True and False

Myth, Superstition, Hoax, and Illusion

In late Spring, the year I turned 20, four police squad cars pulled into my parents' driveway. It was a long driveway. Dad greeted the local sheriff at the front door, and a half dozen policemen entered the living room. I was dressed and ready to go to work. The local police, from where I worked, the county sheriff, and the state police were all there. Dad reviewed the arrest warrant, Mom began crying, and I was handcuffed and escorted to the back seat of the police car where I worked. The owner of where I worked for nearly five years liked me a lot and couldn't, did not want to believe I was stealing a hundred dollars or more every day from him. They took longer to prove it was me for him, and naturally, the amount was way over $10,000 by the time of the arrest.

The police were severely confident I was their guy. The standard windowless room with a mirror, a small table, a chair for me, and two for the officers was smaller than on TV or in the movies. I knew nothing about circumstantial evidence, indirect reasoning, or crime theory. When they showed me the evidence, I was impressed. I said so. If they used it to prove anyone else was their guy I would have believed it. There was one small problem. I did not do it, not a penny, ever. I shocked their confidence with my calm demeanor, and before anyone could say much more, my attorney arrived. I was processed, booked, and let go to await trial.

No more money disappeared from where I worked from that time forward. Everybody believed I did it. My lawyer said the evidence was ironclad. They had enough evidence and a story to prove I was guilty. My story was mute. The only hope was that if somebody else were responsible, their habit or whatever caused him or her to steal would get caught, and I would go free. I played a postpone and delay game in the summer and early fall when I turned 20. A patrol car followed me every time I left home, and a couple dozen 'speeding' tickets were handed out over the nearly four months, avoiding trial. I refused to take a deal. I was on a metro attention list and pressed to admit my guilt multiple times a week.  

I went to bed on a Thursday evening, the trial scheduled for 10 am the following day wondering how Friday would turn out. At about midnight, another employee from where I had worked robbed a liquor store using the company's vehicle. During his interrogation, one of the officers who was part of my arrest asked him if he was the one who was the one stealing where I had worked. He confessed, and that morning, Mom was happy with the phone call telling my parents I was innocent. No apology, no news stories, just another day, and I had all the speeding tickets for a reminder.  

Growing up, I saw breakdowns, mistakes that led to them, and how messed up programs could go from bad to worse. Dad's two favorite comments were that he/she/they had good intentions or meant well. He always said it with a neutral tone, and I didn't hear it as a put-down or condemnation. I was wrong. Most people in the justice system mean well and have good intentions. I began to study how they get it wrong so often. Twenty countries use juries, most comprised of streetwise citizens, and the other 173 countries use a panel of judges for a jury. In every country, however, how they arrive at 'the truth' is similar. The police collect evidence and produce a theory. An arrest happens. A prosecutor presents the state's story to a judge and jury. You and the defense attorney offer another story. 

In some cases, most actually, you are assumed guilty, and some operate from you are presumed innocent. If the state takes you to trial, you must be guilty is a common reality. That is what everyone told me after my arrest. 

Indirect and Direct reasoning

Necessity, contingency, and possibility are three points of view to consider. A contingent statement stands between necessary and impossible, not crossing into the territory of either status. Contingent and necessary statements form the complete set of possible statements. While this is widely accepted, the precise distinction (or lack thereof) between what is contingent and necessary still needs to be determined. Necessity refers to something that must be true or exist and cannot be otherwise. All humans must breathe oxygen to survive. Contingency refers to something dependent on certain conditions or circumstances. It is contingent upon the weather whether or not somebody will play a baseball game. A possibility could be true or exist but is not necessarily so. Humans can live on Mars in the future, but it has yet to happen.

Direct or deductive reasoning is a method of argumentation that involves making a straightforward and logical case for a particular conclusion. Aristotle developed the principles of logical reasoning and argumentation that underlie direct reasoning. In his works, such as the Organon and Rhetoric, Aristotle outlined the principles of deductive reasoning, coming to "logical" conclusions from a set of premises.

Indirect reasoning, also known as hypothetical syllogism, is a type of logical reasoning that involves using a conditional statement to draw a conclusion. Aristotle and Euclid were the first to use similar reasoning methods in their works. Indirect reasoning was developed further by logicians Peter Abelard and John Duns Scotus to analyze theological and philosophical arguments.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a prominent figure in the development of calculus and the co-inventor of the notation still used today. He was also a prolific writer on various topics, including philosophy, logic, and metaphysics. He claimed that indirect reasoning could never prove anything. In his work "New Essays on Human Understanding," Leibniz argued that indirect reasoning, also known as hypothetical reasoning, was inferior to direct reasoning because it relied on speculative premises that somebody could not directly verify. He claimed that direct, deductive reasoning, based on self-evident truths and empirical observations, was a more reliable method of establishing knowledge and the truth.

"There are two kinds of truths: those of reasoning and those of fact. The truths of reasoning are necessary, and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposites are possible." - Gottfried Leibniz.

Leibniz distinguishes between two types of truths: those based on logical reasoning and those based on empirical evidence or observation. The truths of reasoning are necessary because they are derived from logical deduction and are independent of any particular experience or observation. The statement "all bachelors are unmarried" is a truth of reasoning because it is logically necessary, and its opposite ("some bachelors are married") is impossible. On the other hand, the truths of fact are contingent because they are based on empirical evidence and are subject to change based on new observations or experiences. The statement "it is raining outside" is a truth of fact because it is contingent on the current weather conditions, and its opposite ("it is not raining outside") is possible.

Inductive or indirect reasoning is like starting with a leaf on a tree, following it to the trunk, believing there are no other leaves in view. 

Subjective or Objective

Objective and subjective are two different ways of seeing things. The objective is facts and evidence, free of personal opinions or feelings. It is a view believed to be independent of personal biases and emotions. "The Earth orbits around the sun" is objective because it is based on scientific evidence and proven through observation and experimentation.

On the other hand, subjective refers to something based on personal opinions, feelings, and experiences. It is a view influenced by personal biases and emotions. "The movie was good" is subjective because it is based on personal opinion and can vary from person to person. Objective is based on facts and evidence, while subjective is based on personal opinions and experiences.

Could one person's objectivity be another's subjectivity? Knowing that would be useful. The objectivity of those on the scene will influence the subjectivity of those not present. 

Fact or Fiction

A fact is a statement that can be proven or verified through evidence, observation, or experience. It is accurate and reliable when viewed objectively. In contrast, fiction refers to stories or narratives that are not based on actual events or facts but are the product of imagination or creativity. A story is not one or the other but is always fiction covering up what happened.

Individuals filter how evidence and sources of information support the claim. Reliable and verifiable sources, such as scientific studies, historical records, or eyewitness accounts, support facts. On the other hand, fiction can use creative or imaginative sources, such as novels, movies, or works of art.

Although there is no foolproof way to guarantee that a fact is true, several methods can increase the likelihood of accuracy and reliability. One method is to rely on trusted and reputable sources of information, such as peer-reviewed scientific studies, official government records, or established news organizations with a history of accuracy and reliability. Another method is to verify the information through independent sources or fact-checking organizations that specialize in evaluating the accuracy of claims. Own the fact checkers, claim consensus, and you have facts.

Potential biases or conflicts of interest influence the accuracy of a claim. A study funded by a particular industry may be more likely to produce results that favor that industry's interests, which could be 100% accurate and true. Awareness of potential biases can help evaluate a claim's accuracy and reliability. There is no surefire way to guarantee the accuracy of a fact, relying on trusted sources, verifying information through independent sources, and being aware of potential biases can help to increase the likelihood of accuracy and reliability. 

All facts are lies until proven otherwise. 

What is true and truth? 

We tend to believe truth means correctness as in true or false. Explore the concept of truth from three different angles, points of view, or contexts:

Correctness relates to accuracy, precision, and adherence to facts or principles. A statement or belief is correct if it aligns with reality or conforms to established standards. You must buy into the consensus with this view. Correctness involves objective evaluation and verification.

Unconcealment is a process of revealing or uncovering something previously hidden or obscured. It is the idea that truth exists independently of our perception or understanding. When we uncover or unconceal the truth, we move beyond appearances and reveal the underlying reality. The Greek word for what we call truth translates as unconcealment, unconcealed, not veiled, and not covered over. 

"And then how does it stand with the word "truth" in our own language? What do we really mean by it when we say it? If we don't want to fool ourselves, we must readily admit that for the most part we fumble around, as it were, with a highly imprecise meaning of the word. In any case, the meaning of this word is not as unambiguous and simple as that of the Greek word; for the German meaning is non-visual and non-sensory and therefore has no immediate perceptual counterpart. Our concept of truth and the Greek concept of truth take their perceptual intelligibility from entirely different domains and relations. Unconcealment, is taken from the factual situation of concealing, veiling, or in turn, unveiling and unconcealing. "Correctness" is taken from the factual situation of the directedness of something towards something, from the factual situation of gauging and measuring. "Unveiling" and "measuring" are entirely different factual situations." – Martin Heidegger. Being and Truth

Self-evident truths are those that are immediately apparent without further explanation or proof. They are intuitively clear and universally accepted. "All triangles have three sides" is self-evident.

Truth encompasses unveiling hidden realities (unconcealment) and aligning with established facts (correctness). Self-evident truths require no additional justification—they are evident in themselves.

"Remember – and this is very important – you're only one thought away from happiness, you're only one thought away from sadness. The secret lies in Thought. It's the missing link that everybody in this world is looking for… It's a gift that we were given to have the freedom to walk through life and see what we want to see. How much better than that can you get? That you have the freedom to walk through life and see as a free thinker, that is the greatest gift ever, to be a free thinker." - Sydney Banks.

Replace happiness and sadness with truth and fiction. There is at least one more post to discover more of the mess we are in. 

What is true takes on many forms.  

Myth

Superstition

Hoax

Illusion

Terministic Screens and Bias