User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 12/Truth

This is the sandbox page for the issue: Truth.

Bias in algorithm : how the truth of some social studies can be doubted ?
Nowadays, algorithms are used to try and solve problems in different disciplines. They are mostly known for their use in mathematics and engineering but in reality, a large part of them are designed to be used in social sciences to study social issues. Those social sciences are the disciplines we are going to focus on today.

Even though the algorithms are supposed to be a mirror of reality, sometimes the truth of their assertion can be revised. Indeed, during the conception of algorithms, some biases are unintentionally introduced. Those biases often come from the creator but also from the society in which they live. Indeed, discrimination and differences of representation of different social groups can appear involuntarily in the sample group and have an impact on the finished algorithm. For instance, Amazon used an algorithm to go through all the resumes of the job candidates. However, this algorithm was based on the selected candidates’ resume from the last decade. Thus, in 2015, it was discovered that this algorithm was not gender-neutral and was in fact disadvantageous to women because in the last 10 years, most of Amazon’s employees were men and so the word « women » was classified as detrimental. Some similar discriminations were found in other algorithms such as face recognition ones and touched black-skinned people. In fact, studies have even shown that specifically dark-skinned women face a high probability of being faultily classified by such algorithms, with error rates being more than a third higher than when it comes to men with lighter skin colour.

Thereby, we can say that the truth of algorithms is relative to the sample data and it can not be absolute because there will always be some unintentional biases that will lead to false or partly-true results. However, some groups are looking into mechanisms of preventing these biasses in algorithms, so they might be more accurate in the future.

''This whole article is based on the reading of : Jean A. De l'autre côté de la machine. Voyage d'une scientifique au pays des algorithmes. 1st ed. Humensis; 2019.''

Introduction
Even though history strives to be the positivist and evidence-based discipline, it can’t run away from some of the problems, especially when it comes to evaluating particular events’ and people’s impact on the course of history, as well as their causes. History’s positivist nature is eminent only when talking about the facts (what still isn’t entirely positivist, the examples being often biased and emotional personal testimonies and other types of secondary sources), however it is important to note that history’s goal isn’t to barely store the information about past events, but also to seek connection between them.

Coexistence vs correlation vs causation
The main task when evaluating the relationship between some historical events is to specify what is the type of this relationship. Was one of the events directly (or indirectly) caused by another or maybe it was just an unspecified and unclear corelation. It is also possible that the events that were happening at the same time were merely coexistent and there was no connection between them other than the spatial-temporal coincidence.

An example of the Industrial Revolution in UK
The vast majority of historians agrees that the an event called the Industrial Revolution took place, and that it started in the United Kingdom. However the reasons behind its emergence at this specific time and place are not nearly as clear as that. Different historians formulated different theories regarding this case:

•	Kenneth Pomeranz attributes the appearance of the Industrial Revolution to the resources available to the people of Britain – both rich coal deposits and relatively easy access to the colonial goods were (in his opinion) the main factors behind that.

•	Other academic historian, Joel Mokyr, claims that the Enlightenment was the main reason behind this event – it changed previous ways of approaching knowledge and allowed to make practical use of it.

•	Theory presented by Gregory Clark differs from the ones mentioned above, as it focuses on cultural characteristics of the British people rather than their technological advantage. In his opinion, qualities like hard work and the ability to save money were more desired in this society, what is often connected to the dominant religion of this time – Protestantism. These qualities are said to promote innovations and eventually lead to the Industrial Revolution. .

Truth in Natural Sciences
Natural Sciences was created to explore and therefore mirror the world using the methods from different disciplines. So, to an extent, it can shape how society views the world today and all through the years, society had always played a large part in accepting these "truths".

Research is Positivist and Empirical
Truth in natural sciences relies heavily on seen evidence and observations which appears to give it a heavy [|positivist] and empirical approach in research. Starting with the bigger picture, after the development of telescopes, from the 17th century, it was accepted as a fact that Earth was merely a planet orbiting the sun rather than what society thought was the opposite. Scientists also have a strong idea of what the DNA looks like by combining chemistry (the analysis of bases) and x-ray (the double helix structure)- through repetition and experimentation.

Research is accepted by the Society
However, the "truth" is only accepted if society accepts it. Peer-reviewed papers are to ensure the validity of the content and the more an article had been peer-reviewed and assessed, the more "accurate" the knowledge is. Grants are given if the researcher "sold their idea" convincingly.

A well-known example that caused a lot of controversies would be the theory of evolution. When Origin of the Species was released, there was a major backlash as, at that time, the majority of society believed that humans were created in God's image rather than descendants of animals. The Bible is also known to hold the ultimate truth- the "Word". It is still a divided topic as both Natural Sciences and Religion both, in a way, view themselves to have positivist evidence- either one is right and the other is wrong. It goes back to the core, the values and even identity which is probably why it took a long time to accept. However, as society changes, the theory of Evolution is now more widely received in the Sciences- appearing in education. Therefore, Natural Sciences can be considered to have aspects of constructivism- truth constructed by the society and culture one is in and brought up in.

So, Natural Sciences has the intention of giving positivist data- by collecting data, doing numerous trials, repeats etc with the impact of the society's opinion.

Origins of Phrenology
Phrenology is the science of assigning traits or intellectual capacity to an individual based on skull formation, under the belief that each portion of the brain holds a distinct function. Joseph Franz Gall, who popularized phrenology in the first half of the 19th century, made it a point to demonstrate empirical evidence and correlational examples. This would be a form of positivist truth, had Gall's research techniques been somewhat less dubious. However, his medical degree and access to various cutting-edge medical facilities, as well as his enormous collection of skulls, gave his research the authority prove his theory: that the human brain and skull were instruments through which “Nature” of humans were demonstrated, disregarding the difficulty of quantifying such a concept.

Popular Reception Through Lectures
Gall’s research was popularized through his lecture tours that were marketed not only towards a scientific audience, but also an elite one. This was quite rare at the time, because scientific research was less of a matter of public interest than it is now. By turning a profit on each lecture and winning over the public with charismatic speaking and presentation skills, as well as refusing to publish in medical journals, Gall made enemies within both the scientific and religious communities.

Debunking
Part of his work was actually correct: different parts of the brain correspond to different functions. However, much of Gall’s work was specifically based on the observation and measurement of skulls of individuals with specifically extreme traits, such as murder or intelligence. This would possibly lead to a form of interpretive truth, due to the classification of individuals based on specific actions or attributes, where conclusions are drawn after the categories are created, and without regard to other factors. It was argued to be somewhat biased, even during the peak of phrenology’s popularity. However, the attention it gained in spite of the questionable empirical evidence demonstrated both the lack of official scientific standards existing during the time period, allowing unreviewed 'truths' to be disseminated, as well as the power of presentation in convincing an audience. The real truth behind phrenology was arguably constructed to prove Gall’s views, yet it persisted through clever marketing and a solid enough basic foundation. When it fell out of fashion, there was relatively little dissent because there was not a lot of data to definitively disprove, and it quietly mixed into other disciplines like neurology that advanced with a more objective framework. While truth can be used a a form of authoritative power, power, especially of the intellectual kind, can be used to shape truth, as seen here within Gall's success.

What are Biochemistry and Positivism?
Biochemistry is a form of science that connects biology and chemistry. It’s based on understanding the chemical processes at a molecular level of living beings. Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only truth comes from understandings through observation. In other words, the point of view of the researcher has no role in his research. Everything is discovered with the help of data interpretation. Thus, biochemistry is more positivist.

How is Biochemistry Positivist?
Biochemistry heavily relies on using experimental methods to observe certain processes in our organisms, using the results found and quantifying it to extract important information. The only moment in which a chemist would use their own opinion would be before research began. A chemist would propose a hypothesis about a certain function that an enzyme would have for example and through extensive lab work and research would prove if they were wrong or right. But in no way, would a chemist distort the data found to be able to confirm their hypothesis.

Conclusion
To put it in a nutshell, biochemistry is positivist just like most sciences since it’s solely based on discovering things through the collection and interpretation of data. Some sciences, like neurosciences, do have certain aspects where the view of the researcher affects the experiment such as consciousness. However, it is not the case when it comes to biochemistry.

Religious studies
Religious studies emerged in the 19th century as an attempt to understand the impact and relationship between humans and religions. It was brought up at about the same time as sociology, economics, anthropology during the enlightenment age when one of the most important ideas of the time was to put the man at the centre of the knowledge. The study of religion was very talked-about as everyone wanted to study it in a different way and most disagreed on the methods and topics that needed to be covered.

This discipline was first brought up to try and understand beliefs but also to interpret and compare different religions. When studying religions, history and philosophy are two disciplines that cross religious studies.

Can we have truth in religious studies? How do we study a discipline that isn’t founded on evidence?
Religion is a very complicated subject to treat because it is not based solely on evidence. A religion cannot be verified through books and most of the time, to have the truth we need evidence. There is truth in the historical side of most religions because they are based on events that people were able to prove.

Talking about truth and religion is a very difficult task because according to the professor Dewi Zephaniah Phillips to understand religion you need to have a religious understanding rather than criteria of truth. He is not saying that truth cannot be put into religion and used, but more than it’s a personal truth that changes with people. To him, the understanding of religion is not about the correct knowledge that we have and the truth we have learned from it but rather the ‘personal’ kind of truth.

Truth in religion is more about the truth that you understand with yourself. The more you try and find a scientific truth or proof of religious beliefs, the personal belief diminishes because religion is founded on the fact that we don’t know everything. The truth in religion can therefore be perceived either as relative or subjective.

However, religious studies are still taught which means that they still have some truth in them or that we can at least use them to understand something else. The paradox about religion is that sometimes we don’t need to know why but just to believe and build from there. Indeed if it was made clear that religions and Gods did not exist no one would believe in them, but it has been one of the most persistent forces in the history of humanity.

Revelatory Truth Within Religion
Finding personal truth within religion can occur in multiple ways. Aside from being born into a religion and learning about it from family or community, revelatory truth can also be a factor. Sometimes in instances of deep thought or meditation, more active brain signals can be observed, especially in the frontal lobe, which plays a part in various high-level brain processes. Because religion can activate these functions, it suggests that full belief of the truth of a religion can create a real effect and a better experience for those who partake in it.

Introduction
As social media takes an increasing place in today's’ society, fake news and misinformation are emerging through all social media platforms. More and more people are starting to rely on social media as a source of news. In 2018 it was said that about two-thirds of American adults (68%) occasionally got their news on social media. Consequently untrue content could influence audiences unable to distinguish truth from fact or news from propaganda. This matters especially when politics is at stake, for example in time of presidential elections, especially when presidential campaigns are half spent on social networks.

Fact Checking
Fact-checking is basically the process of checking that all the facts in a piece of writing, a news article, a speech, etc. are correct. It is supposed to also apply to social media's content, however, big platforms such as Twitter, Instagram or Facebook can have a difficult time fact-checking all of the information as on average, every second around 6,000 tweets are tweeted, which means that over 350,000 are sent per minute, 500 million per day so around 200 billion of them per year. . Fact-checking in fact became a professional activity and fact-checkers are more and more targeted with online harassment or legal action. To the point where organizations emerged to help fact-checkers continue their important work. For example, The Fact-Checkers Legal Support Initiative (FLSI) is an organization that connects fact-checkers with pro bono lawyers and help them to pay legal fees, and provides guidance on legal and non-legal issues.

An example of truth in social media that can sometimes be biased is in China. China is known to be a country where 'fake news' and 'rumors' are constantly being censored in the social media platform 'Weibo', the biggest social media blog in the country. The company, jointly with the government is removing 'inappropriate' content, or what they call 'rumors' which can be defined as pieces of information that haven't been authorized by the government when reliable information isn't available. In China, finding truth in social media but also from what the government says is incredibly difficult because the only source of information doesn't reflect reality and therefore the truth. In the social media 'Weibo', reliable information that isn't approved by the government is removed from the platform or either discredited even if the 'rumor' is true.

Social Media and Politics
As said before, politicians tend to more and more use social media as a tool for their campaign, as it is a direct and simple way to communicate with their supporters. Consequently, it is important that their content is true and fact-checked, as they are the leaders of our world. Recently, Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States received severe backlash over the spread of misinformation regarding the content of a certain amount of his tweets. Without providing evidence, he tweeted, talking about the 2020 United States presidential election: " "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.". His fact being untrue, unjustified, and unfounded, Twitter responded by "flagging" his tweet and labeling it as "unsubstantiated". Plus, during the Covid-19 pandemic, a numerous number of untrue statements had been made via the Tweeter platform. In response to that, Tweeter decided to update its approach to misleading information. . The goal being to have a "true" based platform, they decided to introduce "new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19." Plus, if a statement is declared "untrue", Tweeter will proceed to the removal of the tweet.

Introduction
Mathematics are the discipline dealing first and foremost with numbers and their operations. Whether the laws, theories and assumptions we make in mathematics are true, is a very controversial topic. Some argue that they are simply an invention of humanity and that we create this knowledge merely for our own convenience. This is supported by the fact that experiments have shown that human brains and even some animals’ brains are wired to think mathematically and have an innate sense for integers, especially since the world around us consists of discrete, quantifiable objects. However, others say that mathematics is to be discovered rather than made up since the universe seems to be following mathematical rules that are a given and therefore a truth that cannot emerge solely from our own creativity.

Axioms and theorems
Within the field of mathematics itself, a theory needs proof before it is regarded as “true”. When we manage to prove a theory to be true, it becomes a theorem that in turn can be used to explain or derive other theorems. Theorems themselves, however, are built on axioms, which are theories that are accepted by scientists and mathematicians, but for which we have no proof. Despite that, as one cannot prove anything without making fundamental assumptions beforehand, they are essential starting points for theorems. The theories we derive from axioms are meant to build a whole network of theorems, branching out into different fields of the discipline. Therefore, different areas in mathematics find their origin in different axioms. What mathematicians cannot seem to agree on, though, is whether we even have enough axioms from which to derive the “whole mathematical truth”.

Complex numbers
An example of a branch of mathematics, that has been “invented” by humans is imaginary numbers. However, complex numbers, that consist of imaginary numbers, have proven themselves to be very useful and influential in science. They are applied in electrical engineering, where they are used to describe electromagnetic waves and current, and even in weather forecasting. Of course, this goes back to the idea that mathematics is just a system that we use for our own benefit. However, all this does raise the question, whether the concept of complex numbers does not become more “true”, simply because it works in empirical contexts.

Is mathematics invented or discovered?
As outlined above, mathematics is the discipline concerned with numbers and shapes, relying heavily (perhaps more so than other disciplines) on logic. However, a question that has been hotly debated for a long time is whether mathematics is discovered or invented, in other words whether it is a positivist or constructivist truth. A positivist approach to mathematics is called realism, and a constructivist approach is called anti-realism.

Realism
Realism is the positivist approach to mathematics. The most popular realist view is Platonism, which postulates that mathematics exists on a separate plane such that it is abstract, meaning it exists outside of space (non-spacial) and time (non-temporal), and is non-mental, as it exists outside of ideas or concious entities. It also implies mathematics is acausal, as you can't directly interact with mathematical concepts (you cannot pick up a constant), and eternal and unchanging. This view implies that mathematics consists of abstract objects, laws which govern our universe, which exist independently of humans and can be discovered by them. A compelling piece of evidence for this idea is how oftentimes equations developed in a field of mathematics at the time regarded as purely theoretical end up present in the world around us, or useful for development of other disciplines. Similarly, often mathematical models provide unexpectedly high precision of answers.

Anti-realism
There are several versions of anti-realism, but their core assertion is that there are no abstract mathematical objects existing independent of human action. Formalism, conventionalism and deductivism are such theories. These hold that mathematical theories are not universal truths uncovered by humans by logic and reason, but rather arise from sets of rules that humans create. Thus, in these views a mathematical model is good if it has no internal contradictions. We use these models to approximate reality, but they are not their inherent property. This is a constructivist view of mathematics.

Art and truth
Art represents forms of truth based on individual experiences, perceptions and interpretations of the world around us, both on behalf of the creator of art and on behalf of the consumer of art. Truths in art are not universal or absolute, neither are they evidence based or empirical, hence they may not conform to one’s initial associations with the concept of truth. However, this is not to say that there is no truth in art. Truths in art are more likely to be subjective or relative, yet truths nonetheless.

Alexander Sesonske on truth in art
Sesonske claims that there is a divide in the debate regarding the presence and function of truth in art between those who deny the connection between art and truth and discredit art with being able to discover truths and obtain knowledge; and those who recognise the connection between art and truth and see the truths in art as “extra-scientific”, “pre-scientific” or “super-scientific”. Sesonske also presents an idea of three forms of truth relevant in art. He calls them surface truths, embedded truths and embodied truths. He claims these three forms of truth have varying degrees of aesthetic importance. Sesonske’s analysis focuses mainly on literary art forms however, he does also discuss truth in the painting Guernica (Picasso, 1937) arguing that the painting depicts embodied truths about the nature of people and war.

Herman Rapaport on truth in art
Rapaport approaches several forms of art in the quote: “Perspective, in short, was viewed as itself the truth in painting, just as harmony in music would much later establish itself as the truth in sound.”. This quote relies on a more abstract conception of truth, placing emphasis on trends of truth in art during the Renaissance. Rapaport suggests that when truth is not directly presented in visual art, in for example an realistic use of perspective in painting, it criticises the truths of the environment in which it was created. He uses the example of Marcel Duchamp, Eva Hesse and Jackson Pollock to state that “What links (them) is that in each case critics locate the truth of their work in their resistance as artists to the cultural establishment around them.”. Truth in art must not necessarily be explicit, but can be found through analysing a work of art in its context.

Conclusion
Truth in art is relative and subjective to the preconceptions, identities and personal experiences of both the creator and consumer. Truths, according to Sesonske can be surface, embedded or embodied and according to Rapaport can criticise the existing truths in their spatial and temporal contexts. Truth in art is not measurable or testable yet important nonetheless.

Truth in History
The discipline of history seeks to recount and analyse important events from the past. History has been a discipline that has been studied for centuries, however historical writings have gained validity in evidence throughout time, with the lines between fact and myth being quite blurred in ancient times compared to the use of census and even photographic media to evidence events in the more recent past. History can draw upon both qualitative and quantitative evidence, often used in tandem with each other in order to help historians draw conclusions.

The role of bias in the historical discipline
Bias affects the way that history is recounted and displayed. This is present throughout both historical writings as well as the way that history is taught in schools and universities, for example many history textbooks are made with sponsorship from national governments, in order to paint themselves in a more positive perspective.

Whilst especially in more recent history, we have empirical data to help us recount history, lots of the truth in historical writings and textbooks is subjective rather than objective as it is difficult for historians to discuss history without imposing their own opinions.

Conclusion
In the historical discipline, whilst truth and fact can be used to describe past events, the nature of the discipline allows historians to introduce their own views and opinions onto the periods of time that they are describing in order to interpret and analyse.

Even with facts, whilst they can be construed as being difficult to question their validity, they can be framed in different lights to be favourable to the opinions of those who are writing or discussing them. This often prevents history from ever being able to have absolute truths within historians' writings and books rather being a discipline that can be described more commonly as having relative truth to it.