User talk:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 4/Truth

I just had a question about the section 'The question of Truth within Fine Arts' which is very interesting. Do Fine Arts' ultimate purpose is always representing the reality as closely as possible (and therefore the truth), or can it also be for example more abstract? Mouxy73 (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Since the 19th century, Fine Arts works have not only one purpose. Indeed, the meanings conveyed through works of art became much more important as fine arts became free from this 'close to reality' condition. For instance, it is shown with artistic movements such as Conceptual Art. (I hope it answers your question :))Majb324 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it does! Mouxy73 (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The part about the construction of Truth in Memory is super interesting, but maybe the link between memory and a discipline/disciplines could be a bit more developed? Majb324 (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Perhaps the section could be broken up and integrated into the other disciplines? There's a short paragraph on the reliability of eye witness accounts in courts, for example, which, if elaborated, I think would make an interesting addition to the section about Truth in Law?Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, I am going to try to add this question in my section (Truth in Law)! Mouxy73 (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I added one example to the section but there are so many types of biases that could be discussed, so if anyone has time/is interested, do add more!Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have now attempted to clarify the main disciplines that I focus on in which the study is embedded. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This section is incredibly interesting. I think you have done well to focus on memory through the discipline by using the punchy topic sentence at the beginning. Superb theory discussion but perhaps linking back to the discipline of philosophy at the end will make it even clearer! --purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 15:19 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea to tie it all together. I have now amended the conclusion. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that the truth in memory section has referenced a Loftus study in which she implanted false memories into participants, I assumed this to be 'The Formation of False Memories' study by Loftus and Pickrell which is probably the most famous of the time. I have added the paper into your references but please delete it if it is not the study you were referring to!--Zvxz (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was exactly the study I was referring to. Thank you. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the section on truth in memory is really impressive and there is very little space left for improvement (if at all). I was just wondering if it wouldn’t be better if terms such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ were changed to some more specific ones, meaning ones which point directly to human species? Of course, the section is perfectly understandable in the current form, however given that terms ‘we’ and ‘our’ are quite inclusive, once they are put out of context (for example when some passage from this section is cited) they might become a little confusing- someone might get lost to whom is that ‘we’ referring to. Anyways, I am not sure if that’s actually a real issue, but maybe it’s worth thinking about. 18:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a valuable point, thank you. I have now edited to make the subject in question - human individuals - less ambiguous.--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I find the section on 'Pandemics wreaking Pandemonium: Seeking Truth in Social and Political Science' very insightful, especially the concept of 'factoids.' This section seems relevant to the 'illusory truth effect': the process by which, when exposed to repetition of a falsity, subjects come to assume that it is true. This is because people tend to judge truth by its familiarity. Perhaps you could incorporate this phenomenon into the section mentioning factoids? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this comment might be in relation to my section on political science as I mention factoids, sorry if I am incorrect! I have now added a section to relate this theory of truth to the discipline of political science. Thank you! purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 8th of November 2020 (UTC)

The section on 'Truth in Photography' is really interesting, especially because it's so prevalent in our current digitalized world. I wonder if a specific example of a photograph might aid your point? I wrote the section on cartography and found examples helped me a lot to put my point across and I would be curious to know about similar case studies in photography Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea I shall put one in now! --Zvxz (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've just read it, super interesting. I had no idea about that inauguration photo! Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

After reading 'Truth in Cartography', I wanted to research more into this highly topical debate. Perhaps the further discussion of maps being used as propaganda would be an interesting inclusion. Some maps are so from what society stereotypically call a map for example, Fred Rose's "Serio-comic war map for the year 1877" depicts Russia as a large octopus suffocating Poland and Finland whilst the rest of Europe are at peace. Maybe you could open this example up into a comment (backed up by a journal or article) surrounding what the boundaries of cartography are, visually and aesthetically. How can one distinguish between an artistic interpretation or a map? Are there any debates surrounding the description of Fred Rose's interpretation as a "map"?purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 07:43 9th of November 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea, thank you. I'll have a look into that soon. In any case, feel free to add to my section if you have good insights! Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look into the use of maps as propaganda and there is a huge crossover with persuasive cartography e.g. the use of colours and shading to portray a particular message so I believe this has mostly been covered. This paper is worth a read if you're still interested -https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00221344308986602?needAccess=true Fred Rose's "Serio-comic war map for the year 1877" was, however, an interesting read. Thank you for the suggestion. Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, maybe within the "Truth in Law" section discussing the profession of law's representation within film and television could be interesting too. How is it exploited, twisted, dramatised and provocative for the audience? Are there any theories on whether this is damaging to the public's perception of law and order?purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 07:52 9th of November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your idea, I'll try to talk a little bit about this! Mouxy73 (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

In Trith in Law, it would also be very interesting to see how Law treats truth that is put forth by "experts": in that sense, law must take into account every forensic discipline's epistemology.