“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” --Arthur Conan Doyle
Everyone knows the truth. At least that is the presumption. This notion that truth is obvious to all is bandied around with such recklessness that it seems like a statement of the obvious to make it. But on closer examination, truth is a very elusive quality. It is so rare in fact that the probability that we have ever heard it spoken, or seen it in print, is zero by calculation. How can this be?
I could expend a few hundred pages in explanation as to why truth is so elusive. But let’s settle on a simple definition in order to reduce our search. Truth is an assertion that is supported by facts. When I say, for example, that today is Tuesday, we can readily confirm whether or not my statement is true. Technically, however, we need to do more than merely refer to a calendar or call our nearby radio station to confirm it. That is because we cannot measure time with absolute certainty. And that is because our reference point keeps changing. Our reference is the Earth’s rotation. But the Earth does not spin on its axis with a continuous speed: It speeds up and slows down with regularity due to its non uniform density; it wobbles on its axis due to the tides; its orbital time around the sun changes every year because of gravitational tugs from other bodies. Still, we can measure time with greater certainty than any other quantity because the Earth’s rotation correlates with the frequency of cesium 133. And that is defined as the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of cesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) with a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz per second. But who among us thinks in terms of a billionth part of anything? So let’s move on to those things about which we tend to agree with greater certainty albeit with less justification because of the constraints of correspondence theory.
Witnesses in court are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And to that statement is often appended “so help me God.” As we will see, we may indeed need God’s help.
Even the scholarly Arthur Conan Doyle overstated his case with his declaration of truth. If we could eliminate the impossible, that which remains would not necessarily be the truth. It would be the tenable. And to be tenable means merely that we have failed to reject it as false. It could still be false. So what is truth?
The scientific method constrains us to talking about that which is tenable. It does not seek to find the truth. We test hypotheses and reject those that are found to be false. The others remain tenable, and subject to further examination. The laws of probability tell us how close we came to rejecting those that we failed to reject. So what is truth?
Truth is unchangeable, today, tomorrow and forever. And what meets that standard? So far—nothing. And how do we know that? Actually, we don’t. We may have stumbled onto something true, but because we had never met something true before according to the laws of probability, we failed to recognize it. Are we left to chase our tails endlessly in the circle of a dilemma, wrapped in a paradox, inside an enigma? Yes!
So how can we swear to tell the truth etc. when we wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and kissed us? We can’t.
What about theologians: They know the truth, don’t they? No they don’t. They simply believe they do. They prefer to set aside all the ways to the tenable that science, philosophy, and logic compel us to follow. But isn’t the Bible all true? Actually, the Bible was written by men who did not know the Earth was round to say nothing of its rotational speed, it orbital shape, nor the distances involved in traversing between any two points. The King James version mentions truth 224 times, but not once does it try to limit or circumscribe what it is referring to. And so, yes, the Bible is a very unreliable source about the truth.
What are we to make of this entire discussion about truth? We might think of truth as an unachievable idea, a construct for discussion, but not something that is usable in our lives. And since everything that we have examined thus far in this universe is changing or moving, it is not likely to be useful at any time in the future.
What about that witness in the court room? How should he answer the oath? It would be appropriate to ask him or her: “Do you swear to hold your lies down to something less than whoppers to the best of your feeble abilities, knowing that I will throw you in jail if I find out you are really a low-down liar who deserves jail time to cool down?” Do you think that would get us to the truth? No, but it might make that low-down liar think before answering. And that is about as good as we can do.
Share
Save
Follow Me