User talk:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 3/Truth

Suggestion on truth in history
Hello, I was thinking you could also talk about the fact that historians can give their interpretation of facts. Multiple theories of different historians will then arise, creating debate, and it is up to their audience to adopt a critical way of thinking. For example, on World War 1 in France, there is a dispute amongst historians on the schools of “consent” (soldiers went to war because they were patriotic) and “constraint” (soldiers went to war because they were obliged to). I found an article on this (however it is in French, sorry), if you want to explore the idea a bit! https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2006/03/10/1914-1918-guerre-de-tranchees-entre-historiens_749539_3224.html Saucesoja (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks I'll add something on that - feel free to edit it if you feel like I forgot something or didn't explain it perfectly! Chopsticks21 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about Truth in Films
Your article was really well-written and interesting! I was wondering as you said that films are a way to purge our own emotions and you talked about catharsis, do you think that we could consider that truth in a movie is related to the nature of feelings facing situations even if what we see isn't the empirical truth? That truth in films is more subjective as to give truth to the spectator through what he feels watching a movie? To what extent the empirical truth can be changed to immerge the spectator in a situation? Api20 (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, adding on to the comment above, I think it would be useful to include more specific terminology, such as "subjective/relative truth" and "Perceiver of Truth" in your text to make your ideas clearer. For example, when you explain that catharsis could be seen as a "form of knowledge in regards to our deepest weaknesses and desires", I believe you're effectively explaining what subjective truth is. Moreover, when you mention that "through a reflection of ourselves" we are able to...,(correct me if I'm wrong) but I think you're pointing to the concept of the Perceiver of Truth (arriving at truth through experience, in that case, the experience while watching a movie). Eagle1020 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for you comment, as watching a film is a personal experience and everyone has their own interpretation of a movie, I would side with the idea that truth is related to the nature of feelings facing a situation, as the truth we are looking for could not be compared to a scientific truth, but to something less stable and objective, though remaining universal, if this makes any sense... The Truth we are able to find through films isn't because we are faced with facts and reasonings, like we would be in school for example, but a truth that is less tangible.. This truth is more subjective. The aim of movies is not to teach facts like school does, therefore I think empirical truth can be altered as much as needed to allow a certain message to get through, although it is then obviously important to mention that the movie is not "based on real events", or knowledge... I apologise if my response is vague or confusing.. I would love to hear you opinion! --Fantomasque (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Science in Post-truth politics
Hey, for an essay in another module I looked up for some of Donald Trump's ironic tweets on climate change and thought it would fit perfectly with both your point about the influence of social medias and the doubts about climate change despite all the scientific evidence there is backing up this scientific theory. So if you want to cite any in your article here are some of them: “Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?” 12:23 AM · Nov 22, 2018 “Let's continue to destroy the competitiveness of our factories & manufacturing so we can fight mythical global warming. China is so happy!” 2:23 PM · Nov 1, 2012 “What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!” 2:28 AM · Jan 29, 2019 President of the US, Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Chopsticks21 (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh that would be really useful, thanks! Also, could I ask what you meant by 'political implications'? I thought implications meant consequence or something that is implied? Would 'political arguments' be better? PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant that, for instance, with President Trump and climate change if he admitted publicly that climate change was real he would have to take measures for it. But maybe "political arguments" would be better indeed. (I think it's just that in french the word 'implication' was more fitted for this meaning but 'argument' probably works better here) Chopsticks21 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, understood! I've changed it to political arguments as I was mostly referring to their political viewpoints instead of the measures they would have to take if they admitted that climate change was real. Thank you! PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on Truth in Philosophy
Hi! I did some more research on the topic and found an interesting paper on whether or not truth in philosophy exists or can be obtained at all. It contains explanations of more general points of views in philosophy which might be interesting to explore as an introduction or conclusion. If you'd like to look into it this is the link https://cdn.mises.org/-3-8_2.pdf?token=4cl-SIhZ --TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Science communication and science scepticism and Science in Post-Truth Politics
I wrote the section 'Science in Post-Truth Politics' and enjoyed reading the section 'Science communication and science scepticism' as it was very informative. I realised our topics were related and could possibly be combined to further explore the issue of science denial in the politics and science communication disciplines. Would love to hear your thoughts about it! PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I definitely see an overlap between our two sections - we both even use a very similar statistic about climate change. The 'Science in Post-Truth Politics' section places emphasis on the disparity in beliefs regarding key science topics as a political issue and the 'Science Communication and Science Scepticism' section continues this discussion by considering what science communicators can do to combat the spread of false information. In that sense it would definitely make sense to combine these two sections - would this be under the same heading? HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree! Would the heading 'Science Scepticism in Politics and Science Communication' be appropriate? Or would you prefer just 'Science Scepticism'? PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just 'Science Scepticism' to keep it concise? Let me know your thoughts HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup 'Science Scepticism' is good, I'll start combining them now. Feel free to edit and add anything new as you wish. PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I read through how you merged our two sections together and I think it's coming along really well! I may add a bit more about the issue of science scepticism regarding GM crops and/or vaccinations, just to expand that section so that we have a more balanced outlook on liberal vs conservative issues.HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I am planning on writing a little bit more about the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. I think I am also going to separate this out into a new paragraph because currently our writing mentions the Trump tweet right after the line introducing the Anti Reflexivity Thesis. I thought this may lead to some confusion as the Trump tweet (whilst a good example of a politician blatantly denying science to appeal to his base) is not directly to do with the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. Just trying to relay my thoughts - hope that makes sense! HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup I've read your edits and I understand! I enjoyed reading your new edits. PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

For clarification (I have been advised by Tim Jordan to note this even though we are past the submission date), this 'Science Scepticism' section is a collaborative effort by me and PerpetualMisfit, as I understand some of my original work may not be credited as it was transferred over by PerpetualMisfit.HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on Economics
Hello, I made a few modifications in syntax. And I wondered after reading your article if the truth in Economics you are talking about is what was presented as the "mirror" in positivism (getting evidence telling you how the world is). Maybe you could add a sentence about the nature of truth in Economics: empirical, objective, found by getting results of experiences... Api20 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Collaboration on Truth in Film
I really enjoyed reading this, it reminded me of a documentary filmmaker called Werner Herzog. He has often been criticised for bending the truth in his works. For example, he opens one of his documentaries called Into the Abyss (on death row in America) with an interview with a priest who delivers the last rights to inmates before they are executed. The priest talks about his experiences in his field of work in a calm, reasonable and measured way. Then Herzog asks him, out of the blue, to recount a story about a squirrel. The priest responds saying that he likes to play golf and one day he was out and nearly hit a pair of squirrels with his golf cart. As he speaks of this, he completely breaks down and becomes overly emotional in his discussion about how important life is and how those squirrels nearly died. This very strange, random questioning that leads to such an extreme reaction from a man who sees the moments before death every day is why people question Herzog’s creations so often.

Herzog has written before about his desire to find, what he calls, the ‘ecstatic truth’ rather than the ‘accountant’s truth and to present that to an audience. Here are some quotes of his from a speech-turned-essay called “On the Absolute, the Sublime, and Ecstatic Truth.”

“Only in this state of sublimity [Erhabenheit] does something deeper become possible, a kind of truth that is the enemy of the merely factual. Ecstatic truth, I call it.” “We must ask of reality: how important is it, really? And: how important, really, is the Factual? Of course, we can’t disregard the factual; it has normative power. But it can never give us the kind of illumination, the ecstatic flash, from which Truth emerges.”

Thought you might find this interesting if you wanted to collaborate on your current article!

Sugarfreejazz1 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for your comment! I shall look more into Werner Herzog's work as I had never heard of him. Also thank you for the quote which very interesting and relates perfectly to what I was trying to express in this article. His ideas seem similar to what I have read about Abbas Kiarostami, whom the last paragraph of my text is about: I would recommend reading the article referenced with it!

Suggestion for truth in History
Hi, your topic looks really well-thought out, I enjoyed reading it. You might find it interesting to look into the work of E. H. Carr. He was a historian whose ideas are very relevant to examining the notion of truth in history, because he viewed history as a constantly shifting interaction between the historian and the facts/ evidence that are available to them in the past. Carr's ideas may help develop your point about the historian's bias in history because his view is that truth in history is constantly changing as a result of the historian's choices. I hope this is helpful. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on the Truth in Criminology
Hey! I find your topic very engaging. I wonder what hypothesis exactly means in criminology. Apart from realism, is there also interpretivism and constructivism involved in the process of making a hypothesis? For example, does the investigator also need to combine evidence and his/her imagination to formulate a hypothesis?--PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, yes indeed curiosity and imagination are part of the job. Students in criminology are taught to use empirical truth as well as thinking because to connect elements with one another a part of imagination and talent is needed. The investigator in some cases has to step aside and create scenarios to make hypothesises that will be needed at the beginning of the investigation. Criminology regroups many different types of thinking. Api20 (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on Truth in Mathematics
Hello, I found your topic on mathematics very insightful. I did a bit more research on the subject, and I noticed that you didn't have a lot of content for "empiricism in mathematics", so I thought I'd share these links, I hope it helps! https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82730348.pdf and https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/stable/42968451?sid=primo&seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents Saucesoja (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had a look and both of these were really helpful! --TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Truth in Journalism
Firstly, I found your article very clear and precise. You go through every aspect of truth in journalism. In your second paragraph, you mention the bias of certain journalists, it would be interesting to expand on the subject. You could explore the world of politically engaged networks such as Fox News for example. Journalists can have instructions to approach a situation in a certain way and not be objective. Fox News is known for its support of Republicans and the twisted news they report - could this be considered as truth or a democratic form of propaganda. Secondly, you could also explore more about the world of fake news. Through social media especially, fake news has taken a lot of influence and in many cases becomes the truth - Can false information become the truth if believed by the crowd? You could take Donald Trump as an example and how he uses his influence to spread fake news. When he says "When trees fall down after a short period of time, they become very dry — really like a matchstick. And they can explode. Also leaves. When you have dried leaves on the ground, it’s just fuel for the fires" to explain fires in California, his position makes people believe him and convince many that global warming isn't real (in this case).