The Dimensions of Truth

[jedaisoul]

The entry on Truth in Wikipedia starts:

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree.

So I decided to try to encapsulate truth as a multi-dimensional object. So far, I have considered four dimensions to what we call "truth":

• Firstly, there is the category:
  • True.
    
  • False.
    
  • Neither true nor false.
     
    Note: Things that are neither true nor false are those to which the concept of truth is not relevant. E.g. The statement "blue is a color" is true, but the statement "blue is good" is neither true nor false. The color blue is neither inherently good nor bad. It may be good for certain purposes in certain circumstances, but bad in others.
     
    

  [*]Then there is the scope:

  • Subjective Truth - Something held to be true by an individual.
    
  • Shared Truth - Something held to be true by more than one person.
    
  • Reality - That which exists outside our beliefs and perceptions.
     
    Note: There are a number of variations on this terminology. E.g. The gradations may be regarded as different "realities". The term "objective truth" may be used instead of "shared truth" or "reality". This is a matter of personal choice. The meaning is the same, but the different usages can lead to misunderstandings.
     
    

  [*]Then there is the class:

  • Physical objects - These are neither true nor false, and are real.
    
  • Abstract truths - Things which are true whether anyone holds them to be so.
    
  • Observations - Things we directly perceive.
    
  • Beliefs - Things we hold to be true without directly perceiving them.
    
  • Ideas - Things we neither perceive nor (necessarily) hold to be true.
     
    Note: It may seem strange to include physical objects as a class, as they are neither true nor false, they simply are. However, I include them as statements about them may be true or false. See below...
     
    The abstract truths are possibly the most contentious. Some may not accept this category as existing at all, whilst others see them as being real. I regard them as implicit in reality, but not explicitly real.
     
    

  [*]Then there is the usage. We may refer to either:

  • The things in themselves, or...
    
  • Statements about them.

 

All of these are different aspects of truth. They function as dimensions because a thing, or a statement about it, may fall in a variety of categories, scopes and classes.

 

Have I missed anything? If so, where would it fit in this classification? Are there any more dimensions to the truth? Is there a better way of encapsulating truth?

[HydrogenBond]

Truth or perception of truth is also dependent on subjectivities created by the emotional state of mind. If we use pure reason this is not a problem. But if we use irrational math logic, like statistics, this can pose a problem.

 

I used this example before; I am going to recycle. If one was looking at children at play at a playground, ones emotional state will have an impact on how one interprets this data. If one is in a bad mood, all that activity could be seen as an annoyance that is stressful. If one is in a good mood, the child play might be seen as fun and exciting. If one is fearful and cautious one may see all that play as an accident waiting to happen. The same data is entering the sensory systems of all three. We can prove this by making a video. We will play to back to each of the three people, to prove all were seeing the same data. Their filter of subjective emotion will have an impact on their interpretation by narrowing perception.

 

Where statistics can create a problem is that each subjective filter could create a statistical study to prove their point of view. The grouchy person can support their perception but sighting or creating a study to show how random activity and youthful excitement can create stress. The person who is happy can also create a statistical study to correlate how watching children play is healthy for you. The last person can also sight or create a study to show how playground accidents happen all the time. In other words, since statistics is not fully rational, but it a form of irrational math, it allows one to scientifically support irrational perceptions of reality.

 

If we allowed only rational perception, without the bias of an emotional filter, none of this statistical studies would be rationally valid. They all are part of the truth behind reality. But the emotional perception narrows the mind to only part of the input data, which can be massaged into a valid scientific study based on statistics.

 

From a practical point of view each statistical study does provide insight into part of the data. The next step is to use logic and reason to put all these pieces of the puzzle into one logically integrated orientation. But there is a tendency to stop at the irrational state. It often comes down to a group dynamics with the majority irrational philosophy called reality. The way one markets this subjective philosophy is to work on the emotions so people have the same subjective filter and therefore will be able to see the same limited data set. It then appear to reflect common reality.

 

Statistics is very useful, but picture the situation where irrational math is not allowed, but only reason. If one is not able to reason their point of view to rational conclusions and make rational predictions, than that science is not considered rational science. This would skinny down science. All the fat is due to allowing irrational math to support irrational perception. This makes science look bigger than it is. But like body fat, it has energy value, if the rational mind can use it as food.

[jedaisoul]

Truth or perception of truth is also dependent on subjectivities created by the emotional state of mind. If we use pure reason this is not a problem. But if we use irrational math logic, like statistics, this can pose a problem.

I don't agree that all statistics are irrational, I just think they are often abused. The limitations on statistics, and statistical probability in particular, are widely misunderstood. For example, even if the odds against an occurrence are 1,000,000 to 1, that event is just as likely to happen on the 1st, the 500,000th and the 1,000,000th try. So if it does happen on the first try, that does not imply cheating (or other external influences).

 

However, I'm not sure how relevant that is to the thread. What I was looking for was questions like "where do axioms, theories, conclusions, understandings and facts come in this categorisation of truth?".

 

Thinking on this, I would suggest that:

• Axioms are another class, similar to beliefs. An axiom is something that is held to be true for the purposes of a specific theory. It is not necessarily believed to be true (at least not initially).
  
• Theories, conclusions, understandings and facts relate to statements:
  • Theories are collections of related statements used to explain an observed or imagined behaviour.
    
  • Conclusions are statements based on a theory.
    
  • An understanding is an internally consistent theory and its conclusions.
    
  • Facts are statements that are so well supported by observations that they are generally held to be true.