User:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 2/Truth

Epistemology
Epistemology is derived from the greek word “ἐπιστήμη", meaning knowledge, and is the study of justified belief.

Some Thoughts
Is there objective truth? This is the question given to us in the lecture. It was nice to keep this question in mind. I got some thoughts after watching the film . I can't tell my feelings after watching the film, because when I saw the violence and conflict between citizens and the society in Gotham City, I couldn't help but relate it to some violent political act against the government. I feel the story of Joker can give me understanding of both side of the society, the group living a decent life, and the group being ignored and hated. It's easier to understand the people with decent life. They must have behaved RIGHTLY as the society desires and work hard to earn their life. On the other hand, the act of the group represented by the Joker seems also justifiable to me. The criteria for funny and killing people of the Joker is different because of his early childhood trauma and the later mental disorder. He was born kind but it is the surrounding events that gradually made him available for immoral and violent acts. From my recent studies of Anthropologist Boas, instead of seeing cultures as a revolutionary hierarchy, he argued that different cultures are equally developed and should be studied in their own terms, such as geography, history, etc. It occurred to me that this development of culture might be similar to people's growth, so relatively the Joker is also RIGHT. I mean he is a hero assuming Gotham City is an irrational and toxic world, but to what extent he is right in a society less distorted? The truth here again seems to be a perspective.

But is there objective truth? I don't know and I feel I am so limited in the contemporary thoughts. Human are always acting on their own benefits most of the time. Apart from acting on our natural instinct, we behave according to our standards of goodness to make our ego feel good and superior. Even if there is truth, I couldn't see it now. And then the film  by Kurosawa Akira popped up to my mind. It tells a story of a murder, firstly narrated in omniscient perspective, then the three other versions by the three people involved. In the film, the three people all see and state a different story for their own benefits. In reality, is it possible that we humans are always like those three people, we have different perspectives but not the truth, while there is actual truth that no one would admits?

(p.s.1 I feel I am talking mostly about the part of truth in Arts/Humanities P.s.2 Since there is no clear requirement of the sandbox content, I am writing this in a more conversational/ diarial way for our discussions than the academic essay. I hope you guys can forgive me on that😬)

Please feel free to add comments!

Defining Truth
Truth is, in many ways, a paradox; at one end of the spectrum truth can be taken very objectively, as evidence based on proven fact, but at the other end it can be very subjective, as philosophical, or rather abstract theories are hard to define and even harder to prove. Subjective truth is therefore vulnerable to personal bias: while objective truth can of course also be influenced by human biases, it is perhaps less common due to its evidence-based origins. This is quite a black and white categorisation of truth, a further view classifies truth into three schools of thought; positivist, interpretive and constructivist. Positive can be classed as the most objective, classing things as truth only if they can be proved by something that can be measured. This has great importance in a lot of subjects as the quantitative/empirical factor, in fact some scientists and researchers identify as solely positivist. Interpretive is more subjective, in the fact that it is based on (human) experience. This can be interpreted through the phenomenological perspective - that truth can only be discerned through on the lens of human experience and consciousness. Constructivist is no doubt the most subjective, as it comes from the idea that everything we encounter have some chance of being a purely social construction, in which case the world and its events can be seen as concepts, or experiences, rather than concrete evidence.

Theories of Truth
The problem with asking the common question "what is truth" is that it implies there is only one version of truth. Empirical, hard truth is typically considered to be perfectly synonymous with the word truth, but that isn't the case exactly. Theories of truth are systems which support different concepts of truth, which are typically attributed to different disciplines. These theories sometimes result in the division of two disciplines, as differing definitions of truth creates a breeding ground for disagreements. Social sciences and human sciences are divided by their different theories of truth; the social sciences are more intepretivist, while human sciences apply a positivist approach.

Coherence theory: This theory establishes that a belief is only true if it agrees with every element of a fixed set of ideal beliefs. These ideal beliefs are considered to be perfectly true and anything else is only true if it coheres with these beliefs. If it were established that "killing is always bad", following the coherence theory, the Joker would be considered bad as his actions cohere with the ideal belief. However, that would also mean that police officers are bad, regardless of the circumstances under which they kill (a matter I'll discuss at another point ).

Deflationary theory: The deflationary theory is redundant and unique, as it doesn't seek to discover truth. It instead suggests that there is in fact no such property as truth, or rather that truth is not significant. For example, in stating the following: "it is true that killing is bad", you are effectively saying "killing is bad". Both sentences mean the same thing; the use of truth in the former doesn't add any meaning to the sentence, hence truth is a null property.

Interpretive theory: The interpretive theory of truth considers truth from the perspective of the lived experience of people, as opposed to evidence or facts. It is closely associated with the discipline of sociology, as mentioned above. The Joker was clearly established as a man of the people, killing the few to help the many. From the point of view of the masses, the Joker was a good guy, hence from this, one could state that killing is not bad.

Truth, reality and belief
Truth and reality are often falsely perceived and thought as the same concept. According to Cambridge Dictionary, truth is defined as the quality of being true or the fact or principle that is thought to be true by most people. On the other hand, reality is the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be. In that sense, reality is more closely related to evidence, as it refers to the real-life experience, whereas truth is a perspective. The truth belongs in the realm of human speech, whereas reality can apply to anything that is authentic. Real wool in a sweater, real vanilla seeds in a cake, real and authentic Mexican cuisine... All of these examples exist in the sphere of reality, but cannot be "true" or "telling the truth." Truth is dictated by what humans say and come up with. Many theories are believed to be true at one point in time, but are negated years later. The term 'belief' is important here, referring to a possibly subjective approach to truth. Belief plays a crucial role, good or bad, in our relationship with truth. In his work Meno, Plato develops the concept of "Justified true belief", which challenges the notions of knowledge, truth and belief. "The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so."

What type of truth is most associated with the Discipline of Documentary Film?
Documentary film takes a subjective approach to truth because footage of reality does not contain facts uncovered by scientific method but instead contains people and things which exist in society. This adheres with the definition of subjective truth ‘A subjective truth is a truth-based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based on our input - our senses, our perception.' In the documentary film Birthplace you watch the protagonist uncover the truth of what happened to his Jewish father during German occupation of Poland as he interviews people in the village where he was born. In this way reality is interpreted as such that people's perspectives play a dominant role over facts. However documentary film could be said to take a constructivist approach to truth on a micro level, where the filmmaker as appose to society construct a literal 'lense' through which we view the world. Producer Molly Dineen argues “I’m trying to say this is life as it happens.. but that’s also rubbish.. because I’ve chosen that person and the person is changing their behaviour because I’m there”.

In contrast, some filmmakers argue that the truth in documentary is objective, and they do in fact capture ‘facts’. For example, Errol Morris argues ‘the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that’s nonsense talk.. there is a real world.. things happen.. someone sits in the car and pulls the trigger.. there’s a truth of what actually happened that night”. Additionally, the discipline of documentary film could also be associated with relative truth which can be defined as ‘the view that truth and falsity, right or wrong, standards of reasoning and procedures of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment’. For example Barry Steven argues that “with a documentary there is an agreement with the audience that you are referencing or giving an account of evidence-based reality”. Consequently, Steven also argues that with reference to Werner Herzog’s 'Little Dieter Needs To Fly' (in which Herzog made up facts and orchestrated the protagonist to behave a certain way) that the concept of truth within the discipline of Documentary film has been broken and it is 'a lie'.

Subjective vs Objective 'truth' in Music
'Truth’, in terms of interpretation, may be solely dependent on the individual. Emotion evokes an inward significance of truth that is subjective to each and everyone of us. Beyond the fact that there are factual and conceptual facts evolving around works of art that are objectively true such as: saying that Kodaly’s ‘Dances of Galanta’ orchestral work is opened by a clarinet cadenza, we cannot prove, disprove or justify any emotional knowledge gained from a work of art: “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance” argued Aristotle.

Art communicates unquantifiable subjective ‘truths’ that evoke instinctive emotions which cannot be disproved. However, these can be disagreed with by others who feel differently. Music composers know that various tonalities may have similar effects on everyone, such as using a minor key to convey sadness, alongside the use of many other musical or literary elements such as instrumentation, rhythm or lyrical and melodic techniques. They use these techniques to share their emotions and, assuming that composers and listeners feel similar emotions, subsequently try to convey them to the audience. But beyond these musical features, everyone can gain personal knowledge from a piece of music through the context in which the work is listened to. I.e. if one listens to a song going through a difficult heart break, memory will unconsciously associate the song to the context and the same song heard in the future may appear sad although it was not written with that initial purpose. Following this reasoning, if truth derived from reason for a work of art is factual or quantifiable, such as saying that Kodaly’s work starts in the Dorian mode on A, we can know for sure if it is true or false and the statement will be positive (I.e. a testable hypothesis about cause and effect). However, if an aesthetic explanation is derived from emotions, it will be normative and cannot be proved to be either right or wrong. Could that therefore implying that all explanations derived from emotions are ‘true’?

Truth opposed to lie?
We have seen that a lot of disciplines (especially in the humanities department) present truth as subjective. On another side, we also perceive lying as the opposite of truth. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as something that is said but is known to be untrue. However, if we follow this reasoning it would mean that the lie would not exist. For instance, Ed Gein was a serial killer who was first found unfit for trial due to schizophrenia was later judged for the murder of Bernice Worden. He claimed that Worden’s killing was accidental and not intentional. He was first found guilty for this crime but was then ruled not guilty by reason of insanity.

If we come back to Ed Gein’s claim that he did not mean to kill Worden would we say it was a lie? On the one hand, if we did, that would mean that subjective truth would not exist. However Gein due to his schizophrenia is convinced that he did not mean to kill Worden. Therefore it represents a truth for him, a subjective truth. On the other hand, if we didn’t, it would mean that we would be ignoring the facts, the evidence that he intentionally murdered his victim. Therefore we would rule out all objective perspective and truth.

We can see therefore how lie and truth are more linked than opposed. A thin line separates them. Thence forth what could be the opposite of truth ? If we look at it on philosophical approach we could say that it is ignorance. It represents a shift between reality and our perception of it and according to plato it is what keeps us from seeing the truth.

We can see how truth is an interdisciplinary subject because depending on the facet we look at its whole organisation is changed.

Truth in Trials
It has been argued that there are three points of view when a conflict arises: two for both of the parties involved and a third, the truth. But how exactly can it be found? Taken into the domain of the legal system and court trials, the latter have been defined as a ‘search for the truth’, though those who are professionally involved in the system would refute, as Kenneth S. Klein, Professor of Law in the Californian Western School of Law that ‘if this is so then it is a meaning of truth that differs what truth means in any other context’. There is an obvious philosophical aspect that is involved in trials, and that in a way decides to isolate what we consider truth to make way to other concepts like justification and belief. The first makes way to what would then be considered ‘facts’, a concept disputed to be quite contrary to the truth. Belief, on the other hand, is a much more flexible term and used as a way to involve the court as a role in society. Aside from these factors, the truth that is sought in trials is linked to philosophical realism, although it is widely flawed due to the existence of 'intuitive certainty'. In my personal opinion, the judicial and legal system are too flawed and hesitant to make 'objective truths' out of any trial.

Truth in Society
Sociology has a theory known as Constructivism. Constructivists believe that our world is largely shaped by ideas which birth social norms. Constructivists believe that as individuals we do not exist prior to society. Hence, from birth, our identities are shaped from the cultures, values and practices that are around us. The theory believes that besides hard facts, our world is also made up of social facts which are ideas that only hold legitimacy because people agree to them. These are crucial as they shape our reality and our viewpoint of the world. This leads us to take for granted many social norms that we deem as truth without considering their origin.