User talk:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 5/Truth

@Truth in Politics
Hi! I think your topic is so relevant right now! I really like how you compared it to Einstein's theory and how that could be proved. I think it's really interesting to compare politics and physics, which might not be seen together much. Basc.blue (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Djungelskog1 Hi! I really like your subject! I also did some research on truth and politics for my essay, and found some of your sources as well, but I didn't know about the quote of Hannah Arendt, which I found very interesting :) Undercoverfrench (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Undercoverfrench Thank you so much! Since you've actually written an essay about this topic, I was wondering if you have any sources or any other aspects of truth in politics that should be discussed which you could recommend that could help improve this section. Please let me know if you do. Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Truth in Philosophy
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your section, as we both seemed to explore the concept of scepticism within both Philosophy and Religious Studies. Through the theories you discussed within your section you made it clear that philosophers have had some difficulty in defining what is known as truth. This was similar to my conclusion that within religious studies, more specifically, religious experience, truth seems to be relative. This led me to consider whether the idea of relativity is mutually exclusive to the idea of truth, as surely truth should be universal. I also liked how you acknowledged the co-dependent nature of 'truth' and 'fact' within the Correspondence Theory.Ivoryallen (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks a lot for your insight. You're so right about truth being universal by definition. I suppose that we just have to accept that truth is almost impossible to determine for sure, which is when it becomes somewhat relative and subjective (which is definitely the case in your discipline of religious studies).AurelieJane (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Truth in History: Napoléon Bonaparte, the inspired leader or obsessed villain...
I noticed that our texts have a similar topic, hence I will merge them together, in order for all the information about history to be under the same heading.--Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this great initiative. I just went over the overall contribution and I feel our ideas blend in really well together. --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Truth in The Chicago Conspiracy Trial
Rooting your analysis on truth within a case study was bold I thought but very well done and gave me the opportunity to see how truth operates in a discipline through real-life events.

Your paragraph on law particularly echoed to me. You explored how truth in law can be manipulated to one’s advantage, which, in your case study, led to a biased trial. In that sense, truth is at the heart of law, as its aim, to some extent, is to determine who holds the truth between the accused, the defendant and the witnesses. This is even harder as the truth for one may not necessarily be the truth for the other, which brings me to draw a link with my personal contribution-truth in history.

As in history, I feel truth in law also has a dialectal nature, which implies that one may arguably only reach compelling truths by going through the process of partiality, contradiction and incompleteness.

What I also wanted to point out is the misconception to mix up the two notions of “truth” and “a truth valid only for oneself”. They seem quite similar but the second one is a matter of personal opinion and is specific to each individual or to a group of individuals. It therefore is admitted without proper examination whereas a truth has to be demonstrable. Thus, it is not enough for an opinion to be shared for it to be true.

This mindset is particularly important, especially when it comes to studying truth in law, since personal opinion, the public, the media...play a preponderant and even decisive role in criminal cases. Although in some legal cases, the evidence speaks for itself and the public opinion hence speaks out the truth-the innocence of an individual for example-out of confidence without having ever been truly questioned, opinions are not always true. Truth in law is thus an extremely delicate matter, as it relies on individuals’ perceptions, beliefs, and emotions, subject to outside pressure and influence.

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Truth in Architecture
@UClqevy. The truth of architecture sounds like a very interesting but hard topic to discuss. You could maybe think about a new text structure, which might may it smoother to read and understand the context of the article. A suggestion from my side would be two split it into two parts, one editorial point of view and one scientific point of view. Otherwise, a great contribution.BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Bonschlonzo. Thank you for your suggestion. This is a great suggestion from your side, I will definitely edit the text structure.

@truth in economics
@BonSchlonzo I come back to you regarding your very interesting section showing clear correlations between truth and economical activities. I believe that there is an important relation between the homo-economicus model from the neo-classical theory and truth in economics. How this theory has made economic models relevant in the real world? How it describes the role of the consumer? thank you

cool question, just had a look into this uploaded a section on that below. Have a look!!! BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice edit, very well articulated!

@Truth in History
I took History as one of my A-Levels, and I definitely agree with you in that historical truths are highly subjective and that absolute truths are extremely limited. In my syllabus, source analysis and evaluation of historians’ interpretations counted for a third of my final grade, which all the more proves that determining truth is pivotal to the discipline. You mention that modern historians sometimes disregard “untrustworthy” sources, which I find baffling. In my opinion, “inaccurate” information is still valuable as it would reflect the views of a particular social demographic, which would only further an historian’s understanding of an event/period.

WoodzyMoodzy (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)