{"id":487,"date":"2018-07-31T18:12:10","date_gmt":"2018-08-01T01:12:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/?p=487"},"modified":"2018-08-01T15:40:38","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T22:40:38","slug":"truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/truth\/","title":{"rendered":"“Truth”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Summary<\/h2>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 It has been an embarrassing long time since my last post. \u00a0It is not\u00a0entirely unexpected. \u00a0It is far easier to compose blog posts complaining in one way or another about my cancer. \u00a0When my experiences are ones for which I can only be enormously grateful, writing about the good news seems less urgent.<\/span>The truth<\/em>\u00a0is that my chemo protocol, my prescribed anti-cancer regimen, coupled with the treatment accorded me by amazing and dedicated oncological nurses has resulted in a kind of temporary (hopefully long-lasting) stasis or balance. \u00a0My cancer seems to be at bay. \u00a0At the same time my body has somehow\u00a0accommodated\u00a0itself to the toxic drugs I\u2019m receiving. \u00a0I am no longer so badly thrown off by the somewhat unpredictable side effects when they come.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 So this posting\u2014rather than focusing on my cancer\u2014is about\u00a0\u201cTruth”.[1] \u00a0It is prompted by a dinner conversation. \u00a0\u201cWhat, exactly is Truth,\u201d Monica asked, \u201cgiven all the accusations of \u2018fake news\u2019, constant prevarications, and deliberate misdirections from our political leader(s)?\u201d \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 It sounded like a reasonable question with a reasonable answer. \u00a0It turned out to be a long-historied issue debated by philosophers and theologians.<\/span>This is my unlettered contribution to the dialog.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Detail<\/h2>\n

Personal<\/h3>\n

In my parent\u2019s generation, to accept a person\u2019s word was to hear truth declared.<\/p>\n

Protecting one\u2019s word was of utmost ethical importance. \u00a0I can recall (perhaps from some high school ethics class) discussions about when and if it was ethical to lie\u2014even to one\u2019s enemies. \u00a0For example, was it breaking one\u2019s word to answer an enemy\u2019s question with, \u201cThey went that-a-way!\u201d while pointing in the wrong direction?<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Taking Oaths<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 For very important juridical situations in the West, we\u2019ve adopted the custom of swearing on a Bible to \u201ctell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\u201d[2] \u00a0This invokes God to be a witness to the veracity of one\u2019s testimony. \u00a0An oath is only truly effective, of course, if the individual swearing the oath believes in a deity. \u00a0 Even if not, it raises consciousness in the oath-giver about how important is the veracity of one\u2019s statements.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Swearing an oath gives comfort to the adjudicators of Justice and the Public.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Ordeal by Water<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Another method of confirming whether or not a testimony is reliable is to verify it through trial.\u00a0 One such method is to make a witness successfully endure a physical hardship, such as walking through a bed of hot coals to prove their truthfulness.[3]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Accused witches (recall Salem) were sometimes stripped of their underclothes, bound with a rope and thrown in a pond of water.[4] \u00a0 The rationalization for this bizarre test was convoluted. \u00a0It began with the presumption that witches were likely not to have been Baptised. \u00a0This supposition was strangely connected with a theory that\u2014since water plays such a crucial role in the Sacrament of Baptism\u2014water would repel witches and make them bob up to the surface of a pond or river. \u00a0 Thus arose a cruel way of determining whether a woman was a witch or not. \u00a0Trussed and thrown into a body of water, those who were witches should be observed at the surface, rejected by the water. \u00a0Conversely, if a woman was\u00a0not<\/span>\u00a0a witch, she should sink to the bottom of the pond and could be safely hauled up to be declared innocent… if, that is, her recovery was quick enough for drowning not to have occurred in the meanwhile. \u00a0But this did not worry the perpetrators of such despicable crimes. \u00a0To further shield them from committing murder there was a final rationalization. \u00a0If an innocent woman accidentally drowned, it was deemed to have been an intercession of a deity to correct the original miss-indictment and reassert the guilt of the deceased woman.\u00a0 Either way, there was an external judge that exculpated the individuals active in the judgement and murder of women.\u00a0 It was not their<\/u> fault what happened!<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The emphasis with these techniques was to prove the veracity of the witness<\/u>.\u00a0 But what about the truth of their testimony<\/u>?\u00a0 Proving the veracity of anyone’s testimony has become increasingly problematic as science discovers the uncertainty of human perception.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Different Perceptions or Memories<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Psychologists set up an experiment to expose subjects to a staged traumatic event, like a robbery or accident.[5] \u00a0Afterwards, they interviewed their witnesses. To their surprise, the psychologists found that each of the subjects may possibly have \u201cseen\u201d quite different details. \u00a0Each might testify to their version of \u201ctruth\u201d, but one person’s truth could be different from another witnesses’ “truth”.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Indeed, few witnesses could correctly recall what actually occurred in the experiment.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

The Problem of Single Witness<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Similarly, and equally disturbing, is the practical case in which no independent verification is possible of what actually happened.\u00a0 Then, the testimony of a single individual may be enough to identify \u201cWho done it?\u201d\u00a0 But would that individual’s testimony be true?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Maybe. \u00a0Maybe not.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

The Problem of Incomplete Information<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 All of us can remember the Indian morality-fable of the blind men stumbling across an elephant and describing the beast from the perspective of what they touched: as in legs (The elephant is like a huge multi-trunked tree!”), the elephant’s side (The elephant is like a wall!”), the ears (the elephant is equipped with huge fans to keep him cool.), his tail (the elephant is like a rope!) or his curious tusks (The elephant is like a smooth spear!).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Humans tend to extrapolate from inadequate information to a whole concept. \u00a0This is not a very reliable form of discovery according to Budhist scholars of the mid first-millennium BCE who first wrote down this morality tale.[6]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Testimony on the basis of Belief<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 There is one category of truth that is incontestable. \u00a0It is in the testimony of one\u2019s beliefs. \u00a0\u201cJesus is the Messiah\u201d is an indisputable Christian Truth (with a capital \u201cT\u201d).\u00a0 But a Christian’s Truth is not held to be true by others who hold the Judaic tenants of belief… or Muslim… or those who adhere to other faith beliefs, or none at all. \u00a0A declaration of a Christian believer can be considered an indisputable \u201cTruth\u201d. \u00a0But it is a truth circumscribed by qualifications.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Can Testimony ever be relied upon?<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The conclusion one reaches from this brief review is that a witness seemingly cannot be trusted to know the Truth (with a capital \u201cT\u201d). \u00a0Witnesses are not even reliable reporters of the truth (with a lower-case \u201ct\u201d.)\u00a0 The awareness of such unreliability came early in human history. \u00a0This is verified by the development of numerous methods over time that were designed to attempt to ascertain and verify the truthfullness of a witness. \u00a0Notably, these many efforts were entirely independent of the actual testimony that was to be given.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Regarding testimony itself, there seems to exist no independently verifiable method to identify truth versus error.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Conclusion<\/h2>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 What, then, is the answer to the question \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d\u00a0 Clearly, it begins with the veracity and truthfulness of the witness. \u00a0I’ve described, above, how difficult this is to attain. \u00a0Our parent\u2019s generation gives us the correct way to think about truthfulness. \u00a0They taught that each individual\u2019s habitual honesty, reinforced by ethical behavior, and expressed in accord with one\u2019s core beliefs make a person\u2019s testimony reliable. \u00a0Life lived according to these attributes confers what was called \u201ccharacter\u201d. \u00a0It deserved careful and constant protection and preservation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The lives of persons of extraordinary character is often identified as wisdom, as, indeed, it is. \u00a0People who live a long life consistent with good character proclaim through their lives consistent and reliable truthfulness. \u00a0Christians call such people saintly.[7]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 We are blessed to have Saints among us. \u00a0Saints are models of the kind of witnesses we should each be to the world because the world has been shown to be replete with individuals less concerned about preserving character than by trading it in for worldly or short-term gain. \u00a0This is not a recent development but a persistent historical reality. \u00a0It might be claimed that debasing character is one of the “forces of evil” inflicting the world in which we live.[8] \u00a0It takes constant attention to recognize destructively self-centered behaviors. \u00a0It take a bit less effort to combat them with the character we choose to develop. \u00a0In the end, one can conclude that it is essential that we model the Saints we know if we are to exert a properly positive influence of truth on our world.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 One of the extraordinary qualities of Saints who have been historically revered as holy, is that their holiness is expressed through an enormous variability of talents that make them holy.[9] \u00a0This give us hope that in developing our own, sometimes seemingly idiosyncratic skills and talents, there is a road to our own particular sainthood.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 May we each become a witness to truth.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
___________________<\/div>\n
[1] Google “what is truth?”<\/div>\n
[2]\u00a0http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/explainer\/2004\/04\/where_did_we_get_our_oath.html<\/a><\/div>\n
[3] https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/topic\/ordeal#ref253092<\/a><\/div>\n
[4]\u00a0https:\/\/www.ancient-origins.net\/history\/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dunking<\/a><\/div>\n
[5] https:\/\/agora.stanford.edu\/sjls\/Issue%20One\/fisher&tversky.htm<\/a><\/div>\n
[6]\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Blind_men_and_an_elephant<\/a><\/div>\n
[7]\u00a0https:\/\/www.dummies.com\/religion\/christianity\/catholicism\/defining-saints-in-the-catholic-church\/<\/a><\/div>\n
[8]\u00a0https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/us\/dictionary\/english\/forces-of-evil<\/a><\/div>\n
\n
[9]\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Saint<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Summary \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 It has been an embarrassing long time since my last post. \u00a0It is not\u00a0entirely …<\/p>\n

Continue reading »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[273],"class_list":["post-487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=487"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/487\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":506,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/487\/revisions\/506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grycz.us\/cancerblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}