When people think of the concept of "truth," they generally think of it as something that is timeless, objective, and obtainable. Something that is true at a particular point in time and will always have been true for that point in time. It's truth value is knowable and it is independent of the observer. This common understanding of "truth" has not and probably cannot be successfully defended.

Epistemology is the division of philosophy that investigates the nature and origin of knowledge. Understanding "truth" is critical to epistemology, yet there are no understandings of "truth", accepted by philosophers, that allow it to be timeless, objective, and obtainable.

Philosophers have developed four theories of truth. Each one forces truth to be either unobtainable, personal (what is true to me is not true to you), transient, or some combination of those traits.

Correspondence Theory of Truth
A statement is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.

If facts do not arise from an external reality,
then they are and truth is personal
else awareness of correspondence of a statement to external reality depends on fallible perception and/or memory; hence truth is unobtainable.
 

Coherence Theory of Truth
True statements cohere to form a consistent and comprehensive body of beliefs.

Internally consistent though incomplete bodies of belief (paradigms) are transient and personal. Since a comprehensive account of the universe is unobtainable, truth is unobtainable.
 

Performative (Redundancy) Theory of Truth
Saying a statement is true is to perform the act of agreeing with it; it is not a quality or property of the statement.

Truth is transient and personal.
 

Pragmatic Theory of Truth
Statements that are useful are true.

Truth is transient or unobtainable.

One of the beliefs I nurtured as I grew up was the belief that it is extremely important to be right (correct). Certainty and "knowing the truth" were among the most valuable qualities I could have. With them I could show I was worthy of attention, I was smart, I had the upper hand in interacting with others (truth was on my side), I could be confident in my decision making, and I could assume some level of control over others and my environment. At home and in school, physical coercion was unacceptable but logical coercion was endorsed. Being right was rewarded, being wrong punished.

Over the years, my understanding of the value of being right and being certain has changed dramatically. Some of the most influential experiences that led to this change include:

Studying physics; especially quantum mechanics (with its uncertainty principles), relativity, and electromagnetic radiation with their counter–intuitive notions. Becoming acquainted with these fields in physics weakens (if not destroys) one's belief in the obtainability of certainty. One of the reasons I was drawn to physics was that I considered it the hardest of the hard sciences (hard in the sense of concrete not difficult). My eyes were opened to something I did not expect or want to see.

At Duke, the PhD thesis on which I worked was in the area of, surprise, automated reasoning. I thought and hoped I could help people understand how they reason, why they so often reason fallaciously, and help them automate their reasoning so it would be "right". I studied a dozen or so logic systems (including fuzzy logic in which truth comes in degrees) and the four main theories of truth. I was surprised to discover that none of the main theories of truth require truth to simultaneously be intransient, impersonal, and obtainable. Certainty, a state of mind, is obtainable but a certainty that corresponds to an "objective reality" doesn't seem to be (and that's the certainty I was after).

As part of my thesis work, but more for understanding myself and helping Missy, my relationship with her, and me to grow, I've explored family systems theory and the psychology of how people think, rationalize, and choose. I came to understand why being right, certainty, and truth had been so important for me and that it was possible for me to devalue them in the interests of my health and the health of others.

While at Duke and IBM, I've had the pleasure of interacting with brilliant people. It's pleasurable and also humbling. It's difficult to feel certain about a point of view when others who are brilliant and more experienced in the area have an alternate position.

I recognized that I had changed my mind about positions I once held as certain truths. Many of these were culturally conditioned truths (truths pertaining to diet, parenting, competition, religion, and others). If I now saw myself as having been wrong about them, what could I be certain I was right about?

I've interacted with people, especially in the area of religion, who were quite certain about things that seemed to me to be of a highly dubious nature. This was frustrating but it also helped me to question my own certainties.

I recognized that my certainty was hurting people I cared a great deal about; especially Missy. These close friends tended to be less confident in the decisions they make and viewpoints they hold. My level of conviction on a subject would often influence them to see things my way. It wasn't that the evidence led them there but that through my mannerisms and tone of voice, I was effectively pressuring them to agree—even though I wasn't and wouldn't claim to hold what I was saying with a great deal of conviction! That, I came to see, was demeaning of me, disrespectful of them, and damaging to our relationship.

The experiences above and others led me to conclude that being right and being certain were not obtainable in the manner I had wanted them. When I looked at the problems that arise from the pursuit of certainty, I came to understand what I considered shortcomings in other areas of my life. I believe the pursuit of certainty has the following problems:

It leads to black and white thinking. There is a lack of creativity, or desire to apply creativity, to see the shades of gray, the pluses and minuses of any position.

It closes off or at least reduces the possibility of assuming alternate perspectives or even considering them.

It is prone to perpetuating errors because people (our senses and thinking processes) are error prone and when things change we tend not to update our certainties. Discussion or new evidence has little chance of influencing a viewpoint that is held with certainty.

It tends to lead to intolerance and arrogance.

It limits our health since living involves dealing with uncertainties. Striving for and feeling a need for certainty makes us less functional in the world.

It exists with and strengthens the desire for control over others and situations.

It may influence others to act in ways they would otherwise not choose.

This is not a new view of belief systems. Socrates lived his life showing people that we know much less than we think we know. Yet this approach to belief systems is uncommon. Being comfortable with uncertainty requires a significant amount of self–confidence, adaptability, and mental health. This approach to belief systems is unattractive to many people because there is a tendency in our culture to associate certainty with confidence, leadership, and power; qualities people find desirable. (If I forcefully state, "Follow me, this is the way out" I am likely to get more followers than if I more honestly and pensively state, "I think if we go this way, we may get out.") In my opinion, the leadership and power that accrues to those who are overtly or loudly confident comes at too great a cost. The power tends to come from those who feel unempowered and who are willing to forfeit at least part of their individuality to become part of a powerful movement behind powerful leadership. The individual's need for feeling powerful is not really met, it is the movement and leaders who have become more powerful. Leaders, in the sense I prefer and in the sense that the term is now being understood in the business community, are people who help others associate their personal goals with common (for example, business) goals and then facilitate getting all goals met. They are empowering. For me personally, if I'm involved in a decision that affects others, I'm not happy with it unless the others are happy with it as well.

Just because I have modified my attitudes about certainty, rightness, and truth, it does not necessarily follow that others will perceive this change. My mannerisms including my body language, tone of voice, and writing style still often misrepresent the degree of confidence with which I hold a position. If my uncertainty is not perceived, then I would not gain some of the benefits I had hoped to gain with my new attitudes. I have tried to deal with this in various ways.

First, I am more conscious about my mannerisms and language. One can recognize certainty in a position when a person is forcefully trying to make points using exaggerated gestures, hand banging, loudness, and a tensed body. The use of words and phrases such as "always", "never", "absolutely", "definitely", "no question", "no way", "100%", "all", "not any", and "sure" suggest certainty. I have been more reserved in my discussions, physically and vocally, have greatly reduced my use of the "certainty" words, and increased my use of the "uncertainty" words and phrases (such as "in my opinion", "it seems to me", "it may be the case that").

Second, I've discussed what I'm trying to do with people with whom I interact frequently and asked them to help me be more sensitive to the way I present my views and their associated convictions. I've asked my teammates at work, my current and previous managers, and friends outside of work to question me when they feel I am arguing a position too forcefully. (One of my publicly stated, personal goals for the project I am on is to be better with this by the end of the project than I was at the beginning. I have been complimented on this by both my managers, our team leader, and other peers.)

Third, I try to identify dead–end discussions in which a person is holding a position with certainty. In those cases I strive to stay flexible about my position while hoping to loosen the grip of certainty of the other or others. (Staying out of and helping others out of the certainty trap has been especially difficult for me.)

I see a spectrum of purposes of discussion. These include, in their order of value to me:

1. Exchanging views and positions on a subject and why they are held (at least the pluses and minuses of the position) with the goal of raising awareness (using each other's insights) and perhaps changing each other's views or the degree of confidence in those views

2. Exchanging views and positions on a subject and why they are held with no desire or goal of changing them

3. Exchanging views and positions on a subject but not why they are held

4. Exchanging views and positions on a subject with the intent of scoring points for one's position and against the other's position. Debating.

© 1999 frantzs@geocities.com