Truth and Objectivity

What is the truth? How do we reach it? When we reach the truth, how do we know what we have is the truth? How do we know this is the final truth, and it will not ultimately be replaced by the true final truth?

These questions are complicated, and are able to go out on tangents that seem to go on forever. But yet we still wish to attain the truth, simply because we feel that it will help us solve something, if not everything. To use science as an example, we put science in such high esteem. To us, science represents that which is true, whether it be through laws, formulae, or scientific theory. However, as we have seen time and time again, theories are being trumped one after the other. Until the Copernican Revolution, it was fact, it was truth, that we lived in a geocentric universe. Until the theory of relativity was established, and later disregarded by quantum theory (which is presently being taken over by a hybrid of the two), Newtonian physics was the pinnacle of science. To put it into perspective, physics that was developed in the 16th and 17th century was able to get a man into space. And although much of Newton's theory still holds in certain areas, it is not accepted universally. Anything that we think is developed to its extreme usually gets revoked and replaced, by something that isnt necessarily described as more true - it is touted as THE truth.

Therefore , should we continue searching for the truth knowing that it will only be replaced by something, bigger, better, more efficient, with more explanatory power? That obviously doesnt follow, because it can be compared to the classic example of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow. Just because it has risen everyday since the beginning of time doesnt prove that it will rise tomorrow. It does give a heck of a probability, but doenst give proof. Similiarly, we cannot validly claim that any new theory will for sure be replaced by another. And that brings me to my next point, of how do we know what we have eventually reached is the truth?

There is no fine print at the end of the theory ensuring us that it is 100%, government certified truth. So should we stop seeking the truth? I would like to think that the pursuit should continue. To explain my reason for this, let's move our discussion away from sceintific theory to a more social aspect of truth as a fact. The classic example would be comparing say a German textbook on World War II to an American textbook of the same war. There are discrepancies, sometimes major, but students from each individual country will learn that fact or that truth.

A solution one would often proclaim is that a textbook written by an impartial bystander outside of the situation would elimiante the negative, and expose the truth. I would like to argue that there is no such thing as objectivity. We are never able to completely take ourselves out of a situation, and then report or critique on it. It is impossible to give an 'objective' opinion, if objectivity in this sense means that the person giving the opinion is completely void of any knowledge of the situation. Not only is this impractical, since it is not possible to comment on something unless there is some background knowledge present, but it also ridiculous to assume someone with no knowledge of the situation can input something tangible and useful. So for a person to comment on the war, objectively, would be somewhat impossible. That person, as neutral as Sweden, would still have background information, and as irrelevant as it may seem, something as simple as their upbringing, or where they learned to become a historian, that latency of knowledge will influence (even subconsciously) theyre interpretation of the truth.

I have now said that truth is seemingly unattainable, since even if we reach it, we wont know we have reached it, and that there is no objective standpoint where one can stand and proclaim that something is true, yet I insist we still search for the truth. If truth exisits, it can be found. Can I prove that truth exists? There's not a chance, but I can only hope that it does. But to know that you possess the truth would require knowledge greater than any man can ever know. And although no one will ever reach the truth, the way to get there is full of discovery and exploration that would have otherwise been void if it werent for this pursuit.

I guess that in this brief (and somewhat lacking) defence of the pursuit of truth, two things emerge. The first, is what I have argued at the end - that we must continue to search for truth, not to find it, but to find what is on the path. Although the pirate may never reach the island where 'X' marks the spot, the experience, and lesser treasure discovered on the way helps those who travel closely behind him. The second emergence, is to simply question what you are given as true. How do you know it is true? I have argued that we dont know truth. We may think we do, and that helps us live an easier life, but in the end, we dont know that it is actually true. Is it true that the sun rose this morning? For all we know, God just turned on a light, but going with the 'truth' that the sun rose is definitely more acceptable and probably reliable. In other words, lets questions the truths that run our lives. I doubt we will ever find the truth that we are looking for, but atleast our path there will lead the way to something great. I promise.