User:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 6/Truth

Truth in the Memory of La Resistance in France
Memory is a subunit of history but could be considered as a discipline as Memory is present in every country, it is studied and researched and refers to the relationship between one nation and its past. Shortly after the beginning of WWII on June 22nd France signed the armistice in the same wagon as Germany did in WWI as a symbol of theatrical revenge. This gave birth to a divided country: the occupied zone and free zone (Vichy). From there started the movement of Resistance lead by General de Gaulle. The memory of the Resistance is often controversial because of the way it is remembered in art, taught in school and referred to in political speeches.

First, the French take great pride in the Resistance by affirming that the majority of French took part in it. However, only 2% of the French population was involved in the Resistance. This idea of heroism was installed by De Gaulle who wanted to give the French some pride after the humiliation of WWII. This is referred to as the “Gaullist myth”.

The communist party in France revendicated their importance in the Resistance by coining the name “les parti des 75000 martyrs” referring to the number of causalities of Resistance. However, within those deaths, only 35 000 at most were communist. This shows the appropriation of history by different political party and how the truth is sometimes manipulated.

Furthermore, we see through the actions of succeeding French presidents that there are different truths. In 1995 Chirac recognized the responsibility in the French in the Shoah and subsequently created the memorial Simons, On the other hand, Sarkozy had a more nationalist interpretation of the memory. This can be seen for example when he changed school history curriculum to make students read the letter of a resistant : Guy Moquet in 2007 This shows the idea of patriotism that was conveyed to French students then.

Historical research relies on collecting information through primary and secondary resources. Memories and personal accounts from people who were there at the time of the event being documented are considered primary evidence. Primary evidence’s direct connection gives it an authority over secondary data, and is often attributed as providing the most direct means of interacting with the past. As discussed above, this can cause issues. Hence, memory in history is an example of how truth can be normative or relative and that even for a past event, interpretation can play a big role in the perception of truth.

The truth of the memory about the French Resistance, which gives another perspective, can also be tried to be found in literature that was created during or after the event. People who had lived throughout the period of the French Resistance wrote several literary works which contributed to constituting a certain discourse on the resistance. The books’ narratives are a mixture of both archival sources and writers’ own takes on the event.

A research carried in the early 2000’s by University of Oxford found that, in literature, resistance was the portrayal of the ordinary societies’ perception of it – meaning that it was not as ground-breaking and pivotal as pointed out by the leaders, and that it was rather the “channel” to which the thought of resistance was translated to that determined the “truth” about the resistance.

Nowadays, when researchers try to come up with a coherent explanation of what was the French Resistance, they use works of such literary authors as Robert Gildea (Marianne in Chains, 2002) or Irene Nemirowsky (Suite française, 2004). Also, a 1969 documentary called Le Chagrin et la Pitié (“The Sorrow and the Pity”) is a widely known portrayal of the resistance’s events that depicts its own truths on the event. In the 1970s, the movie was received with different opinions due to the artwork showing different sies of the story who, also after more than 50 years, cannot find harmony.

Different Perceptions of Truth between History and Sociology
Sociology, an analytic inquiry into the relationships between individuals, employs theories and their constitutive analytical patterns that are used to understand the societal relations between humans. Sociologists use theoretical models, they conceptualise the events and society that took part in them through a multi-level correlated prism. History is a comprehensive interpretation of past proceedings, it places the proceedings in today’s context. History can either explore or use the events that have happened as possible “layouts” for what is to come in certain situations, but it is always done on a local (a specific region, country) level.

History and sociology are interlinked – i.e., for sociology, to be able to produce its theories, it has to use information from the past, so the content is historic. As for history, the events that are historic, are produced and written down by people who are directly affected from the relations they have with other members of the society.

In both social sciences disciplines, the truth of their statements is found not in the events themselves since they just operate as a phenomenon and raw facts, but in the activity of putting one’s rational mind to use, and coming up with original analysis and critique. But conflict between the two disciplines arises when there a difference in what tools of perception are applied to analyse the evidence at hand.

So tension emerges when history, which for a long time was a discipline dominated by Western thinkers, at times, considers some acts, eras or people as more significant than the others due to historians applying their knowledge which is the product of the environment they have been in and taught at. And thus tension is amplified when an explanation is required for how the pure existence of a fact is justified in its contribution to the historic event or the sociological theory. Historians use documents from the time researched but they forget that the people who wrote those documents were part of a larger, maintained discourse, and this restricts the historians’ understanding of the issue, whereas a sociologist searches for correlations within different phenomena in different times thereby coming up with concepts that can be generalised and applied to different societies. Since the legitimacy of (primary) evidence in history is affected by various factors – the reason of its creation or the conservation throughout the years – what will be determined as truth is subject to how the historian will interpret the resources. But to make the connection between the both disciplines smoother, sociology helps to apply theoretical frameworks for thinking about society.

Truth in Philosophy
Philosophy etymologically means “love for wisdom”, where wisdom means “the ability to use your knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgments”. Hence, if we accept the theories that “good” and “bad” have truth values, wisdom means discerning between what is and isn’t true. Truth, in philosophy, is a primordial issue, such that it is the measure which allows philosophical debate to escape redundancy. As ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) said, truth is “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not.”. However, this idea doesn’t investigate whether “what is” and “what is not” are true but is simply a means of expressing that they are, or are not, if their truth value is already known. By looking into the multiple theories of truth throughout history, it becomes apparent that it is still a controversial matter, as there is a tendency for philosophers to adhere to the theory which best supports their arguments. One of the most prominent clashes between truth theories is between mind-independent and mind-dependent truth theories, or Idealism and Transcendental Idealism.

Idealism
Idealism, according to George Berkeley (1685-1753), is the theory which claims that “reality” exists only through perception. More specifically, that there isn’t such a thing as mind-independent truths. This theory implies that truth is subjective, and it is to be perceived.

Coherence theory
One of the neo-classical theories of truth originating from idealism is the coherence theory of truth. It assumes that a given belief is true, only if it is in coherence with a system of beliefs. Coherence theories have usually been a part of idealism philosophy. In 1906, an idealist Joachim stated that "Truth in its essential nature is that systematic coherence which is the character of a significant whole." Neo-classical coherence theory departs from the idealism by the rejection of monism of truth. It sees truth as a feature of beliefs systems, in which all beliefs are related to each other.

Transcendental Idealism
Transcendental Idealism is a term coined by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in The Critique of Pure Reason, which in opposition to Berkeley’s Idealism, it makes a clear distinction between how we perceive things and how things are in themselves outside our experience. This theory implies that truth is mind-independent and exists without a need for consciousness.

Truth in the Perception of Political Actions
Political sociology is a discipline which studies the perception of the political world around us through different sociological perspectives and several social criteria. The perception of political actions, how and why they are undertaken relies on the sociological perspective adopted to consider these actions. The three sociological perspectives are the functionalist, the conflict, and the symbolic interactionist perspective. Each one has a different conception of how and why society works, and therefore all 3 of them have different explanations about the political events going on.

The functionalist approach considers that the different members and elements of society work together to make sure society as a whole functions properly. The social equilibrium relies on social norms and interdependence. On the opposite hand, the conflict perspective sees society as an entity composed of different groups and interests competing for limited power and resources for themselves rather than for the benefit of society as a whole. Finally, the symbolic interactionist perspective undertakes a micro logical approach and argues that behaviours are influenced by interactions with other people within their close circle and thus that these interactions are symbolic and create a meaning that influences whether or not to take one particular decision or another.

Whether an individual identifies itself to one or another perspective, his conceptualisation and perception of political actions will radically change. If the individual has a functionalist perspective, he will believe political decisions are made in order to improve the proper functioning of society whereas if he has a conflictual approach, he will consider decisions are made by the government’s elite in their only interest. Finally, if he undertakes a symbolic interactionist approach he will assume the current political trends running around the world adopted by the great powers will influence political actions. Thus, as a belief is the way in which a person adheres to a statement and consider it as true, in terms of the social perspective the person adopts, his perception of truth will vary.

Subjective truth and conflicting evidence in psychiatric medication
With most diseases, the diagnosis and success of applied treatments are measured by clinical, physical, and quantitative tests that can accurately reflect a patient’s level of illness and subsequent stages of recovery. However when it comes to depression, there are no physical tests to find depressive disorders in a patient (only blood/urine sampling tests to rule out other potential illnesses/conditions causing the same symptoms).

Due to the variety of potential symptoms caused by depression, the diagnosis of the severity of a patient’s depressive disorders and the effectiveness of different treatments are reliant on a doctor’s interpretation of the patient’s presentation of their subjective truth. When a patient is diagnosed as having depressive disorder, the ensuing treatments vary not just in response to the severity of their condition, but also to their age. Despite the limited number of controlled studies on the long term impacts of using antidepressants in adolescents, there are assumptions that they can cause brain damage, since they are not fully developed, and a perceived increase in suicidal tendencies, which is what is behind the general reluctance to administer antidepressant medication for adolescents.

The issue of defining adolescence: there is conflicting scientific evidence as to when the brain is fully developed. The NHS classification of adolescent is 12-18 whilst according to the World Health Organisation, it is 10-19. Research has shown that the brain is actually fully developed later, BBC reported the age of brain maturity to be 25; a study on the effect of alcohol on the brain put the age of full maturity at 24. In the latter case, the administration of antidepressants on a 23 year old could have the same potential negative impacts as that on teens. The NHS could, by their own terms, be incorrectly treating patients because they have a different scientific paradigm of the brain’s development.

In terms of the alleged increase in suicidal tendencies, clinical trials of the commonly prescribed antidepressant, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) show that there is only a borderline statistically significant increase in suicidal tendencies as compared to the use of other antidepressants (e.g. fluoxetine). FDA analysis reveals there are increases in suicidal ideation, but no statistically significant increase in completed suicide. SSRIs, Fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants have a significant helpful effect in patients over 12. A sertraline trial showed adolescents treated with the medication had statistically significantly lower depressive disorders, but only recommended as second line when justified by the severity of the disorder. Doctors have to balance the potential non-fatal risks with the potential benefits of measuring these drugs on a case by case basis; there is no objective set of rules on when to administer SSRIs or sertraline.

The difficulty lies in reviewing the risks and benefits of these drugs properly because diagnosing someone with depressive disorder, and asking the patient to evaluate and reevaluate how depressed they are in response to treatment are both subjective processes. Although more information is emerging about long term impacts of antidepressants as they become more widely used and more studies are conducted on the on the specific chemical effects and mechanisms of antidepressant drugs in the brain, this research still relies on attempting to quantify subjective experiences and individuals truths.

How truth is compromised in democratic elections
Truth can be defined as something that is representative of reality or factual evidence. Although this might be straight forward for objective disciplines such as some of the human sciences, it might require a more thorough analysis when exploring subjective areas of study such as politics. This is because reality and factual evidence can be manipulated to create a perceived truth. The use of misinformation, disinformation and the spread of fake news are just some examples of how truth within political democratic elections can be manipulated to influence voters’ choices and decisions. This consequently brings into question the truthfulness of these electoral results.

Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election can be used to represent how the manipulation of truth can be used deceive the public and obtain a desired outcome, in this case, to obtain further votes for the political party being supported. Russia has been accused of various actions which could have influenced the outcome of the presidential election including: Misinformation presented in Russian news and media, hacks and leakages of private information on opponent Hillary Clinton, the introduction of trolls spreading biased information into social media discussions and the use advertising on social platforms as a source for the spread of disinformation among other methods they were alleged of using. Whether or not Russia’s interference had a direct impact on the final result of the Republican win, it has been shown that the different techniques Russia implemented and their manipulation of political truth used to drive voters in a certain political direction did influence voting outcomes.

Cases like the Russian Interference in the US presidential election raise questions on whether truth is compromised in democratic elections and the validity of the electoral results. Arguments could be raised relating to the idea that democratic political elections are not a proper representation of democratic system as they represent what people are manipulated to believe rather than what they individually choose to believe. When analysing the consequences of the manipulation of truth, it could be argued that the electoral results should be invalidated as choices were based on manipulation, misinformation and untruthfulness making the results untrue within themselves.

Truth in Conspiracy theories
Truth has, for a long time, been something humans seek for. This need to find truth is still present nowadays, especially with the ever-increasing development of a wide range of access to knowledge from the media and the internet. In general, knowledge and truths tend to be imposed into a hierarchy and therefore one truth or at least mindset stands out at the top as being the most socially acceptable one: the mainstream knowledge. This hegemonic epistemology emerges from the social construction and institutionalisation of beliefs through our society: only certain views will be acceptable, and others will be pointed out as illegitimate as they stand out from the common sense or general mindset.

In contrast, there are conspiracy theories. These theories could be defined as "alternative knowledge" or “stigmatized knowledge” which challenge common beliefs or institutionalised truths. They question the mainstream knowledge for evidence and truth. We can find in these alternative knowledge other categories such as unaccepted forms of medicines or unexplainable phenomena. Conspiracy theories, themselves, could be defined as an alternate explanation to an event which would be the result of a secret plot of actions lead by a group of powerful people, the conspirators.

The epistemological impact of such theories has been the source of debates. Labelling alternative explanations to certain events as conspiracy theories is considered a pejorative term, thus discrediting the theory by claiming a lack of evidence-based facts. This pejorative view results in accusation of paranoia and other associated pathologies and to the marginalisation of these theories for being connected to unreliable sources by the mainstream media. Once a theory has been labelled as a conspiracy theory it will automatically be considered by the public as false and unjustified. The existence of these theories could go as far as being considered dangerous for our society. In consequence, conspiracy theories and lies seem intrinsically linked: one alternate explanation to an event is automatically designed as a conspiracy theory and therefore discredited by the mainstream media and general public as false or not taken seriously.

Believing or not in conspiracy theories, we can recognise a form of divergence of truths and therefore what is considered or not as a valid claim or fact which can vary from society to society and a recognition of the existence of an hegemonic epistemology.

Study Case of the Truth in Conspiracy theories: How do Flat Earthers think?
The fact that the earth is a sphere was proven centuries ago by Greek mathematicians, and from then, many scientists have shown to the public extensive pieces of evidence that the world is a globe. However, in the past couple of years, data show that the “flat Earth theory” is growing significantly in the U.S. For instance, according to YouGov, only two-thirds of young Americans are absolutely convinced that the Earth is a globe. How do the Flat Earthers come to this so-called truth, questioning what could be called the scientific truth? Flat Earthers use the zetetic method. This method is saying, what I see is the truth. For example, if the Earth was a globe we would not see these skyscrapers from far away, but we do see them. But how come, scientific evidence, plus visual evidence, can be mistrusted by people who would rather use the zetetic method to get their information. Indeed, people would tend to adhere to an idea that goes against the mainstream but it is also easier to adhere to an idea that you can see and that is simplified. For example, the horizon is flat, and if we go to a mountain, the horizon is still flat. It is hard to make them believe that what they see is a mirage. Some of their evidence comes from pseudo-physics properties but some others come from conspiracy theories. For example, these people think that all the pictures of the Earth are not true, they are faked by NASA. But in fact, the reluctance to accept scientific evidence implies much more than just science. To understand how people can believe, more broadly in conspiracy theories, it is important to approach it interdisciplinarily by understanding the role of other factors such as politics or social media. For instance, the discretion of expert evidence is linked to the rise of populism in the world (e.g. Trump’s election), and by the fact that people are fed up with those in power (e.g. politicians and experts). This can obviously be linked with the COVID-19 pandemic, notably in the US where “believing in Science” has become a political strand. Furthermore, one of the key factors in mistrusting evidence is social media. Indeed, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook have played a huge part in giving importance to the Flat Earth theory or other conspiracies theories. Their algorithms link all believers together. Thus, seeing people that think like you will make you feel that your theory is completely valid and that thinking with the zetetic method is absolutely reliable and true, which links individuals together to create a community.

To conclude, it is absolutely key do look after this issue, since it goes way beyond the only boundaries of science. The rejection of scientific truth is and will have a much bigger impact on our society if we keep ignoring it and think of it as a joke. Since believing in the flat Earth theory does not seem to be a big issue, not believing in global warming or the link between smoking and lung cancer is. Indeed, not taking them seriously will make them more and more reluctant to listen to the same people that don’t listen to what they say.

Interpretations of History: Where Does the Truth Lie?
The opposite of falsity, truth is the property of being factual and in correspondence with reality. Therefore, it is imperative that everything we do today, from science, to history, to simply speaking with people, to be truthful: it creates trust and avoids learning or believing false information. Truth plays a great role in the discipline of history: the study of the past. History lives through the recordings of witnesses, written records, oral stories, and objects. It leans on archeological discoveries, and on the close analysis of recordings.

One of the missions in a historian’s work is to remain as close to reality as possible, to inform the world correctly about past events. This can be a very difficult task when biases and opinions can warp what truly happened during a certain event: political leaders enforcing their viewpoint, mass manipulation, or false countenance of events in favor of a certain party. For example, the mass propaganda exercised by dictatorships such as Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union during the 1930s corrupted public opinion and spread falsehood across entire countries. In addition, certain facts may be exaggerated or glorified by the writer, for example Herodotus, considered as the “father of history”, was criticized for his hyperbolic writing on the Greco-Persian Wars. Furthermore, certain events that countries or leaders may be ashamed of may be softened, or told in another manner, to belittle the gravity or embarrassment of those events. For example, the events that happened in 1989 in Tiananmen Square are known throughout the world. However, in China, the famous Tank Man picture is banned from the internet, among other images or news.

Indeed, there is a heavy reliance on a person’s word or accounting of events. That is why different interpretations must be studied of a single event, where different opinions can be compared and contrasted to obtain the most realistic, true history.

Truth in Geography
Geography has been well-established as a discipline since the 19th century when it began to be taught in universities. It is now even taught as part of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools around the world. The importance of studying geography at all levels is widely recognised. However there continues to be disagreement surrounding the precise content that should be taught, as well as the method of teaching in geography.

Regarding the content to be taught, Hirsch presents the idea of “core” knowledge – the knowledge that is required in order for us to achieve “cultural literacy”, in which people from different cultural groups are able to come together to discuss common issues. This can be seen as the importance and aim of studying geography, but gives rise to the problem of what knowledge is considered "core" knowledge, and where this information comes from. In terms of teaching, it is important to look at the epistemology of geography and consider how different epistemological approaches can impact learning. Racine and Bailly emphasised that “the need for an epistemological base is central to geography,” because different approaches to knowledge and truth can lead to different ways of thinking and learning. In the study of a discipline there is a responsibility to truth, and this can be compromised if there is a lack of clarity over the meaning of "truth", or over the scientific method with which it is produced.

The epistemology of geography can be termed as "logical positivism". . The term arose from the Vienna Circle, a group of social scientists and philosophers who believed that they could make use of the scientific method that already existed in the traditional sciences, and apply it to social issues and behaviour. Positivism suggests that social research should be centred around facts and truths which can be observed, and that the collection of data should be done through common methods of observations and theories to be tested. Absolutism can be defined in reference to positivism, as the idea that there is knowledge and truth that is “external and universal”. However there is often criticism from the humanist and structuralist perspective, that this kind of objective truth does not include the consideration of the lived human experience and therefore cannot offer the level of human understanding that is needed in geography. In response to these criticisms, Morrill emphasises the importance of improving education in both physical and human geography, as well as in other disciplines, for example, improving on mathematical literacy to better understand the limitations of statistical models. This can put into perspective the "truth" that is obtained from purely statistical models used in logical positivism. In contrast, relativism or social constructivism, uses the idea that knowledge and truth are "constructed" and "relative", and therefore not absolute, and subject to change in relation to society.

"Social realism" has been presented as an alternative to both ; as a sociological approach which recognises the objective, external character of knowledge, but at the same time does not take this externality for granted. It recognises the social and historical factors involved and reconciles the "objectivity of knowledge with its sociality." Isnard agreed that geographical space is a social product, and wished to provide a geographical viewpoint which is both scientific and social, describing the meaning of "social" as the "survival of our species through management of its space."

Truth within Artworks
One of the functions of art is supposed to be a cognitive function, suggesting that art is a means to communicate truth. One of the aspects of cognitive value in artworks is the ability of art to provide knowledge by acquaintance. It gives an opportunity to get an insight into the internal experiences of an individual. Truth is concluded in the expressive forms of the work, and their emotional impact is increased by our knowledge of what is expressed. Art, usually specific to a particular culture, can speak of common truths within the culture. It is successful on many levels, using different mediums and operating on senses, emotions or imagination.

Criticism
Epistemic arguments states against the cognitive function of art. It includes banality argument, that suggests that there may be truths within the artwork, however, those are common truths known by everybody. What is more, their knowledge is a condition for understanding a given piece. Discovery of truths is not a function of art. Truth should be based on evidence or argument. The no-evidence argument heavily draws on empiricism, suggesting that pieces of art usually lack a justification, and therefore do not transmit truth. Furthermore, according to the argument, a message passed by artwork is based on the individual case that is specific and should not be generalised. According to aesthetics argument an acquisition of truth is not a common denominator for works of art and knowledge is not a criterion when it comes to the critique of art. Therefore, the truth should not be expected from art. Plato has pointed out that artists have no special expertise that would support them in making generalisations about the human condition, introducing no-expertise argument.