Sally
We've been meaning to compare the notions of truth and honesty for some time. Shall we make a start tonight?
John
Yes OK Sal - I reckon we can deal with this quite quickly.
S
Well, I think they're different.
J
Shall we start by trying to define each one, or jump straight in highlighting their differences.
S
The latter I think. I think they're different because a person can be honest and telling a lie.
J
Yes? You mean a person can be lying and telling the truth at the same time?
S
Yes. And a dishonest person can tell the truth.
J
Let's see if I can get my head round this.
S
An honest person tells what he believes to be true. If he believes something that's untrue and says it, he's being honest and lying at the same time.
J
This makes it look as though honesty is only of value in wise men.
S
If you're interested in getting at the truth - yes.
J
You know of course that some believe that truth is 'relative', meaning that what's true for one mightn't be true for another.
S
Of course. The subjectivists. They debase the concept of truth. For me, truth is akin to accuracy.
J
Go on.
S
Yes, a sentence is truer the more accurately it describes a phenomenon. And it clearly doesn't matter who says it. [Laughs]
J
Obviously, we're more or less certain of various things we may claim are true.
S
Yes, and dishonesty is shown to be the triviality it is - claiming something to be true while not believing it.
J
That's right. And knowing what people think or say is true is nothing like as important as knowing what is true.
S
Not as useful. We believe, don't we, that understanding leads to a happier existence?
J
Let's agree on that.
S
And the greater the degree of truth - that is, accuracy - in your beliefs, the greater the degree of understanding you have?
J
Yes.
S
So honesty is far less valuable than truth, which is nothing more than accuracy?
J
Yes
S
So truth is a property of a number of sentences or other descriptions, such as diagrams?
J
Yes. I'd go along with that.
S
So can truth exist without these sets of statements or diagrams?
J
It seems not. A property can't exist without any object to have that property.
S
So before man evolved, and there were no statements or diagrams, did truth or facts exist?
J
Apparently not.
S
So when a man discovers something, can he discover a truth? Is the truth, or fact, there in the object or phenomenon, or does it have to be accurately perceived and spoken of before a truth can be said to have emerged?
J
Hmmm. It looks like the process of 'discovering a fact or a truth' is less clear than first appears. Is this just another example of our needing to choose the right words?
S
Well we couldn't claim that our difficulties in describing an object or phenomenon in any way altered it.
J
So when we, as a species, 'discover a fact', where was the fact before we discovered it? If it didn't exist, how could it be discovered? If it did exist, where was it? I'd say our language really is getting in the way here. Or we're both being silly and missing someting obvious. [Both laugh].
S
Yes, the way I've thought of it until now was that there were millions of facts 'out there' and by observation we became aware of them, perfectly or imperfectly, and this generated a conscious model that we call an idea or thought. Now this looks a bit crude.
J
So both before and since man, unobserved phenomena weren't facts and there was no truth. But if I thought, said or wrote the sentence: "Before life on Earth, lead was heavier than water.", that would be a true fact.
S
Yes, the sentence would be the true fact. But before the sentence existed - had ever been formed - that fact didn't exist and so can't be said to have been true either. The alternative to this seeming nonsense is that that fact did exist, but we wouldn't be able to say where.
J
Two possible explanations: One - in God's mind, or as an 'ideal' somewhere in heaven, alongside all the other facts and truths. But I can't, upon reflection see that that helps.
S
Neither can I. I'd immediately ask where these containers 'God's mind' or 'heaven' were. It's surprising how long so-called 'wise men' - philosophers and religious pedants have convinced people with that explanation. I suppose that in order to keep an Academy or Church intact, they have to pretend to know all the answers, and their followers benefit from a feeling of certainty in a simple idea, even though that feeling is based on falsehood or uncertainty or internal inconsistency. But we can talk about that - 'Creeds and Institutions', I suppose we'd call that subject, another time.. What was your other explanation that might clear up our dilemma about true facts and do they exist before being perceived and if so where?
J
I was going to say that maybe true facts don't need to be anywhere. It's also occurred to me that a true fact (let's contract that to 'fact' since we're not interested in false facts and even if they could exist we'd have the same problems with them) can be in more than one place at once. If we take our subjective line that facts are accurate perceptions, then we'd have to admit this. Two men thinking the same true thing, or two copies of the same true sentence - here we have either two identical copies of the same fact, or two identical facts. If they are copies of a fact, what were they copied from? If we erased all the copies, would the fact still exist? If the original fact is indestructible, perhaps it's noplace. To copy something, it must exist. To exist it must be someplace it seems to me.
S
So the idea of facts existing independently of perception leads us to the notion of something existing without being anywhere, and the idea of facts not existing independently of perception makes us wonder how they can be perceived.
J
We could always reject the notion of facts and say they have never existed and that the notion arose through a misunderstanding of perception, or something like that.
S
John, before we do that, let's look in my dictionary. "Fact: thing known to be true. True: in accordance with facts." Bit circular.
J
Internally consistent.
S
Yep.
J
We want to know where facts reside if not in men, gods, heavens, books, diagrams etc. That's our basic question.
S
Yepper.
J
Maybe they reside in the object itself. We haven't looked there yet. Maybe the fact that a certain stone has a weight of 1.3 pounds is there in the stone itself. We would say that the sentence or thought "This stone weighs 1.3 pounds." is pretty true, because it's accurate - the words or thought describe or model an aspect of reality well. But as we agreed, we still can't decide whether the fact existed before we said it because we wouldn't be able to say where it - the fact - existed.
S
Repetition.
J
Sorry.
S
But yeah, as you say, maybe the 'fact' about the stone's weight is there in the stone itself. But hang on. If there were two stones - stone A and stone B and they had the same weight, we'd say that it was a fact that they were the same weight, even before anyone existed to weigh them, right? [John nods.] Which stone would the fact be in?
J
Suppose it's in both. Let's say another stone came into existence. You believe in things coming into existence don't you?
S
Yes. I'm an example.
J
Suppose the third stone C came into existence a thousand miles away and happened to be the same weight as A and B. Would A and B 'get' the new fact in the instant C came into existence? How?
S
Seems implausible. I'm inclined to agree with you, and I quote: Facts "have never existed and ... the notion arose through a misunderstanding of perception".
J
Have a good weekend Sal.
S
Cheers, John.
...