The diversity of truthsThe diversity of truths

SUSAN HAACKSUSAN HAACK<shaack@law.miami.edu><shaack@law.miami.edu>

“The truth is rarely pure and never

simple. Modern life would be intolerable if

it were either.” – Oscar Wilde

1. ONE TRUTH, MANY TRUTHS

2. TRUTH IN SCIENCE

3. TRUTH IN HISTORY

4. TRUTH IN LAW

5. TRUTH IN FICTION

1. One Truth, Many Truths1. One Truth, Many Truths

what I mean when I say that there is “one what I mean when I say that there is “one truth” istruth” is

notnot that there is one all-important true that there is one all-important true proposition, proposition, THE TRUTHTHE TRUTH

but that there is one non-ambiguous, non-but that there is one non-ambiguous, non-relative truth-concept relative truth-concept

i.e.i.e.

that, whether we are talking about that, whether we are talking about propositions of natural science, of social propositions of natural science, of social science, of history, of law, of literature, etc.science, of history, of law, of literature, etc.

when we say that a proposition is true, when we say that a proposition is true, what we mean is the same:what we mean is the same:

that it is the proposition that that it is the proposition that pp, and , and pp

&&

what I mean when I say that there are what I mean when I say that there are “many truths” is“many truths” is

notnot that there are many truth-concepts that there are many truth-concepts

but that there are many propositions, but that there are many propositions, beliefs, theories, etc, that are truebeliefs, theories, etc, that are true

& that& that

these many truths differ very significantly these many truths differ very significantly among themselves among themselves

in their epistemological status (how we in their epistemological status (how we knowknow they are true) they are true)

& in their metaphysical status (what & in their metaphysical status (what makesmakes them true)them true)

2. Truth in Science2. Truth in Science

a good way to think of the sciences: as a a good way to think of the sciences: as a loose federation of kinds of inquiryloose federation of kinds of inquiry

roughly characterizable by subject-matterroughly characterizable by subject-matter

which differs from (but sometimes which differs from (but sometimes overlaps) that of historical, legal, literary, overlaps) that of historical, legal, literary, etc., inquiryetc., inquiry

my picture is synechisticmy picture is synechistic

no sharp line between e.g., cosmology & no sharp line between e.g., cosmology & metaphysics, or psychology & philosophy metaphysics, or psychology & philosophy of mindof mind

historical sciences like evolutionary historical sciences like evolutionary biology have some affinities with historical biology have some affinities with historical inquiry, social sciences with legal inquiry, social sciences with legal scholarship, etc.scholarship, etc.

““synechism”synechism”

is Peirce’s word for the

methodological principle: look for continuities, not

sharp dichotomies

the goal the goal

of scientific inquiry as of ALL inquiryof scientific inquiry as of ALL inquiry

is to discover the answer(s) to some is to discover the answer(s) to some question(s) – the question(s) – the truetrue answer(s) answer(s)

this doesn’t mean scientists seek this doesn’t mean scientists seek THE THE TRUTHTRUTH, nor that they collect truths, as , nor that they collect truths, as someone might collect stamps someone might collect stamps

onlyonly

(as we saw last time) that they want to end (as we saw last time) that they want to end up believingup believing

that that pp, if , if pp that not-that not-pp, if not-, if not-pp and that it’s more complicated than that and that it’s more complicated than that

if it if it isis more complicated that that! more complicated that that!

of courseof course

many (most) scientific claims and theories many (most) scientific claims and theories eventually turn out to be falseeventually turn out to be false

i.e., there have been many scientific i.e., there have been many scientific “truths,” as well as scientific truths“truths,” as well as scientific truths

& no scientific claims are certain; all are & no scientific claims are certain; all are falliblefallible

moreovermoreover

many scientific claims and theories have many scientific claims and theories have eventually turned out eventually turned out

to be only to be only approximatelyapproximately true true

and/or to be true only in a and/or to be true only in a more restricted more restricted fieldfield than formerly supposed than formerly supposed

every scientific theoryevery scientific theory

is the result of scientists’ intellectual workis the result of scientists’ intellectual work

so in one sense, scientific truths are so in one sense, scientific truths are mademade by scientistsby scientists

but but whether a scientific theory is true or is whether a scientific theory is true or is falsefalse does not depend on what scientists does not depend on what scientists do, or believe, but on do, or believe, but on how the world ishow the world is

natural-scientific theories are (mostly) natural-scientific theories are (mostly) about natural phenomena, things, & about natural phenomena, things, & events – which are not of our makingevents – which are not of our making

social-scientific theories are about human social-scientific theories are about human societies, roles, rules – which are of our societies, roles, rules – which are of our making making

yetyet

both, if true, are (normally) objectively soboth, if true, are (normally) objectively so

in that whether they are true or false does in that whether they are true or false does not depend on whether you, or I, or not depend on whether you, or I, or anyone anyone believesbelieves they are true they are true

(there are social-science exceptions – self-(there are social-science exceptions – self-fulfilling & self-undermining prophesies)fulfilling & self-undermining prophesies)

of courseof course

not all not all scientistsscientists are objective (= unbiased, are objective (= unbiased, impartial) – far from itimpartial) – far from it

they may be partisans of one theory, they may be partisans of one theory, enemies of another; blind to certain enemies of another; blind to certain evidence; etc.evidence; etc.

evidence in the sciencesevidence in the sciences

is always complex, often ambiguousis always complex, often ambiguous

invariably incomplete (& hence potentially invariably incomplete (& hence potentially misleading)misleading)

this is why scientists themselves hesitate this is why scientists themselves hesitate to claim truth, preferring to say “probably,” to claim truth, preferring to say “probably,” “possibly,” or “this is the best model,” etc.“possibly,” or “this is the best model,” etc.

for example, Watson preferred to write of “solving the structure of DNA” – i.e., getting the right model … but that would be equivalent to giving a true account of the structure of DNA

3. Truth in History3. Truth in History

like all inquiry, historical inquiry aims at like all inquiry, historical inquiry aims at finding true answers to its questionsfinding true answers to its questions

but historians are even more reluctant but historians are even more reluctant than scientists to claim truththan scientists to claim truth

& these days many prefer to speak not of & these days many prefer to speak not of truth but of “truth”truth but of “truth”

why so?why so?

some, probably, have been made nervous some, probably, have been made nervous by post-modernist and other forms of by post-modernist and other forms of cynicism about the concept of truthcynicism about the concept of truth

but there are also other (& somewhat but there are also other (& somewhat better) reasons better) reasons

like all inquiry, historical inquiry is falliblelike all inquiry, historical inquiry is fallible

like social-scientific inquiry, historical like social-scientific inquiry, historical inquiry requires interpretation of people’s inquiry requires interpretation of people’s belief, desires, hopes, fears, etc.belief, desires, hopes, fears, etc.

which is even harder with distance in time, which is even harder with distance in time, culture, etc.culture, etc.

moreover, historical inquirymoreover, historical inquiry

must rely on evidence that itself needs to must rely on evidence that itself needs to be shown authenticbe shown authentic

which is also even harder with distance of which is also even harder with distance of time, etc. – and requires interpretation of time, etc. – and requires interpretation of records, & so forthrecords, & so forth

&&

this evidence may be skewed, because this evidence may be skewed, because those who left the records often had their those who left the records often had their own agendaown agenda

&, like evidence in the sciences, evidence &, like evidence in the sciences, evidence is history is always incompleteis history is always incomplete

for examplefor example

an account of a battle will probably tell us an account of a battle will probably tell us which side won, what he consequences which side won, what he consequences were for the war, how many were killedwere for the war, how many were killed

possibly how many tanks, planes, etc. possibly how many tanks, planes, etc. were destroyedwere destroyed

butbut

certainly not how many flowers were certainly not how many flowers were trampled (or even, probably, how many trampled (or even, probably, how many horses were killed)horses were killed)

quite likely not about the famine or the quite likely not about the famine or the epidemic that ensuedepidemic that ensued

& of course& of course

if the now-available records all come from if the now-available records all come from whichever side or party or sect or class or whichever side or party or sect or class or race, etc., prevailed in some conflictrace, etc., prevailed in some conflict

this will very likely introduce bias this will very likely introduce bias

hence the saying …hence the saying …

“history is written by the winning side”

for examplefor example

Donald Kagan argues that Thucydides’s history of the war between Athens and Sparta presented a complex, messy conflict in a partisan manner – while purporting to be definitive, “a thing for all time”

all that saidall that said

that a historical account is only part of the that a historical account is only part of the truth doesn’t mean that it is not true, so far truth doesn’t mean that it is not true, so far as it goesas it goes

& to say that a historical claim is true is to & to say that a historical claim is true is to say that it is the claim that say that it is the claim that pp, and , and pp

4. Truth in Law4. Truth in Law

the word “law” suffers the same kind of the word “law” suffers the same kind of ambiguity as “truth”ambiguity as “truth”

it may refer to the concept of law (as in it may refer to the concept of law (as in “law is distinct from morality”)“law is distinct from morality”)

or to specific laws & legal systems (as in or to specific laws & legal systems (as in “there ought to be a law against it”) “there ought to be a law against it”)

there are truths about there are truths about lawlaw, the concept, the concept

& truths about legal systems and laws& truths about legal systems and laws

here, I focus on the latterhere, I focus on the latter

legal truths (in this sense)legal truths (in this sense)

are relative to a legal system, and a timeare relative to a legal system, and a time

e.g., e.g., in U.S. federal law between 1923 & in U.S. federal law between 1923 & 19751975 the the FryeFrye Rule governed the Rule governed the admissibility of scientific testimonyadmissibility of scientific testimony

in 1975in 1975 the Federal Rules of Evidence the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 702) provided a different standard (Rule 702) provided a different standard

& &

they are gappy (answers to some legal they are gappy (answers to some legal questions are indeterminate)questions are indeterminate)

e.g., between 1975 & 1993 it was e.g., between 1975 & 1993 it was neither neither true nor falsetrue nor false that the Federal Rules of that the Federal Rules of Evidence had superseded Evidence had superseded FryeFrye

&&

legal truths can be changed by the action legal truths can be changed by the action of legislators or of judges interpreting the of legislators or of judges interpreting the lawlaw

As, in 1993, when the Supreme Court As, in 1993, when the Supreme Court ruled in ruled in DaubertDaubert, it , it became true, in virtue became true, in virtue of their decisionof their decision, that FRE 702 , that FRE 702 superseded superseded FryeFrye

of courseof course

a legal system is not itself (like science a legal system is not itself (like science and history) a kind of inquiryand history) a kind of inquiry

though legal proceedings will though legal proceedings will involveinvolve inquiry, of roughly two kinds:inquiry, of roughly two kinds: into questions of fact (e.g., was there a stop into questions of fact (e.g., was there a stop

sign?)sign?) into questions of law (e.g., what is the legal into questions of law (e.g., what is the legal

standard here?)standard here?)

indeedindeed

the latter kind of inquiry is what “legal the latter kind of inquiry is what “legal scholarship” refers toscholarship” refers to

in practice, however, this scholarship in practice, however, this scholarship always involves interpretation, and often always involves interpretation, and often shades into advocacyshades into advocacy

&, like historians, many law professors &, like historians, many law professors prefer to speak of “truth” than truthprefer to speak of “truth” than truth

neverthelessnevertheless

there are true and false answers to (some) there are true and false answers to (some) questions about what the law is in system questions about what the law is in system S at time tS at time t

& it is true that the law in S at t provides & it is true that the law in S at t provides that x, y, z just in case the law in S at t that x, y, z just in case the law in S at t doesdoes provide that x, y, z provide that x, y, z

5. Truth in Fiction5. Truth in Fiction

like legal systems, novels, plays, cartoons, like legal systems, novels, plays, cartoons, etc., are not themselves forms of inquiryetc., are not themselves forms of inquiry

though they involve imaginative though they involve imaginative exploration of scenarios, characters, etc. – exploration of scenarios, characters, etc. – somewhat like the imaginative thinking somewhat like the imaginative thinking required by scientific inquiryrequired by scientific inquiry

though novels, etc., may be set in real though novels, etc., may be set in real places, and/or apparently include real places, and/or apparently include real people among their characterspeople among their characters

statements in a work of fiction about statements in a work of fiction about fictional places, persons, etc., are fictional places, persons, etc., are not true not true – “fictional” is the opposite of “real”– “fictional” is the opposite of “real”

neverthelessnevertheless

there are truths about novels, etc., of two there are truths about novels, etc., of two typestypes

external: about the author, the external: about the author, the circumstances of the writing, the history of circumstances of the writing, the history of the book, etc. the book, etc.

internal: about the contents of the novelinternal: about the contents of the novel

examplesexamples

internal: “Conan Doyle wrote the Sherlock internal: “Conan Doyle wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories”Holmes stories”

external: “In Doyle’s stories, Holmes was a external: “In Doyle’s stories, Holmes was a detective, lived in Baker Street, solved the detective, lived in Baker Street, solved the Case of the Speckled Band,” etc.Case of the Speckled Band,” etc.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- with Sherlock Holmes

this “graphic novel” translation of Doyle’s The Case of the Speckled Band, was

published in Vancouver, Canada

““true in the novel”true in the novel”

raises some good philosophical questions raises some good philosophical questions about what is “implied” in the novel, and about what is “implied” in the novel, and what indeterminatewhat indeterminate

but these are not as interesting (to me) as but these are not as interesting (to me) as the questions about truths the questions about truths conveyed byconveyed by works of fictionworks of fiction

for many fictional worksfor many fictional works

illustrate, and thereby convey obliquely, illustrate, and thereby convey obliquely, truths that they do not state explicitly; for truths that they do not state explicitly; for example:example:

Samuel Butler’s Samuel Butler’s The Way of All FleshThe Way of All Flesh conveys, without stating, truths about the conveys, without stating, truths about the human weakness for self-deception, human weakness for self-deception, hypocrisy, & sham reasoninghypocrisy, & sham reasoning

This work of his is one of the finest epistemological novels” of all time (in English; you can probably think of Chinese examples)

one hard question isone hard question is

exactly what kind of “speech” act is exactly what kind of “speech” act is involved in “conveying, but not stating”?involved in “conveying, but not stating”?

it is it is likelike hinting, or suggesting, that p, hinting, or suggesting, that p, without actually saying it – but not exactlywithout actually saying it – but not exactly

as e.g., “I have another appointment” as e.g., “I have another appointment” might convey “Let’s do this quickly” might convey “Let’s do this quickly”

& another& another

are there special ”literary’ truths”? are there special ”literary’ truths”?

my answer: no, fiction conveys perfectly my answer: no, fiction conveys perfectly ordinary truths, in the ordinary sense of ordinary truths, in the ordinary sense of the wordthe word

what is special is the what is special is the conveyingconveying

e.g.e.g.

Butler’s novel conveys the truth that Butler’s novel conveys the truth that intellectual integrity is a hard-won virtue, intellectual integrity is a hard-won virtue, not something inbornnot something inborn

& this is true – yes! -- just in case & this is true – yes! -- just in case intellectual integrity intellectual integrity isis a hard-won virtue, a hard-won virtue, and and notnot something inborn something inborn

thank you for your

invitation, and for

your attention!