User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 7/Truth

Truth is a vague and complex concept that we like to think we understand, given its fundamental role in our society, but find difficulty expressing in our own words. For thousands of years, philosophers have mused over the definition of truth and how truth can be created, categorising, and contested. More than a millennium later, to help us understand how the truth can differ in different contexts, we utilise four categories of truths: objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth and positive truth.

Perhaps the simplest way to explain the concept of an objective truth is to say that "beliefs are true just when they correspond to reality." For instance, we can say that you are reading this Wikibook because in your reality you are absorbing and processing the words and ideas that formulate this page. This definition of an objective truth – objective meaning uninfluenced by our biases and emotions – functions for most contexts in our daily lives. However, in some other contexts, it is difficult or even impossible to know what the reality. Multiple realities can exist as a result of differing experiences; there are always at least three versions of a story: mine, yours, and the real one. What is the real story? In these cases, the truth is subjective even if we like to think that it is absolute, universal and indisputable. We make the truth, we forge it as we see it or as we want people to see it. The third category of truth is normative truth. Normative truth deals with the idea of what we should and should not do. As with subjective truths, normative truths depend on our emotions. Normative truths are formed by an individual or society and their values and experiences. Examples of normative truths include "killing is wrong" and "look both ways before crossing the street." Because of the nature of normative truths, it is possible for the truth to differ between groups (i.e. between cultures, regions, religions, genders, etc.). [add positive truth]

It is evident that the definition of truth can vary depending on the context in which the term is used. In this chapter, we will explore objective, subjective, normative, and positive truth and the different situations in which they arise. Furthermore, we will discuss [description of the other subcategories], censorship and the altercation of truth, and how modern politics demands that we rethink the importance of truth in our society today.

Objective Truth
In many scientific disciplines, an objective truth is uncovered and determined by experts who can prove that a phenomenon exists using evidence and logical reasoning. We like to believe that objective truths exist regardless of our emotions and our biases; thus objective truths are often seen as an absolute truth. However, it is important to note that there is some debate over objectivity in the hard sciences. All research is conducted by humans, and human preconceptions and biases are practically impossible to avoid. Additionally, some scientific studies may receive funding from corporations and interest groups that may desire certain conclusions to be drawn from the research. While objectivity is the goal in scientific research, it is important to take into account biases and human error when evaluating these "truths," especially when scientific studies are being used to push an agenda. In the past, "science" has been used to legitimize immoral values such as white supremacy and racial hierarchy in Apartheid. Science is always changing and theories are constantly being questioned and tested. Due to this constant research, scientific discoveries are presented as "theories" rather than "facts."

There are multiple schools of thought regarding the existence of objective truth. The philosopher Protagoras famously said "man is the measure of all things," arguing that truth is relative and influenced by human perception. Plato, on the other hand, believed in a concrete, objective truth, that exists outside of human control. To Protagoras, humans create truth, but to Plato, humans discover truth.

Subjective Truth
Can anybody affirm that what he says is true? As a human we can't affirm that our words are representing the truth because we always, on purpose or not, modify the truth in order to protect ourselves our in order to justify our actions. A person’s truth, called subjective truth, is based on her perception, her culture, her environment and her opinion. Thus there is a real difference of definition between the objective truth and the subjective truth. An objective truth is proved by objective means, approved and shared by subjective opinions while the subjective truth is only proved by a subjective mean and shared by a group of people with the same point of vue. Nevertheless, we can find something paradoxal, our opinions, thoughts, perceptions and intuitions are leading our researches, apprenticeship and our work. So, our knowledge is, in fact, based on subjective truth thus, we may ask: is there an objective truth?

Normative Truth
Normative truth is a truth that is not determinable by logic or by the existence or non existence of things. It needs reference to something further. Normative truth is nor obvious nor a relationship of cause and effect. Debate, critical thinking can be means to access normative truth. In fact, normative truth is subjective which is why it raises debates and questions. Normative truth varies with each individual’s point of view. Normative truth can answer questions like what is best or what is ought to be.

Normative truth is also called aesthetic truth, ethical truth or ideal truth.

Truth in Philosophy
We can admit that something is true if everyone believes it. For instance, "the sky is blue" and "the weather is nice today" is true if we as a collective believe it to be. However, a statement that may sound true can reveal itself to be wrong. A few centuries ago, we believed that the earth was flat. The philosopher Galileo also stated that there is no difference between movement and rest; it all depends on our perception. Additionally, truths are things that we cannot see. The moon, for instance, rotates but we on Earth cannot see it. Thus, what surrounds us can be misleading. Descartes thought about truth and asked himself: what can we doubt? Can we doubt that the world even exists? We usually believe our dreams are real, and so Descartes asked himself if our lives and the world around us is all a dream and a product of our conceit. The only thing we can be sure about, according to Descartes’ theory, is that we exist because we think cogito ergo sum. Our capacity to think and reflect on whether we exist or not is proof that we do exist. Descartes' thinking is very paradoxical, however, as he doubts the existence of the world but is sure that the mind exists.

The philosopher, Plato, offers a metaphor showing that men can never access truth but only their own biased representation of the world. The allegory of the cave represents men who have never been outside the cave in which they live. Having never ventured outside, they only see shadows from objects and believe these shadows are real. In this allegory, the shadows represent what men can access – their bias ideas – and the objects represent the actual truth. Because men are too biased and influenced by their experiences, they are not able to get to the truth according to Plato. Thirteenth century philosopher Saint Thomas D'Aquin also believed that we never access the truth about the world itself but rather our own personal representation of it, which is biased. Men can never be certain of any truth, according to Saint Thomas D’Aquin, and future proofs can always invalidate our actual theories.

In philosophy, truth can never be reached by men whom are too biased by their own personal experiences. As the Japanese philosopher, Masahiro Morioka, said: "truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas".

Truth in History
Throughout history there have been many instances in which the truth was hidden by individuals or institutions due to its tragic and destructive nature. For instance, the Algerian War, the real story of this decolonization war appeared in the end the 20th century. This war was between France and the national movements in Algeria like the Algerian national movement (MNA) and the national liberation front (FLN). During this war, French soldiers tortured, in order to get information, and killed Algerian soldiers but also, a lot of civilians. Algerian soldiers killed civilians, soldiers, organised bomb attacks in Algeria and France and tried to kill the French president Charles de Gaulle. These events left tragic memories to both populations and the Algerian and French governments decided to close the archives after the end of the war in order to forget it. When historians tried to write the real story of the conflict they could not, as the official story was censored and they only had subjective testimonies of the war. A lot of questions appeared then: How can we write a objective story with subjective testimonies? Who is telling the truth? Why were the two governments hiding the truth from citizens? In the 1970s, when archives were reopened, populations discovered all the tragic events that were hidden to them. These facts were hidden because they were a violation of the ethical and moral standards and values of these countries. This example is proving that during an event they are different actors that are going to have different version of the event story. This story they believe is true, is in fact subjective because it is based on their feelings, their thoughts and their observations. so the perception of the truth about an event is going to be different according to people. Therefore, the truth is impossible to find in testimonies, we need official stories that are objective. Like it is the case during the Algerian war, we sometimes can't have access to official archives because institutions are censoring the truth in order to protect themselves and avoid sanctions.

We could talk about the propaganda (article of Harvard) http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=13083

Truth in Literature
Literature can be the expression of one's experience's, and a genuine criticism of life. Our own literary tastes tend to gravitate towards expressions of reality. This suggests that literature has power over a population's perception of reality. An example of it is historian and philosopher Tzvetan Torodov's account of the education system by Bulgaria's Communist government. Torodov reported that all humanities subjects were shaped by political ideology and that the worth of literature was weighed against Leninist Ideologies. Thus, the purpose of a literature major, according to Torodov, was to describe how a piece of writing supported (or failed to support) the government's ideologies.

Animal Farm (1945)
An example of the power of literature and censorship as a medium for criticism, and its control as a way of imposing power by a government, lies in the analysis of the work of the renowned British writer George Orwell.

According to Orwell, there are two forms of literary censorship. There is voluntary censorship that the writer imposes to himself, and there is the censorship imposed by social pressure. In one of his essays, Orwell suggested that, at that time, censorship and the decision of whether something would be published or not was not solely dependant on the intervention of the Ministry of Information. Rather, it lied mostly on the social pressure and reputation preservation that a publisher felt the need to hold on to. In Orwell's case, he began writing his [adjective] novel Animal Farm in 1937. One of the most-read novels of the twentieth century, Animal Farm served as a satirical allegory of Stalinist totalitarianism. By the time of its completion in 1943, four publishing houses had refused to publish the book, and the one publisher that had initially agreed was persuaded by the Ministry of Information that such a move would be "highly ill-advised." Orwell commented that the reason why Animal Farm was not being published was due to the high opinion that Great Britain held of the Soviet Union; any criticism of the regime would go against the opinion of the general public, and ultimately result not in constructive criticism, but rather in a defaulted negative acclaim.

"'In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves' George Orwell"

In 1941, the USSR and the UK had signed an Anglo-Soviet agreement which officialised their alliance against Germany. One of the points of the agreement specified that both parties should refrain from spreading direct of indirect propaganda against the opposing country.

In the modern days, Animal Farm has been banned in China in 2018 by the President Xi's government.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
Truth, propaganda, and censorship are major themes in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell depicts truth as something that can be altered and destroyed by the ironically named Ministry of Truth. As the novel progresses, the reader learns that the Ministry destroys archives that might compromise the legitimacy of Big Brother's totalitarian regime. This includes censoring anything that contradicts what Big Brother says and removing evidence of the existence of certain people. By controlling the information that civilians have access to, the Party is able to not only control the past, but also the present and the future. Nineteen Eighty-Four poses very interesting questions regarding truth, such as whether or not something is only true if it is recorded. Orwell also explores propaganda and its effect on those of different age groups. The Party's Youth League was designed to make the new generation utterly compliant, and it is very effective – much more so than the propaganda the Party shows to the adults. Interestingly, much of Orwell's bleak depiction of truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four has been mirrored throughout history. The destruction of evidence to cover up the disappearances of important figures has been used by regimes such as Stalin's Communist Party, and the use of propaganda-spreading youth groups has been prevalent in at times like Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. George Orwell's writing reflects a unique post-war perspective on the world, and his novels show that literature can very much be an extension and an exploration of issues present in real life.

Censorship in Spain during Franco's Regime
George Orwell was a participant of the Spanish Civil war, fighting on the Republican side against Franco's regime on the Aragon front. He had also been a member of the Marxist POUM. Francisco Franco's totalitarian regime lasted from 1939 to 1975.

At that time, the Spanish literary scene was not unfamiliar with Orwell's writings. According to the catalogue in the Spanish National Library, there was a Spanish version of Burmese Days, published in Barcelona in 1955, and several editions of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four translated into Spanish and Catalan. Not all books have been easily translated. An example is the attempt of José Janés in August 1951 to translate and publish 2,000 copies of a Spanish translation of Down and Out in Paris and London, which was to be called París y Londres, el interior y exterior. The censor's response was:

"A pesar de su indudable interés literario y temático no podemos aconsejar la autorización de esta obra de Orwell, por la excesiva crudeza de su estilo y la abundancia de detalles censurables en la pintura de los bajos fondos de París y Londres."

"Despite its unquestionable literary interest, we cannot advise the authorisation this work by Orwell, because of the excessive crudity of its style and the censurable details of the Londonese and Parisian slums".

^^ I feel like the spanish version of this quote is not necessary :P

The novel ended up being published in 1955 after being translated in Argentina. However, it was considered a work of fiction, rather than a documentary or an autobiographical account of Orwell's experiences among poor working people in Paris and among tramps in England in the late 1920s. The majority of Orwell's work was not stopped by censorship, but was not necessarily positively met by the public and the intelligentsia. For example, one '''[one what? one person? one newspaper?]''' praised Orwell's style, but did not recommend the publication of the book due to the fact that there were some negative comments on Spain and its political regime which revealed "a certain ignorance of reality".

Homage to Catalonia received different censors' reactions. There was initially a very small request of copies in 1962, when the importation of 5 English copies was requested and approved. The introduction of the Argentinian translation of the book was however banned. Orwell's ideas were considered to be too left-wing and critical of Franco's dictatorship. The censors' criticisms revolved around the argument that Orwell was not giving a truthful account of the Spanish situation. The book could only be published with some amendments, like footnotes reinterpreting some paragraphs and substituting some terms like "proFranco" for "Fascist," "government-supporters" for "Loyalists" and "rising" for "revolt. It wasn't until February 1970 that a first printing of 3,000 copies of the Catalan edition of Homage to Catalonia was authorised.

Truth in Politics: The Post-Truth Era


"Those princes who do great things have considered keeping their word of little account, and have known how to beguile men's minds by shrewdness and cunning." – Niccolò Machiavelli

Post-truth refers to more than just the spread of misinformation. The Oxford Dictionaries, who designated "post-truth" as 2016's Word of the Year, defines "post-truth" as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." Thus, post-truth is different to censorship in that the ultimate goal is not to persuade but rather to elicit emotions and biases in the audience to gain support. In the past decade, since the financial crisis of 2008, we have seen the rise of post-truth. Politicians have taken advantage of the growing wage-gap by basing their campaigns on restoring prosperity to the middle class. Their campaigns became increasingly centred on protectionism, populism, and similar strands of thought. The Oxford Dictionaries noticed a spike in the usage of said term in the wake of the UK's Brexit referendum and Donald Trump's controversial presidential campaign, both of which heavily incorporated post-truth rhetoric. The subsequent success of these campaigns left voters and onlookers perplexed. After all, how could people possibly put their trust into a leader who blatantly lies to the public? And how can people support a campaign that is based on lies and hatred? Perhaps looking deeper into these examples will help us better understand this paradox.

Truth in Financial Economics
1. Speculation

The ‘true’ value of an asset will eventually be discovered by a market. Under this assumption, speculation, such as by hedge funds or individuals, may attempt to predict the future price of assets. This is done using a variety of analytical methods, such as by determining the profitability of a company’s investments or the investments made by their competitors. This will influence the speculator’s decision to either trade (buy then sell) assets, if they expect the price to rise, or short assets, if they expect the price to fall. These decisions determine the income or revenue of individuals or businesses involved in speculation.

In this sense, speculation is the search for truth, as the practice  is dependent on finding information which will determine the future price of an asset. There is information asymmetry between investors and insiders.

There is also deception of truth in financial markets. For example, dividends reward shareholders to keep their assets. This makes the price of a share less volatile as would be experienced in a free market.

The United States
In recent years, the United States has seen a rise in the rejection of liberal internationalism. A large number of Americans – namely those who were left behind when the US began outsourcing labour to developing countries – argue that the United States no longer benefits from the current configuration of world politics, and thus many harbour neo-conservative, anti-immigration, and anti-globalisation values. Sentiments as strong as these can easily be taken advantage of, and that is what Donald Trump and his team did in 2015 when Trump announced his candidacy as president. Throughout the period of his campaign, Trump continuously lied to the media and the American people. He claimed that there could be over 30 million undocumented immigrants in the US; he claimed that global warming was a farce created by the Chinese to hurt the US economy; he even claimed that his political opponent Hillary Clinton was the one that created the Birther Conspiracy, despite the fact that he was the one who actually started it. Individuals and news organisations alike have tried over and over again to "fact-check" Trump's claims, yet, despite proving his claims wrong, Trump continued to lie and gain support. How is this possible?

In accordance with its definition, post-truth rhetoric works because it appeals not to the rational side of the person, but to the emotional side. To Trump supporters, it does not matter whether Trump's numbers are right or wrong. What matters is that he shares the same views and values as them. When Trump claims that there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country, he gains the support of those who lost their job due to outsourcing or cheap immigrant labour; when Trump argues that environmentalism inhibits the US economy, he gains the support of workers in industries that were the most negatively affected by environmental regulations; and when Trump yells "make America great again" into a crowd full of people on the losing end of globalisation, he gains their support simply because they long for the prosperity that they lost decades ago. Additionally, post-truth rhetoric is so effective because most voters make judgements on character rather than on policies. To most, a political leader's main job is simply "[reacting] to things that haven't come up yet." Therefore, voters look for candidates who are charismatic, authoritative, or – in the case of Donald Trump – relatable. Perhaps it can be said that the novelty of Trump's unconventional background played a factor in his election, as many Americans had been disappointed with previous politicians, who were all talk and no action.

The UK
In 2016 David Cameron, the former Prime minister of the UK, organised a referendum in the country. British had to choose between leaving or remaining in the European Union and this is called the Brexit. The informations given by politicians in favour of the exit of the EU convinced the public opinion because the British leaving camp won with 52% of the ballot. They said that the Brexit was a opportunity to boost the security in the country because the UK will close its border to reduce and even stop the illegal immigration. It also appears as a mean to boost the economy of the country, leaving the EU meant that they will no longer have to pay billions pound a year to the EU in order to help other countries. Finally they promised that leaving the EU will help restoring the Britain sovereignty in the world because the country will no longer have to respect the Eu agreements and trades. Now that the UK is out of the EU the country is facing a lot of drawbacks. After, the vote the pound felt to it lowest and the country lost a lot a trades with Europe first, but also with the world because other countries were less likely to invest in the country knowing that they didn't have a direct access to the EU market anymore. Moreover, the Brexit cost more than a 100 billions pound The UK also had to face a social issue, managing the UK citizen who were leaving in the EU and vice versa. This issue was a source of tension between the EU and the UK. Politician can persuade people with their perceived character because even when some of them are hiding the truth people vote for them. So, in fact in this kind of vote we could say that people vote for a politician and his statement without trying to know, sometimes, if it is true or not.

Social Media and Fake News
The invention of the internet has forever changed the way we seek and receive information. On one hand, a seemingly unlimited sea of knowledge can now be accessed from our smart devices. Smartphones can update us on the latest news seconds after it happens; computers can allow us to access centuries-old texts, artifacts, and locations; and social media can provide us with the whereabouts of our friends and family with a somewhat disturbing accuracy. Yet, as information becomes easier to share, it also becomes easier to make up. Given that social media and politics have become increasingly intertwined – to the point where the medium can influence the results of elections, the presence of politically-fuelled and intentionally misleading "fake news" has become a major issue. By spreading defamatory misinformation about a political candidate or by creating fake facts that support a desired outcome, fake news can sway the public's opinion – and therefore their vote – on certain people or issues. A very recent example of fake news infiltrating politics is the 2016 US presidential election. Fake news organisations such as The Denver Guardian and WTOE 5 News published articles that claimed that the FBI agent responsible for the Clinton email controversy was found dead or that Pope Francis had voiced his support for Donald Trump. While it was later explained that these articles were meant to be satires of the current political situation, a disclaimer was not included in the article and thus more than one million people believed and shared the articles on social media. Furthermore, it was discovered that many of these fake organisations and accounts were actually used by Russia to compromise American democracy and push their right-winged agenda. Therefore, given the impact that fake news can have on something as integral as a state's democracy and sovereignty, internet and social network companies such as Facebook are beginning to realise the importance of combating fake news. However, this feat remains a challenge.