Lost in translation

A significant difficulty with truth is the out come of interpreting it. This leads to some confusion over weather a truth is in fact true. Because of the diversity and creativity of what one or another person does with a truth, it can seem that a given truth is not quite true.

Sometimes the meaning, application or actionable response to a truth is what varies. For example the reality that the stove is hot will cause one to prepare a meal on it, and another to come closer to warm themselves. This is a very simple example, but often the argument is more about what to do with a truth then whether we have found one.

All or nothing

We need not know all truth, or even a good deal of truth in order to know some truth. For example, I do not need to know what 4x4 is to know that 2+2 is 4, or how to use that truth. We can easily get distracted by clever arguments that tell us that because we do not understand the implications of a truth we claim to know, or how other truths might inform a more complete view of our known truth, we do not really know what is true. In other words we can be questioned into a less confident claim on truth. This tactic seems to be one of the most common, and perhaps effective tactics in separating us from a given truth.

This might have something to do with our crisis of trust. That is a topic for much later.

Some or sum?

One of the pitfalls of a discussion on truth is how an incontrovertible impossibility for one to know all truth. So can we know truth if we do not know what we do not know to be true? Can we find a true representation of reality if we admit that we only know in part? In short yes. But how?

1+1

Truth often involves meaning. This is where things get much harder. Data, facts and evidence are all pieces of truth, but with out meaning they lack purpose. Meaning is more subjective, but not alway so. The above mentioned pieces help us find a less subjective meaning, which helps us find truth. How do we rightly assign meaning though?

The point of data

Data is an important piece of evidence in pursuit of the truth. However, any statistics student can attest that data must be interpreted. In other words, data describes certain aspects of reality, but meaning is not always part of that description. Data can suggest some causes, and rule out others, but it cannot give us a full picture. Which leads us to a key aspect of truth.

Out of thin air

An argument from silence is another trick that is substituted for evidence. Drawing a conclusion from something that has not been said is absurd in most cases. If I ask you not to step on my hand, it must mean that I would be perfectly happy for you to step on my foot. You see my point.

I doubt therefore I am

Evidence is now used more to cast doubt then to represent truth. As a culture we accept that some data could be interpreted in a way that cast some sliver of doubt, no matter how slight, on an accepted truth. Some how doubt is accepted as proof that truth does not exist. This is only possible if we do not look at the evidence in context. Context is everything. A bloody knife suggests foul play. The knife has no context, but it is bloody so... A bloody knife on a cutting board next to a steak that has been trimmed is another thing entirely. Evidence is not in a vacuum. Doubt is not proof even if it is a reasonable doubt.