The Philosophy Café

The Philosophy Café at Harvard Book Store is a monthly gathering meant for the informal, relaxed, philosophical discussion of topics of mutual interest to participants. No particular expertise is required to participate, only a desire to explore philosophy and its real-world applications.

The Philosophy Café is held on the third Wednesday of each month, from 7:30-9:30 pm, in the Used Book department on the lower level of Harvard Book Store.

Topic of Discussion for January:

Why do we hold the beliefs that we do rather than some other set of beliefs?  Do we think our beliefs/theories possess an underlying truth (therefore making differing beliefs/theories less true) or do we believe our theories/beliefs are more “right” than differing beliefs, making differing beliefs false or wrong?  Or do we employ a combination of both truth and being right in our operation system?  What do we mean by the “truth”?  And what do we mean by being “right”?  What role does being right have in constructing our beliefs/theories?

What would the world look like and how could large problems such as global warming, Wikileaks, taxation for the richest Americans, responsibility for the Gulf oil disaster, etc. be addressed if parties involved were not primarily interested in being right?  Could we reach compromises much more easily?  Is there a greater truth that could be understood?

Our question lies at the interface between truth and being right.  Let’s clarify and discover what is meant by “truth.”  There are two fundamental theories of truth.  The first is the correspondence theory and the second is the coherence theory.  Here’s  a simple description of each:     

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.  The correspondence theory is an ancient formulation of truth whereby our minds contain or construct a model of reality.  Truth is thus a function of how accurate that model is.  Correspondence statements of truth make statements about the world.  For example: The statement “snow is white” is true if and only if snow is, in actuality, white.

Thecoherence theory of truth holds that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its relation to the world.  In coherence theory, truth is not an isolated fact but a broad system of reality. Because the world cannot be known except as a total system, in coherence theories a fact is judged truthful if it conforms to the theory of what is already accepted as known.  For example: Astrophysicists can hypothesize the existence of an unseen star (perhaps a black hole) from observing the motion and light spectra of a seen star. Such “binary stars” are only known through their interaction with visible events, yet their existence is taken as real and thus they are coherent with the existing theory of mass and gravitational action.

Which of these best describes what you mean by truth?  Each theory entails different parameters which determine whether or not a particular belief is true.

Being right, as distinct from having the truth, is a mental state, a feeling like anger or pride that can help guide us, but that doesn't dependably reflect objective truth.  Being wrong is an unpleasant state. The real-life experience of being wrong frequently entails feelings of humiliation and defeat.  Also, whatever damage can arise from erring is , by comparison, frequently  less than the feelings of fear, and discord that result from our denial of having erred.  In this regard it is like the repercussions of Watergate, whereby the denial of wrongdoing (the break-in of Democratic Headquarters) turned out to be much more damning than the original crime. It was, in a sense, the inability of the Nixon White house to admit a wrong that led to a much greater variance from truth and his eventual resignation.

Being wrong at some point is an unavoidable situation for anyone who explores looking for truth.  We can and should differentiate in our own minds what is motivated by a quest for truth and what is fueled by the desire to be right (or at least not wrong).

The scientific method is an attempt to codify truth testing. Only assertions of which it is possible to find non-confirming evidence are deemed “scientific”. In other words there has to be a chance of being wrong in ones theory or there would be no progress at all.

So the challenge in this question is to align our need to be right with a more objective and perhaps uncaring thing which we call “truth”—or is it?