The Challenge in Finding Truth

In 1894, the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents investigated an economics professor. The Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, a Board member, had vigorously and publicly condemned the professor’s teaching. The Board of Regents exonerated the professor. Their famous decision then vigorously supported academic freedom of inquiry.

They stated that the University “should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” They expressed an unwavering commitment to seeking the truth. But they also showed a deep understanding of how to find truth.

Seeking truth is essential for verifying the principles to live by. The challenge is how to go about “sifting and winnowing.” We must always test the truth of what we learn regardless of its source. Many times I have uncritically accepted something I read, only later to discover my error.

How can we separate what is true from what is false? How can we avoid following ideas and principles that don’t work? The field of moral philosophy and ethics is not a hard science with a history of repeatable experiments, double-blind studies, and reliable predictions. There are no mathematical equations for how to live.

The way to find the truth is simple. It is a rigorous application of reason and evidence. These two principles have worked for me. After first understanding what truth means, I have tried to follow the approach used by many philosophers since Aristotle. Start with reason as the primary tool. Then test the result by looking for evidence that it works. This approach gives me the confidence that what I know is true.

What Is Truth?

It is common to see truth as a binary; something is true or false. I struggled with this idea as I sought rock-solid principles to live by. I learned the truth is not that simple, and seeking unalterable truths leads to disappointment. Truth is what can be determined to the best of our abilities given what we know. It is not absolute, but improves as we learn more.

Science illustrates this understanding of truth. A scientific truth is the best explanation of an observable phenomenon available at a moment in time. Truth progresses as new theories better explain and predict observations. Science is never “settled” as some argue. It is constantly improving as the scientific process generates new theories and new experiments yield evidence to test the theories. Einstein’s work on gravity, for example, did a better job predicting the orbits of planets compared to Newton’s “Laws of Motion,” which were considered the truth for centuries.

This perspective assumes some humility about what we know and what we can know. Our ability to reason, measure, gather data, and test ideas has limits. The best scientists are humble and understand the difficulties in finding truth. They seek open inquiry because that advances knowledge and furthers the understanding of truth.

This widely cited quote from Richard Feynman, a famous physicist, states the perspective well.

“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through such doubt that new discoveries are made. We are never absolutely right. We can only be sure we are wrong if someone else shows it. That’s the essence of science: to welcome the proof that we are wrong.”

Truth in other fields (e.g., ethics, moral and political philosophy) has the same characteristics as scientific truth. Like science, the truth for living well progresses. We do not have to start with a blank slate. We know today more about the factors contributing to thriving than we did hundreds or thousands of years ago. There is ancient wisdom, tested by experience, but there is much new knowledge and wisdom as well. Truth progresses. Whether we use it to live better is a separate question.

The idea that the truth can change with better thinking and better evidence can be uncomfortable. Living would be simpler if the truth were absolute and unchanging. But that view is inconsistent with reality. Centuries of progress in all fields of knowledge show that some truths get reinforced over time, some discredited, and others refined.

I admit to sidestepping some important questions about reality. I assume what we perceive is real, even if our perception is imperfect. Alternative views of reality are interesting, but they distract from the practical process of gaining knowledge to improve our lives. My world seems real enough to me. I have no hard evidence to the contrary. I may live in the Matrix, but I believe I am not.

Using the Tools of Reason

After understanding and accepting the nature of truth, the job now is applying reason and evidence to sorting out what to believe and what to discard. I start with reason.

There is no more powerful tool for discovering truth than logic and reason. That is a great contribution of the Enlightenment. We could set aside superstition, myth, and divine revelation and instead apply observation, reason, and data to get at the truth.

Using reason to determine truth is a simple idea but hard to do. Our power of reason is limited. Emotions can cloud reason. Rigorous rules of logic are not always intuitive. And evidence can be unreliable.

But there are several ways to use reason in pursuing truth. Here are a few I find useful.

Traditional Logic and Common Fallacies

In mid-life, when I got more serious about my search for knowledge, I took a college course on logic. I learned how to reason better and how to recognize errors in reasoning. This provided better tools for evaluating the truth of statements and ideas.

The principles of a logical argument form the foundation. There are different forms of argument, such as deductive and inductive reasoning. Clarity and solid premises are also critical to sound reasoning.

Equally helpful to me was learning to spot logical fallacies. I find this most practical when interacting with others. People often tell us how to be happy. Their arguments may sound plausible, but regularly contain basic reasoning mistakes. Errors such as false equivalency, false dilemmas, and straw man arguments are common. Arguments with internal contradictions are another sign of weak reasoning.

Check Your Premises

A simple reasoning tool I use frequently comes from Ayn Rand, a vigorous proponent of reason. She often advised people to “Check your premises.” The truth of an argument rests on its assumptions. False or highly questionable assumptions undermine arguments. Every day I encounter arguments based on false assumptions. I also make poor assumptions in my reasoning. For example, I based some beliefs on false assumptions about human nature. I had a lot of rethinking to do when I realized my error.

Checking premises is a good way to uncover biases. We all have biases. Some are cultural. Some occur because of the way our brains process information. Recognizing bias is important in making sound logical arguments.

Thought Experiments

Another useful logic tool is the thought experiment, a common practice among philosophers. You start by imagining a world where you put your ideas into practice. Then, you imagine how those ideas would logically work and what the outcome would be.

John Rawls had a famous thought experiment where he suggested people imagine a world where they did not know their situation (e.g. wealthy or poor, male or female). Then imagine adopting a policy or practice and consider how they would react if they had this “veil of ignorance” perspective. Immanuel Kant, in his categorical imperative, asks people to imagine a world where they would compel everyone to behave as they do.

Testing with Evidence

For all its power, reasoning can only get you so far. Ideas need to be tested against evidence and experience. Many well-reasoned ideas fail when put into practice. There are too many ways for reason to fall short. And the world is extraordinarily complex. That is why verification or falsification using practice and evidence is so important.

The argument for experience in truth seeking is not new. Two leading American thinkers, William James and John Dewey, argued that truth is determined by whether an idea works in practice. For truths about how to live, that means they improve our lives. But we can go further back to the ideas of Hume, Smith, and Aristotle. They all recognized the limits and weaknesses of reason and saw that theoretical knowledge derived by reason needed real-world verification.

Is There Evidence, and How Reliable Is It?

One starts by simply asking if there is any evidence to support a statement. I’ve heard many forceful statements backed up by logical arguments for which there is simply no supporting evidence.

If there is evidence, how good or convincing is it? For example, is the evidence repeatable? Does an idea work consistently across different contexts and people? Is the evidence anecdotal or from a rigorous study? Is the statistical analysis appropriate, and are the results significant?

There has been widespread criticism of academic studies in both the hard and social sciences. The pressure to publish seems to have diminished the academic rigor of studies. Estimates vary, but it is likely that more than a third of the results reported in social science studies cannot be reproduced. And there is the common problem of inferring causation from mere correlation. It pays to be careful in accepting study results.

Sometimes the evidence is so powerful that it is unnecessary to understand why or how it works. This is a situation where reasoning may be inadequate, but the resulting principle works. An illustration is quantum mechanics in physics. The theory, developed in the early 1900s, has a 100-year perfect record in predicting subatomic-level behavior. Yet, the experts in quantum theory readily admit they don’t understand why or how it works. The equations and models simply work. You can use an idea proven to work even though you don’t know precisely why.

Culture and History as a Form of Evidence

Unintentionally, humans have been conducting experiments in how to live for tens of thousands of years. History and culture have captured the results. There is much useful evidence here that can support or refute our ideas. It takes more study to uncover it. But it can provide the evidence needed for deciding what works and what doesn’t. That is why I love reading history books.

Example—Honesty as a Guiding Truth

An example illustrates the process I am suggesting. This is what I try to go through when I encounter a new idea or statement that may be useful.

I heard many times as a child: “Honesty is the best policy.” This meant that we should always tell the truth. Even if I did something wrong, it was better to be honest about it when caught.

This guidance seemed reasonable at first. But then I had doubts. Don’t people lie all the time? Some of the most powerful people in the world seem to lie constantly. Maybe telling the truth was only for boy scouts. Perhaps you had to lie to get along or to get ahead.

After considering the arguments for telling the truth, the logic seems strong. Honesty is a logical antecedent to cooperation. If you trust someone, it is easier to work together. A culture of honesty reduces the cost of verifying whether someone is lying. The assumption of honesty is a necessary foundation for justice and fairness.

Thought experiments support the proposition. Imagine if everyone frequently lied. Imagine how the activities of daily life would be different under those circumstances. Clearly, in a thought experiment, an honest world would be a far better place to live.

Are there inconsistencies? Occasionally, telling the truth may cause more harm than good. But how often do we face having to lie to the Nazis about hiding a Jew in the attic? And there are many ways to avoid lying without telling the truth when it is truly necessary. The logical inconsistencies seem minor and rare.

Is there sound evidence that it is better to be honest? It is easy to find good empirical studies showing that people who are honest are happier. Countries with a culture of trust and honesty have better economies and lower crime.

Is honesty consistent with human experience throughout history? For thousands of years, honesty has been a virtue, incorporated into culture through laws, customs, religious instruction, and literature. The survival of honesty as a virtue over such a long time suggests it must be a good principle to follow.

Finally, does honesty seem to work in our own experience? I have experience lying and being lied to. I know honesty is much better.

In this simple example, logic and the preponderance of evidence support the validity or truth of the moral guidance to tell the truth. It is not perfect, and there can be rare exceptions. Other maxims may be harder to think through. But the process is the same. It is the best way I have found to get to the truth, or close enough to the truth, to be useful in living.

A Life of Sifting and Winnowing

We can find the truth using reason and evidence. The process involves skepticism, humility, and persistence. I have accepted that truth is only the best we can do with our abilities and current knowledge. We should be open to changing our minds and improving our ideas as we learn.

Fortunately, there is solid logic and ample evidence supporting many truths needed for living well. Many have withstood the test of time and are accessible to anyone looking. We may lose sight of them. And sometimes poor logic and faulty evidence may mislead us. But we will progress by living a life of fearless sifting and winnowing.