and truth. Politicians owe it to citizens as well as the establishment of democracy to rule with responsibility and transparency. It is a right of people in a democracy to be given correct information. Hence, although difficult we need to distinguish between the ambiguity in truth stemming from different opinions and perspectives, and pure lies or withholding of the truth (link to ways of knowing, reason and emotion and how we need both to assess political claims). Truth may not be achievable, but honesty is, and should be a priority (perhaps discuss whether there are different kinds of truths - opinionated and universal ones in politics?). How Democracies die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblaty is a good source for this section.

(Francesca)

Truth and Politics (ARTICLES)
The term Politics can be employed in many ways. [21] But it commonly is used as the way a society organizes itself, how it organizes power and authority. Mostly, Politics are based on, and deal with truth, trying to distinguish what is true from what isn’t. Political Sociology is a discipline in Politics that understands the relationship between states, institutions and mainly citizens with an important focus on social power. It is considered as a balance between political science and sociology. To be able to properly interpret this relationship, evidence and truth are compulsory; concrete information is needed. But where exactly is this information coming from? How is it evaluated? Is the information collected true? And what is a true information? How to know what to rely on when trying to select it? In her article,[22] Daniela Wulf discusses about political sociology and truth, and about how political sociology can serve as a useful tool to understand ideologies. People have a tendency to select the information, select parts of information they receive that will support and be in favor of their arguments and ideologies. Maybe the data used is correct. But maybe it was taken out of its context. Daniela Wulf [23]discusses that people proceed to this selection unwillingly and unconsciously influenced by their ideologies. In the same way, Jonathan Rose, in Brexit, Trump, and Post-Truth Politics[24] covers honesty and truth in political campaigns. In the same vein as Wulf did, Rose explains how we today have access to so much information, thus tries to warns us on what we receive. The author incites on less consumerism and more analyzing, more questioning. This article encourages to be more skeptical about basic political assumptions and to reconsider what or who we are confident about. Evidently, Kakutani in his article, The death of truth: how we gave on facts and ended up with Trump, also displays that people tend to manipulate the facts unconsciously in their own advantages. He stresses on how it is the people’s faults for giving up on facts and not seeing the difference between fact and fiction, leading to President Trump. Kakutani depicts how violation and despoiling of truth can make people exposed to the lies and false promises of leaders bent on unconditional power. He supports his argument with a quote by Hannah Arendt. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (ie the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie the standards of thought) no longer exist.”(The Origins of Totalitarianism,1951) Truth as a concept in politics is inevitably difficult to comprehend, and one can even argue that there is no truth to be found in this field, as is done by Daniela Wulf, when justifying the reason for her choice of study, political sociology. Wulf takes a rather ultimate/extreme standpoint to truth in politics overall when she states: “I no longer believe that there is such a thing as “the truth,”, whereas the perspective of Jonathan Rose is more timely and specific to recent world events such as the election of Trump and Brexit, as well as the effect of “news increasingly becoming something that is consumed online”. Kakutani, like Wulf, has lost faith on truth in politics. He believes that no one should believe stories told by politicians and that Trump uses the naivety of people and plays with their realities. In his article he defends that politicians are redefining reality by using information to support and be in favor of their arguments. Additionally, Wulf’s personal experiences of politicians always seeming to magically find “data to support their cause, even when this directly contradicted the data cited by their adversaries” is in some way to perfect evidence of the trend that Rose describes most commonly referred to as the increase of fake news. Although all three authors agree on the fundamental lack of ‘’truth’’ in politics, Rose and Kakutani’s arguments and purposes are mainly similar, while Wulf’s main argument and purpose is different. Wulf’s main argument is much more focused towards justifying the importance of educating oneself in disciplinarians such as political sociology in order to distinguish between facts and lies, or as she puts it, it is “important to have the tools to determine what the truth is not.” Rose and Kakutani on the other hand, are more interested in regulating campaign honesty specifically in order to prevent the rise of fake news. In other words, they believe the problem lies more in the dishonesty of politicians than the incompetence of the people. Kakutani, demonstrates the news media not as a platform reflecting the truth rather as a place that shapes the truth for each politician's own benefit. Rose makes an essential distinction between honesty and truth in politics – he recognises, like Wulf, that truth is subjective and thereby will never be ultimate in the field, however his emphasis is on a far more practical element of politics, namely the fact that truth is subjective, the honesty with which politicians present themselves is not. Wulf accentuates the importance in questioning the accurateness of facts and data, but more importantly, also the incontestability and absoluteness of concept such as human rights. She reminds us, that although some concepts may appear as fundamental truths, we need to remain critical of even those, and keep searching for alternative truths. Overall, all the articles are building up to the point that everyone acquires their own facts differently. These facts are manipulated throughout the news platform in order to prove their truth. It discusses the modern world issues of how political leaders are using everyday language to shape the truth and how it does not reflect the truth at all. It also states that the news is no longer a platform of truth. So how do we figure out what’s the truth? What are the facts? As Adam Curtis depicts in his documentary, Hypernormalisation, ''We live in a world where the powerful deceive us. We know they lie, they know we know they lie, they don’t care. We say we care, but we do nothing. And nothing ever changes. It’s normal. Welcome to the post-truth world.” It is well known that the facts presented to us are the only truth that proves and advantages the point of view they want us to know. Wulf, Rose and Kakutani all demonstrate that the issue is, whether there will ever be a 'truly universal' version and rather this post-truth modern world is a world in which public attitudes and everyone's own 'facts' are more accountable than the actual truth. One can only agree and share the concern of the three authors in terms of a seemingly increasingly declining political world in terms of truth, despite their different opinions on the root of the problem, and the solution to overcome it. Although truth as a concept can seem abstract and unattainable, it is important to remember the role it plays in a more practical sense as well, such as campaigns, which indeed has very real and concrete consequences for us all.

(Francesca, Maud, Aysesu)

Introduction to the concept of evidence in geography
Because geography is the science that, predominantly, portrays our world through images, evidence holds a very delicate and important role. Indeed, representing the spheric earth on a flat surface is an ongoing challenge that begun centuries ago. Maps are the result of technical choices that determine its reading and it is essential to take various tools into account when creating and reading a map. Reading a map must be enlightened by reason and critical thinking because the map is also an effective instrument for creating representations which then evolve with history. For instance, the chosen projection embodies the attempt to portray the surface of the earth on a flat surface. With projection comes distortions of distance, direction and scale among others, which thus questions the importance of truth in representing the world. Indeed, truth will always be altered when representing the earth as it is impossible, or at least up to today, to fully respect the reality of the round shape on a flat surface. Consequently, a map is always a product of the perspective and choices of the map maker, hence questioning truth and evidence in geography. Because there is so much evidence, thanks to satellites, and because the round earth can't be fully represented on a flat surface, choices must be made, thus questioning the role of evidence in the domain. Indeed, the map maker may use different evidence than another maker as the map is the product of his choices, picked among a pool of facts that have to be implemented to the product.

(Clara)

The Mercator projection
Mercator’s projection was originally made for explorers of the time, thus for navigation purposes. Mercator chose to stay true to the lines and shapes, meaning that plotting a course on water was made is easier for travelers. However, since it is impossible to keep all the variables (shape, distance…), the cartographer had to distort the scale. Indeed, the Greenland’s landmass appears to be greater than South America’s when Greenland is actually smaller than Saudi Arabia. The role of truth is here questioned as truth is partly altered, not respected. For instance, the projection shows a ‘europe-centred’ world and does not acknowledge the real size of many regions and countries, notably that of Africa which is in reality bigger than Canada, the United States and China put together.

(Clara)

The Gall- Peters projection
The Gall- Peters projection is an area accurate map, meaning that countries have the accurate size and position. The projection however does not respect the true shape of some countries and stretches them around the equator for instance. Reality’s truth is hence not fully respected again, highlighting the issue of truth in the geographical representation of our world.

(Clara)

Truth in Boundaries and Civilization
The planet has always been divided in regional areas: states. States are distinguishable from another with the help of boundaries. Where exactly to draw the boundary is a difficult task to achieve.

Recently,  many new boundaries such as the boundary between North and South Korea in 1953 or the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and the famous creation of Israel in 1948 have been drawn.

Pakistan was created in 1947 when the British-Ruled India became independent. The aim of the country was to gather all the Muslim Indians in the same area to make a state unified by religion. This region that one day was Indian, then became Pakistan. But what testimonies that Pakistani people feel more Pakistani than Indian? India is a very muslim country too. The Pakistani-Indian border has thus been drawn in the Punjab region and cuts it two distinctive parts.

But the Punjabi were a very strong community before the creation of the two separate states. Punjabi identity might be much more important than Pakistani or Indian identity for some people. Does the boundary here truly relates to a cultural division that already existed? Punjabi identity might be much more important than Pakistani or Indian identity for some people. Or is it boundaries that create division, and create new cultures. For example, the Mohajirs, Muslims from the north of India decided to move to Pakistan after the country was created. Many other muslim groups moved to this region after 1947, and then created a new culture a new civilization.

We can also take the example of Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a region populated by Kurds. They don’t have a state but have their own security force and own region and government. Kurds are spread in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria (35 million people that have their own culture and language). They have very strong cultural identity as they are a very old community. So here again, upon which criteria, what data were the middle east boundaries drawn by the Treaty of Sevres in 1929? Do they really reflect the truth of a nations identity?

Today, boundaries are gaining importance and their role is reinforced with the rise of populist parties in the world (Orbàn, Le Pen, Trump, Poutine, Bolsonaro). One of the main assets of populism is its insistence on the reinforcement of boundaries, to resolve migration problems. But closing boundaries and focusing only on the states’ inquiries, the migration crisis stalls and doesn’t resolve. Here, to solve problems of migration, helping the poorer countries develop more in order to increase the economy there and make the people want to stay there might be a more a realistic solution. Truth here is not based on believing deeply in boundaries and but realize that to truly respond to migration crisis, nationalist parties and countries should take this problem less as an individual problem but on an otther scale, on a global scale.

Many ethnies find themselves divided because of frontiers that don’t correspond to a true division of regional areas as they are attended to. But frontiers have good sides too, they help societies organize themselves, have laws and rules without which a country couldn’t survive without.

Truth in Boundaries and Climate
Climate change is a true issue recognized by most of the worlds countries, excluding the United States. Between 2008 and 2013, 27 million people a year flew their home country because of climate change.

Geography is today changing with the rise of waters, the expansion of deserts, cyclones and floods. But areas mostly affected by these hazards, are not the biggest producers of CO2. Areas affected are more vulnerable areas that don’t have the capacity to respond to these disasters, such as the Gobi desert in China that grows of around 10,000 km2 a year, or the melting of permafrost that lead to people living in this there having to outflow the region.

The developed powers are the ones responsible for most of the greenhouse gases emissions. They mostly agree that climate change is true, but as they are not affected by it directly, it’s a further truth that doesn’t call for as much action as needed. For these strongly releasing countries, climate change is more a truth than a reality.

In addition to that, the United States, one of the most emissive greenhouse gases countries (responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2014), deny the truth of climate change. Here, again geographical boundaries are a major obstacle to the truth of climate change. In the case of the United states, national interests win over truth, refuting the statement without thinking about the consequences it could have on other geographical areas.

States need to realize that all regions and countries are on the same planet, and that they should go further than boundaries in order to all support one another to preserve our planet from the truth of climate change.

Boundaries in climate change can also be seen as having a positive impact: states have objectives to achieve that are more adapted to reality.

Truth in Maps and Natural Resources
Representing the spheric earth on a flat surface is an ongoing challenge that begun centuries ago. Maps are the result of technical choices that determine its reading. Various tools are essential to take into account when creating a map. For instance, the projection is an attempt to portray the surface of the earth or a portion of the earth on a flat surface. With projection comes distortions of, for instance, distance, direction, scale, which thus questions the importance of truth in representing the world. Indeed, truth will always be altered when representing the earth as it is impossible, or at least up to today, to fully respect the reality of the round shape on a flat surface. Consequently, a map is always a product of the prospective of the map maker, hence questioning truth in geography.

The commonly used world map is designed in a special way that we don’t realize right away. Western Europe and especially Britain are in the center of the map. If we look at it even more from a different perspective, we realize that the North is at the top and the South at the bottom. We can here link this to our previous discussion: that nations, countries, always look at the world from the perspective of them being in the center. If at school we were taught the geographical layout where the United Kingdom is located on the bottom right hand corner,  where New-Zealand is today, we might have a different vision of the world. Also, the continent of Africa is not exactly well represented if we follow an exact scale. Africa is in fact a much bigger region.

Another example is the representation of islands. Australia is the biggest island in the world with a surface area of around 7 million km2. Groenland is then the second biggest island with approximately 2 million km2. Nonetheless, if you look at a random map, they are many chances that the Groenland appears much bigger than Australia. Maps are looked at from are euopean perspective and with the earth being round, representing it on a flat surface is quite complicated. But maybe true maps don’t exist yet.

Geographical location can also provide attractive assets to a country. Many fossil energies have made some countries big powers  such as Arabia Saoudia or Koweit. But this statement is not always true: many countries in Africa that have the most important natural resources are very poor countries that can’t benefit of it because of corruption or other big companies that steal it.