How do you know what is true?

[Michael]

How do you know if something you are told is true - or not?

That's the question here - plain and simple.

I have often addressed this topic in the past under the label of epistemology, but this time I should like to discuss this question entirely in plain language, no technical jargon and no big-shot names. Hopefully that might, at the very least, draw in a slightly larger number of replies. :)

So, how do you know if something is true or not?

Everybody goes around making these kinds of decisions every day about all kinds of things. A five year old child might tell you that Barney the purple dinosaur is going to come to dinner tonight - or someone might say, "don't take Highway X because it is all jammed up right now with some big accident".

How do you decide which statements are true and which ones are false or 'untrue'? Do you go by your 'gut' (instinct or intuition), or do you rationalize the statements for logical consistency? Do you evaluate the source or authority of the speaker for validity of past statements? Or what do you do?

Inquiring minds need to know! :D

(By way of explanation, I guess I'm looking for the same thing here as I was looking for in the 'yet another morality thread' - for what that's worth! Be that as it may, there is always a bit of madness to my method - I always find it easiest to learn by discussing things - that tends to focus the attention on the places where the holes are - or the fuzzy edges)

[Donkey]

Let me see if I can put this into coherent words...

You believe something to be true based on a variety of criteria: credibility based on your understanding of reality, credibility based on experience, and credibility based on source. These of course can run into each other, and be conflated and confused.

For instance, people who didn't believe that Columbus's account of his voyage based their disbelief on all three of these. They had never experienced anything which would let them relate, their belief that the world was flat precluded him from having been able to reach the Indies, and the fact that he was some jerkoff from Genoa probably didn't help either.

So people consciously or unconsciously evaluate information based on that sort of thing. If they trust the source (either because it has been proven right in the past, or enough other people believe it so it seems credible) they will believe it. If they've seen similar things (like traffic during rush hour), well that makes sense doesn't it? And if something seems logical based on what we "know" about the world, then we are more likely to believe it.

[dilettante]

I don't think its an exact science, but I'd think the following factors are considered when deciding whether or not to accept something I'm told as true:


Is the source legitimate? I.E. Is the source in a position to have the information it claims to be conveying?
Is the source honest and relatively unbiased? I.E. Is it likely to distort information?
Is the source corroborated by any other sources?
Is the information internally consistent? I.E. Not self-contradictory.
Is the information consistent with other things I already accept to be true?
Does the information fit my general understanding of how reality works?
Is the information of a nature such that evaluating its truth or falsehood serves any purpose? I.E. Do I care enough to think about it?

The more times I can answer "yes", the more likely I am to believe what I'm told is true, but a few "no"s are sometimes acceptable.

All that said, I think most people don't break down everything their told with a true/false dichotomy. Rather, we operate along a spectrum of plausibility and likelihood, with certainty existing only at the extremes.

[Non Sequitur]

How do you know if something you are told is true - or not?

That's the question here - plain and simple.

I have often addressed this topic in the past under the label of epistemology, but this time I should like to discuss this question entirely in plain language, no technical jargon and no big-shot names. Hopefully that might, at the very least, draw in a slightly larger number of replies. :)

So, how do you know if something is true or not?

Everybody goes around making these kinds of decisions every day about all kinds of things. A five year old child might tell you that Barney the purple dinosaur is going to come to dinner tonight - or someone might say, "don't take Highway X because it is all jammed up right now with some big accident".

How do you decide which statements are true and which ones are false or 'untrue'? Do you go by your 'gut' (instinct or intuition), or do you rationalize the statements for logical consistency? Do you evaluate the source or authority of the speaker for validity of past statements? Or what do you do?

Inquiring minds need to know! :D

(By way of explanation, I guess I'm looking for the same thing here as I was looking for in the 'yet another morality thread' - for what that's worth! Be that as it may, there is always a bit of madness to my method - I always find it easiest to learn by discussing things - that tends to focus the attention on the places where the holes are - or the fuzzy edges)

In theory, I like to think that there are three categories that go into the evaluation process. First is tradition. Second is experience, third is reason. Lets take a perfectly simple example: the Sun will rise tomorrow
1. tradition: thousands of years human beings have opperated under the assumption that the sun will rise next day
2. Experience: my own experience of the sun rising gives me no clear sign of the pattern suddenly stopping
3. Reason: my own common sense and scientific knowledge tell me that there is no clear reason to believe the sun will not rise tomorrow

I like to think that while there is no formal progression through all three categories, they play an intertwined role in determining a false vs. true statement.

funny enough, they are also three of my four sources for theological authority ;)

[The Drunk Guy]

To be honest, I typically don't deem most things as 'true'. I like think of stories and rumors and the like as 'what someone else has said'. Everything that is said is questionable and most every source is shady.

For instance, I don't buy every news story. Do I know 9 guys in Michigan had a plot to kill cops? Nope. But I do believe they got picked up for it because every news source in America is talking about it. Can we trust that the plan they're talking about is true? No, because their plan came from the mouths of the very sources that arrested them. I'm not denying the event at all, but there is always a certain degree of fog when it comes to information. Unless I was there, I couldn't know absolutely what really happened, but I know that almost every one else believes it and I will discuss it as if it were 100% true. To believe something is 100% true, I must either witness it, be shown direct evidence from a discovering & trustworthy source, or hear the exact same story from multiple witnesses that are trustworthy. In other words, very little is 'true' for me.

As far as gossip and personal stories, I never consider it 100% true. Even when I know and love the source, there is the problem of first-person perspective. What I may experience as a tense moment may be relaxing for another and vice versa. Add to that techniques to make story-telling interesting, such as embellishments and skipping events, and you have a story that could be 50 to 90% true.

[The Drunk Girl]

I analyze everything, whether I make it known or not. Plus, have I mentioned I'm paranoid? :lol:

For example, someone says they will meet me somewhere at 2:00. If they aren't there at 2:05, my blood is starting to boil and I'm questioning whether they were being "truthful" in meeting me to begin with.

I'll trust someone if they seem reasonable and that level of trust grows over the course of me knowing that person (do they like to run their mouth? how much have they shared with me? what kind of person are they? their lifestyle? is this person really worth my time? the list goes on).

If I do decide to "open" up and someone shits on my trust well good luck! They have a l o n g road ahead of them.

On a broader level, I really don't believe anything I see or read. The news/media is a bunch of shit. Politicians are politicians so they are going to tell me what they think I want to hear. Television is fake, even when it is supposed to be "reality" t.v. Science is always changing with new ideas, concepts, and theories constantly being born. It's only "true" for the moment...sometimes. History (to me) is kind of like the illustration TDG gave: different pov's and perspectives on a person or topic, or people throwing together information that they assume/view to be correct. Religion and spirituality all differ from one another, and all believe their way to be right.

I guess the only thing I find to be true is math...and that might be a stretch :lol:

[Michael]

Well, no surprises here at all. Alas.

And I shall spare you each a full bore Socratic interrogation designed to get you each to admit that when it comes right down to it, none of this stuff actually will hold up under rigorous or rational scrutiny - except the part about these various 'tests' bluring together and intertwining. ;)

It is enough for us to agree that this process, on the most general level, can only be characterized as a mixture of rational and subjective elements, that differs from one person to the next - or perhaps differs from one issue/topic/situation to the next, within the same person - and none of us (truthfully!) can claim that the process to be a fully rational or objective one, though we may engage in rational analysis in the process.

One comment that I think is important or significant here was about 'extremism'. Several of you mentioned this as somehow an exception or a special case. Indeed, it is an 'unofficial rule' in philosophy that the most important distinctions (of any given thing) are found in the extreme cases. :D

Thus, that's where I propose we ought to look for a more thorough understanding of how it is that we all go about deciding for ourselves, what is true or not true.

So the next question ought to be, how do you all define 'extremism' in truth?

That seems like it might provide some significant clues about the 'true' nature of our topic. (pun intended!) :lol:

[Non Sequitur]

Well, no surprises here at all. Alas.

And I shall spare you each a full bore Socratic interrogation designed to get you each to admit that when it comes right down to it, none of this stuff actually will hold up under rigorous or rational scrutiny - except the part about these various 'tests' bluring together and intertwining. ;)

It is enough for us to agree that this process, on the most general level, can only be characterized as a mixture of rational and subjective elements, that differs from one person to the next - or perhaps differs from one issue/topic/situation to the next, within the same person - and none of us (truthfully!) can claim that the process to be a fully rational or objective one, though we may engage in rational analysis in the process.

One comment that I think is important or significant here was about 'extremism'. Several of you mentioned this as somehow an exception or a special case. Indeed, it is an 'unofficial rule' in philosophy that the most important distinctions (of any given thing) are found in the extreme cases. :D

Thus, that's where I propose we ought to look for a more thorough understanding of how it is that we all go about deciding for ourselves, what is true or not true.

So the next question ought to be, how do you all define 'extremism' in truth?

That seems like it might provide some significant clues about the 'true' nature of our topic. (pun intended!) :lol:

You're not suprised :lol:

What do you mean by extremism in truth? Are we talking about dogmatic assertions our are we talking about Dilettante's idea of the spectrum with clear truth vs. false only in the extremes?

[Michael]

You're not suprised :lol:

What do you mean by extremism in truth? Are we talking about dogmatic assertions our are we talking about Dilettante's idea of the spectrum with clear truth vs. false only in the extremes?
I mean whatever it is you want it to mean!

Or to paraphrase wonderful Alice, words mean exactly what you choose them to mean.

That's why I'm asking the questions and not just lecturing to you all about what your answers ought to be. :sneaky:

I suppose I'm now tempted to play along in my own game and offer replies to my own questions, though only after you have gone first! :D

[Donkey]

Extremism in truth sounds to me like "absotuism."

And if there's anything that I'm not...

[Michael]

So, how do you know if something is true or not?

Everybody goes around making these kinds of decisions every day about all kinds of things. A five year old child might tell you that Barney the purple dinosaur is going to come to dinner tonight - or someone might say, "don't take Highway X because it is all jammed up right now with some big accident".

How do you decide which statements are true and which ones are false or 'untrue'? Do you go by your 'gut' (instinct or intuition), or do you rationalize the statements for logical consistency? Do you evaluate the source or authority of the speaker for validity of past statements? Or what do you do?

Inquiring minds need to know! :D
Damn fine question, even if I do say so myself! ;)

Anyway, in reply to your fine question Michael, I would admit that, more often than not, I make decisions about what is true/false without even consciously thinking about it at all. It is as if I only have to look at some thing or hear some statement to know, that it is true or not true, instantly without a moment of thought or reason. My brain just supplies the answer instantly and I rarely bother to question or test the veracity of the answer, though I have previously found my 'instant-truth-sense' to be only about 75% accurate at best. My 'instant-truth-sense' accuracy rate drops to slightly under 50% if I'm near a casino or horse-track though.

Sometimes my 'instant-truth-sense' doesn't function at all and it is only then that I have to actually think about something and in those cases, I go through the typical process outlined by several of you above. And yes, I will admit to there being no rhyme or reason to the way that sometimes I consider the quality of the source to be of critical importance, but other times I discount that value and place a higher value on the type of information. When it comes right down to it, it does seem to be a rather selective and subjective process of rationalization.

And then there is a third category that is different than these first two. That's where I use my 'instant-truth-sense' to determine the result, and then I use my brilliant powers of reasoning and rationalization to construct a bullet-proof argument to defend my thesis. Then I use that to justify my original result-choice. :D

And then there is a fourth and final category that is all about me rejecting all rational evidence, all authority and all systemic thought to hold onto a particular 'truth-statement' that I happen to like or think is important. :)

All in all, I'd say that the process that I use is a remarkably subjective one. The only time I really and truly use rationalism in a fully consistent way is when I want to convince other people that I am correct about something! :lol:

[Michael]

And if there's anything that I'm not...

it is... extremist, truthful or absolutist? :ummm:

[Non Sequitur]

I mean whatever it is you want it to mean!

Or to paraphrase wonderful Alice, words mean exactly what you choose them to mean.

That's why I'm asking the questions and not just lecturing to you all about what your answers ought to be. :sneaky:

I suppose I'm now tempted to play along in my own game and offer replies to my own questions, though only after you have gone first! :D

well it's hard for me to answer something that I'm not quite sure I understand :shrug:

You see, if we are talking about extremism as in fanatics of every kind, then I would say I identify their truth as extreme because it is a fundamental perversion of real truth.

On the other hand, if we mean extreme truth as an actual black and white situation without qualification then that gets a lot more difficult. Off the top of my head ideas like heaven and hell might fall into that category. When you boil it down enough, God is the ultimate and real truth. Even then I am still a little lost without a little clarification.

[Donkey]

it is... extremist, truthful or absolutist? :ummm:
All of the above? ;)

Well, two of the above. Though extremist is just a pejorative for radical... hmm.... maybe we need a thread... (I remember starting one to that effect once, but I think it was at USPOS).

[Michael]

All of the above? ;)

Well, two of the above. Though extremist is just a pejorative for radical... hmm.... maybe we need a thread... (I remember starting one to that effect once, but I think it was at USPOS).

I figured you had at least a decent claim on two of the three. ;)

[dilettante]

So the next question ought to be, how do you all define 'extremism' in truth?


I don't. As Non intimated, it's hard to offer a definition for a term or concept one doesn't use. I suppose I'm not sure what you're asking here and thus have no answer.

I mentioned a "spectrum of plausibility" in which certainty existed at the extremes. But that seems to be fairly self-explanatory and I'm not sure how to define it further.

[SMadsen]

I think it depends on application.

For statements about the world around us, i.e., practical applications, falsehood may be more important than truth since we're usually interested in maintaining status quo (anything less than status quo is a safety issue). It's also easier to determine falsehood of practical phenomena than it is truth.

For statements about ourselves, truth somehow becomes the most important thing. Probably because it depends on self-awareness, which, more or less, can only take one form. That is, we either are as we perceive ourselves to be or we don't know ourselves at all (which is a pretty bad situation to be in for a creature that must also function socially despite awareness of the self). This seems to be where absolutism comes into play.

[Michael]

I don't. As Non intimated, it's hard to offer a definition for a term or concept one doesn't use. I suppose I'm not sure what you're asking here and thus have no answer.

I mentioned a "spectrum of plausibility" in which certainty existed at the extremes. But that seems to be fairly self-explanatory and I'm not sure how to define it further.

Well, my question is inspired by this statement of yours:
Rather, we operate along a spectrum of plausibility and likelihood, with certainty existing only at the extremes.

Everyone all agrees that the process of deciding 'truth' is a flexible process that involves a series of decisions that may (or might not) be applied in a rational manner. However, there are some cases where this doesn't seem to apply - and you draw attention to one of them - the extreme cases.

So I'm basically asking how you define these extremes where certainty exists. What type of extremes cause or give rise to this certainty?

[Michael]

I think it depends on application.

For statements about the world around us, i.e., practical applications, falsehood may be more important than truth since we're usually interested in maintaining status quo (anything less than status quo is a safety issue). It's also easier to determine falsehood of practical phenomena than it is truth.

This is the classic 'Popper' approach. I do agree - actual knowledge can only be based on non-falsification, and thus it follows that knowledge of truth can only come about by the same process.


For statements about ourselves, truth somehow becomes the most important thing. Probably because it depends on self-awareness, which, more or less, can only take one form. That is, we either are as we perceive ourselves to be or we don't know ourselves at all (which is a pretty bad situation to be in for a creature that must also function socially despite awareness of the self). This seems to be where absolutism comes into play.

Sounds like ego is the active component here. Sometimes people have a strong vested or subjective interest in denying what is true - or asserting something to be true, regardless of the status of physical evidence or falsificaiton.