Pragmatism And Truth : The Pragmatist View Of Truth

Ullman and Lewis are a perfect example of this. When both men were prompted to discuss Professor Aijing Shang’s study on homeopathy, they interpreted it in two completely different ways. Ullman claimed that the study was unfairly skewed against homeopathy whereas Lewis claimed that the study was credible and that Shang was justified in the steps he took while conducting the experiment. When Storr asked Lewis if Ullman was at least partially justified in his interpretation, Lewis responded, “Dana is always wrong. So, no, I wouldn’t go that far” (Storr 115). A study meant to produce one whole truth managed to benefit the biases of two opposing arguments due to the effects of confirmation bias – in this, the whole truth was lost. This raises the question: if the whole truth is lost, did it exist to begin with? Is anything true without our making it so?

Human beings process information in a biased manner, which he refers to as “biased assimilation”, and our opinions are formed by our own individual wants and needs (484). We tend to deny facts and truths that contradict the way we think, and embrace those

What is your understanding of “ truth” after your study of conflicting perspectives and their representation?

Most of us like to imagine our beliefs and opinions are logical and objective; however, the reality is that we tend to pay more attention to the information which supports our original ideas. And at the same time, we are trying to ignore the information which despites us. This process is called confirmation bias, and it exists in our daily lives.

William Clifford argues that we should never “believe anything on insufficient evidence” (Philosophy of Religion, p. 103)1 and if we do decide to believe in God without any evidence it would be considered “wrong,” however, William James’ The Will to Believe essay argues, in response to Cliffords essay, that believing anything without sufficient evidence is “an irrational rule” (James, p. 109)2. James’ essay suggests that there is some level of truth to the fact that no one can decide what it is that you truly believe in because if that were to be true somewhere along the way someone else probably forced those beliefs on you, either directly or indirectly. He suggests that your true beliefs are the ones that you have without any rhyme or reason. James goes to say that it is better to believe in something wholly, even if there is no evidence to prove it because that may be the only way to find your true faith, while Clifford believes that it is safer to believe in nothing until you have clear evidence so you do not have to run the risk of possibly believing in a inauthentic belief.

today, in every phone in one of your pockets, we have access to more information than at any time in human history, at a touch of a button. But, ironically, the flood of information hasn’t made us more discerning of the truth. In some ways,

In response to problems surrounding the ascription of beliefs, Daniel Dennett developed his essay True Believers, where he outlined an intentionalist theory. My intent in this paper is to explain his ideas and defend on of his presuppositions, namely, that most of what people believe is true. First I will briefly explain intentionalism and point out why Dennett feels that his syst3em is so useful. Then I will explain the necessary pretension that most beliefs ascribed are true and explain the validity of that position in greater detail. With a more concise explanation it will then become clear that Dennett’s position is not as implausible as it may seem.

Just because I do not agree with the idea that power dynamics predominantly control what passes as truth, it does not mean that I reject the idea that truth is indeed influenced by a series of intertwining forces within an institution. In fact, I do believe that factors such as our interest, gender, culture, and ways of life affect the way in which we uphold what beliefs are true and what are not. Another common ground that I share with Lynch in his argument is that “truth” can still be wrong even when it is deeply imbedded in one’s cultural norms or backed up by multiple systems. Examples of this can be seen in the scientific world where facts that are supported by scientific evidence and widely upheld by professionals in the science community are being subjected under constant revisions because of new findings. Personally, I consider societal predetermined truth to be flawed, but nevertheless, it is still remediable through group consensus and mutual accommodations, not “intolerant of constructive social criticism” like Lynch claimed postmodern relativism to be. However, I find Lynch’s take on simple relativism rather lacking because I feel that truth can exist differently varying from one person to the next without coming off as dogmatic (MY belief is the ONLY true truth). For example, one can uphold that his idea is true and at the same time acknowledges the relevance of other people’s concept of truth, even though he does not necessarily agree with it. In addition, his argument against simple relativism is repetitive in the sense that he only backed it up using the same obvious idea that our views are tinted with bias; therefore are not objective indicators of truth and are only considered to be true to the person who made the statement. To me, truth is not concrete and does not have to always come in a fixed form.

I look at the world with great skepticism: what is true and what isn’t? I know it is a difficult concept, but I think I am finally beginning to understand why we have become polarized. Part of it is that people have different opinions on what is objective and what is subjective. Suddenly, it isn’t my beliefs against your beliefs, but my facts against your beliefs. Things only get worse when you argue against my beliefs/facts. There’s a whole other side of the coin, however. There are times when facts are indeed facts, but now we seem to question objectivity itself. It’s no surprise that Oxford’s Dictionary Word of the Year is ‘post-truth’. Based on what I’ve previously described, people question facts and make them into beliefs, and of course tempers flare when one questions my facts/beliefs.

Nearly everything we say and read has been affected by opinion or perspective. Suppose you examine a lemon. One person might define it as sour, juicy, and yellow. This description is known as your truth claim, but what if someone else describes it as blue because they are unaware of their color blindness. Both people can argue that they are telling the truth because it is based on their own opinion. Now let’s imagine that we are all knowingly colorblind. No one has access to the true color of the lemon. The lemon is yellow, but we believe it’s blue. In this case, truth is impossible to define because one cannot understand what they can’t actually see. You cannot define what the truth is without knowing all the

Absolute Truth and Personal Belief are mutually exclusive concepts; however, personal belief without a foundation of absolute truth is dangerous to the human soul. Unless on the witness stand in a court of law, or the thought of facing their Creator in the afterlife, the average person hardly thinks about absolute truth governing their daily lives. Few people wish to hear the truth about themselves; people generally prefer to believe whatever makes them feel comfortable in the moment.

Pragmatism is described in the book as a method for settling philosophical disputes. It is based on the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says that a 'proposition p is true if and only if the belief that 'p is true' works'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). In order

An adaptation of Foundationalism was presented through externalist versions. Exactly what the internalism and externalism views are limited by is not decisively defined in epistemology. Externalists contemplate profoundly distinctive views to persons of conventional Foundationalism; the construction of knowledge as well as the rationalisation from theories remains often one of Foundationalism’s initial configurations. Goldman’s reliabilism offers a perspective of externalist persuasion. The principle notion of reliabilism seems simplistic; a belief is justified if it is produced through reliable beliefs, making them likely to be true. Goldman does however determine that justified beliefs can be sub divided into belief-dependent or belief-independent, the process of belief distinguishing the difference. Those that are independently processed through stimuli that we take as input beliefs, possibly a evolved conclusion associated with specific sensorial stimuli which we reflect upon and thus form our conclusion about the external. These make them more likely to be true, which belief-dependent processes are generated from. Externalism may be attractive to those who adopt Foundationalist beliefs because of their allowance when considering justified belief in a fundamental

First and foremost the Bible tells us that truth is an important and consistent entity in God’s character: the book of John describes God as “the only true God, whose word is truth.”(KJV Jhn17:3)The Bible also tells us that The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jhn.14:17) Jesus, Himself said “I am the way the truth and the life…” (Jhn14:6)

William James studied pragmatism through psychology and religion. James thought originally about philosophy; “The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants in our life, if this world formula or that world formula be the true one.” In James’ book The Varieties of Religious Experience he took a positive attitude toward religion yet opposed the idealist schools of speculative ideas (Choron 283). James was a very methodical man. “Truth happens to an idea” was another theory of James’. In order for an idea to be true an event