PROVING THE TRUTH
SINCE the dawn of human communication, there’s always been the question of whether what’s being conveyed is true. Given that the primary purpose of human communication has been to get something desired, it makes sense that not everything said would be true.
The ancient Greeks asserted that there were five “appeals” which listeners or readers would likely consider: logos, pathos, ethos, keiros and nomos. In a word or phrase, the information being respectively logically reasoned, emotional, cultural, kingly or legal. Of these, only logos was said to have “truth value;” that is, it may be true if the premise or thesis, supporting arguments and evidence are appropriate and true. Logos is of special importance in a democracy where everyone and anyone can speak up.
Despite this rather academic approach to truth, sometimes called “critical” thinking, writing, reading, speaking and/or listening, untruths can still slip in. Think of former President George W. Bush’s justification of invading Iraq because Iraq was said to be employing weapons of mass destruction, which, in the end, they didn’t have. An educated person can create a most effective lie.
So the next question might be, “How can one prove that something stated is true?” To the best of my knowledge, in the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have existed, there have been only three ways uncovered of proving the truth: authority, science and statistics. Authority assumes that both original and stated sources have reason to know and tell the truth. Authority has been touted for over 3,000 years, and, as with the Church claiming the world was flat, authority, sadly, doesn’t unequivocally guarantee truth. Science, which has been around for roughly 300 years, posits something as true if it’s eminently repeatable under similar circumstances. Sadly, anything humanistic like human behavior, poetry, song, dance or war, is, by this definition, untrue, since it isn’t perfectly repeatable. That leaves the past approximately 30 years or so, when statistics have been hailed as the “gold standard” of truth. However, it only takes a moment of consideration to ascertain that what is statistically true of the masses, isn’t necessarily at all true for the individuals making up the masses. So, what’s left?
Some 3 years ago or more, theoretical physicists came up with M-Superstring Theory which seemed to explain everything from what was before the Big Bang to which bunch of tomatoes to buy on Fridays, if one but accepted the unusual “realities” of a Multiverse. I believe this theory presents a fourth way to prove something stated is true. Take, for instance, mental illness. Most theories of mental illness begin based on the assumption that one’s brain isn’t working properly. M-Superstring Theory allows one to consider mental illness as an adaption to conscious awareness of the size, diversity and side effects of the multiverse. Instead of drugging the consciousness, one might rather try to anchor the patient victim in one or another universe instead of two or more. You may like or dislike this example, but I think it makes the point. It is quite possible, in my opinion, that M-Superstring Theory, when it’s had the time to be better understood and taken seriously, may well prove to be either the elusive “Unified Truth Theory” or at worst, a fourth though equally flawed way of proving the truth.
Call me crazy or not, in THE EDGE OF MADNESS (Aignos 2020) by Raymond Gaynor, the principal challenge of the protagonists is to test and verify this fourth proof, and try they do, ingeniously applying the theory to everything from politics to ethics to relationships to love to affection to transportation to education to business to health care and more. I invite you dear reader to scoot up to the edge of madness, look over the brink and see for yourself if this potential proof isn’t, in fact as well as application, the Unified Truth Theory humanity has been seeking since inception.
The Edge of Madness
Soon to be a Audible audiobook read by the incomparable Peter Pollock; purchased by K. Simmons Productions for manga, anime and cinematic treatment.
The ancient Greeks asserted that there were five “appeals” which listeners or readers would likely consider: logos, pathos, ethos, keiros and nomos. In a word or phrase, the information being respectively logically reasoned, emotional, cultural, kingly or legal. Of these, only logos was said to have “truth value;” that is, it may be true if the premise or thesis, supporting arguments and evidence are appropriate and true. Logos is of special importance in a democracy where everyone and anyone can speak up.
Despite this rather academic approach to truth, sometimes called “critical” thinking, writing, reading, speaking and/or listening, untruths can still slip in. Think of former President George W. Bush’s justification of invading Iraq because Iraq was said to be employing weapons of mass destruction, which, in the end, they didn’t have. An educated person can create a most effective lie.
So the next question might be, “How can one prove that something stated is true?” To the best of my knowledge, in the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have existed, there have been only three ways uncovered of proving the truth: authority, science and statistics. Authority assumes that both original and stated sources have reason to know and tell the truth. Authority has been touted for over 3,000 years, and, as with the Church claiming the world was flat, authority, sadly, doesn’t unequivocally guarantee truth. Science, which has been around for roughly 300 years, posits something as true if it’s eminently repeatable under similar circumstances. Sadly, anything humanistic like human behavior, poetry, song, dance or war, is, by this definition, untrue, since it isn’t perfectly repeatable. That leaves the past approximately 30 years or so, when statistics have been hailed as the “gold standard” of truth. However, it only takes a moment of consideration to ascertain that what is statistically true of the masses, isn’t necessarily at all true for the individuals making up the masses. So, what’s left?
Some 3 years ago or more, theoretical physicists came up with M-Superstring Theory which seemed to explain everything from what was before the Big Bang to which bunch of tomatoes to buy on Fridays, if one but accepted the unusual “realities” of a Multiverse. I believe this theory presents a fourth way to prove something stated is true. Take, for instance, mental illness. Most theories of mental illness begin based on the assumption that one’s brain isn’t working properly. M-Superstring Theory allows one to consider mental illness as an adaption to conscious awareness of the size, diversity and side effects of the multiverse. Instead of drugging the consciousness, one might rather try to anchor the patient victim in one or another universe instead of two or more. You may like or dislike this example, but I think it makes the point. It is quite possible, in my opinion, that M-Superstring Theory, when it’s had the time to be better understood and taken seriously, may well prove to be either the elusive “Unified Truth Theory” or at worst, a fourth though equally flawed way of proving the truth.
Call me crazy or not, in THE EDGE OF MADNESS (Aignos 2020) by Raymond Gaynor, the principal challenge of the protagonists is to test and verify this fourth proof, and try they do, ingeniously applying the theory to everything from politics to ethics to relationships to love to affection to transportation to education to business to health care and more. I invite you dear reader to scoot up to the edge of madness, look over the brink and see for yourself if this potential proof isn’t, in fact as well as application, the Unified Truth Theory humanity has been seeking since inception.
The Edge of Madness
Soon to be a Audible audiobook read by the incomparable Peter Pollock; purchased by K. Simmons Productions for manga, anime and cinematic treatment.
No comments have been added yet.
