Defining ‘Truth’

It’s a peeve of mine that scientific thinkers and reasonable people use terms like ‘scientific truths’ and different ‘truths’ such as religious, cultural, political or mythological ‘truths’ when describing something for which there is a lack of or no evidence to support.

Truth as a word has a generally accepted definition, to the effect of:

“The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality”

This is a great multi-angled look at different philosophical takes on truth if you want to get deep into the weeds.

For all intents and purposes though, this is the way we can think about the word, because that is how people use it functionally in most cases.

Maybe we can substitute the above ‘versions’ of truth as ‘levels of understanding’ and put them on the same continuum – scientific truths being the highest level or closest approximation to reality; the most accurate understanding of what is true. In other words, the most objective measure of truth – and therefore most appropriate use of the word by definition.

The word truth pertains to what is real, objective, verifiable through measurement and observation; in other words, to what is true. That is why by any measure you define the word by, you always get to some form of the scientific method, the more accurate it becomes.

I guess I’m saying that by definition, the ‘truth’ should reasonably be taken to mean scientific truth, without the need to state the ‘type’ of truth. This is because science, to put it eloquently, is merely the honest and unbiased pursuit of truth.

What about Pastor John? Religion is his truth. This is an example to illustrate the point.

The refutation to that, like other uses of the word truth, is simple. The word truth is being used in place of a more appropriate word – in this case, religion is John’s belief system, and that applies to individual or more granular statements too. For example, while John believes there to be a god, it is still only his belief, not a universal truth as defined above.

I want to point out some important logic here. The point of defining truth in this way is not to disprove anything, nor can it disprove the existence of a god, for example. The point is that when the word ‘truth’ is used, the person using it inherits the burden of truth and is expected to back up that ‘truth’ as defined by the word itself. If there is no objectivity, verification, measurement, then it can’t necessarily be stated as true. Therefore, there are more appropriate words like belief, metaphor, or social heuristic, etc.

---

What’s The Harm?

Now that I’ve outlined a universally accepted definition of truth, here are my problems with its misuse, using a couple of examples.

Known serial fraudster and large-scale grifter Mehmet Oz, was described as telling his viewers ‘truths that feel good’. To use a phrase like this is often another way to describe ‘what we want to be true’. A comforting lie, belief, or placeholder for the truth. In other words, there are more appropriate definitions for things that have weak or no grounds for truth, based on the level of understanding, the evidence, and the context. We don’t need to call everything truth, otherwise this undermines real truths.

The harm is that Oz’s ‘truths that feel good’ boosted his reputation and his wealth further than he would’ve ever gotten if he’d have stuck to being a talented and respected heart surgeon – a shame he threw that away. All his genuinely great medical advancements with Columbia University are now forever tarnished by his greed and misplaced ambitions, as he was (finally) removed from the Columbia University website and all ties were cut, in 2022.

This was too little, too late, however. His credentials served to boost his misleading ‘truths’ to millions of people, for years as he helped to propagate medical misinformation, and it’s this kind of deceptive use of language in general that makes it all the easier to go unchallenged for so long.

---

Deceptive Snake Oil Salesmen

People who would intentionally deceive others by embellishing half-truths to sell a distorted version of it, or outright lie, can use this over-charitable definition of ‘truth’ to their advantage. See TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), Alternative Medicine, etc.

I’m not saying there aren’t degrees of truth, and actually science never claims to be 100% sure (if it did, that’s a red flag that it could be pseudoscience). But it can be incredibly accurate, and discussing Dr Oz talking about ‘truths which feel good’ to people, in a topic where objective truths are omitted for the former, just lends a sense of false equivalence for claims without any evidence, being elevated to a level of ‘truth’ alongside really well-established scientific consensus.

As psychotherapist Jeremy Shapiro explains perfectly in this article link:

“Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.”

Why can’t we just call it out – ‘half truths’, ‘clever marketing’, ‘bullshitting’, ‘lies’, instead of softening it with ‘truths which feel good’?

Oz is selling something indirectly. Whether it’s for viewer numbers, plugs for other products he endorses or sells which he didn’t directly make a claim about, or otherwise; it’s an over-charitable position to allow him to switch between ‘types of truth’ at will when it’s convenient. A casual, vulnerable, or even desperate audience cannot always distinguish the difference for themselves.

If you’re selling people hope based on claims for which there is no evidence, then you’re selling false hope. A lie, not a ‘feel good truth’. Literally profiting from bullshitting. If you’re trying to ‘help’ people with weight loss for example, then give helpful lifestyle advice - not wallet-fleecing nonsense.

To be clear, almost every single product claiming to aid weight loss is a profit machine and doesn’t work, hence why if there is a ‘product’ involved, it’s immediately a red flag. What works? Managing your sleep, minimising stress, diet (calorie restriction and nutritional value – NOT supplements), and movement/exercise.

When pressed by the senate on his promotion of pseudoscience, Oz stammered his way into an admission that he would personally not believe in any wonder pill for weight loss, and that diet and exercise is the way to go. What is wrong with selling this real advice? Well, there’s not a lot of money in it for useless supplements and ‘feel-good truth’ salesmen. It’s a hard truth. Guess who recently also ran for senate? Yes, it’s Dr Oz. Surely he has no conflicting interests there then?

---

Jordan Peterson – Can’t (or wont) Define Truth

Jordan Peterson has been known to rattle on about ‘mythical truths’ in a convoluted word salad which seems to suggest we should base our modern societal decisions and thinking upon them, because they are ‘true’. He never applies these coherently or functionally to a modern day problem or question though. A snippet from the above link by evolutionary biologist and professor of philosophy Massimo Pigliucci points to this:

“As for evolutionary psychology, it is a rather controversial discipline… Suffice to say here that while some evopsych research is certainly well done and interesting, the field is highly speculative at best when it comes to the evolution of gender roles… even if gender roles evolved by natural selection that tells us zero of interest about how we ought, ethically, to reconsider them in contemporary society.”

Jordan is either unable or unwilling to attempt a clear communication of his ideas to a general audience. We’re left with unclear dead-end points, religious and outdated moral connotations, and nothing really useful at all.

The harm is that I’ve seen this capitalised on by vulnerable young men who can then interpret his words in whichever manner they choose, usually to ‘back up’ their pre-existing biases or validate their problematic feelings towards complex modern societal, political, and social issues.

Whether or not Peterson meant his words in those ways is irrelevant when this is the effect of it, he is not reaching those men clearly enough – or maybe that is his agenda.

Incoherent speech can be an ‘intellectual barrier’ which protects his position from scrutiny (by a lay audience), because it’s poorly communicated, and open to interpretation (although he frequently contradicts his own advice). Poor communication acts as a veil for the flawed reasoning behind it, unnoticed to someone who is just lapping it up and mistaking it for something profound or intellectual.

A good example of his incoherence can be read here, in which author and philosopher Sam Harris wouldn’t let Jordan breeze past him when they tried to agree upon a definition for truth – on topic for this article I’m writing.

You will see how he tends to avoid a simple, clearly reasoned answer and veers off immediately into ‘mythical truths’ rooted in eastern mysticism, dated religiosity, and pseudo-profound gobbledygook. It’s almost too obviously a shroud to conceal his perhaps not so popular political or social biases – and riddled with errors in reasoning, history itself, and assumptions out of his lane of expertise.

There is a missing link between these so called mythical ‘truths’ (stories, metaphors), and the relevance or useful application of said ‘truths’ to modern society, or individuals. He is also the successful author of an array of dubious self-help books, based on what? Well, not much scientific or objective truth, put it that way.

---

Conclusions

Charitably, perhaps it can be sometimes useful to use terms like ‘religious truths’ as far as describing how people feel towards a belief system, or to describe their opinions/beliefs as holding enough conviction such that they would call it truth, but I can’t see why simply saying clearer operative words shouldn’t suffice (beliefs, opinions, moral stances).

It’s neither useful nor meaningful during truthful discourse, to call things which are not true, a type of truth. For example, a ‘metaphorical truth’ is a misnomer, because if something is true metaphorically, it is a metaphor.

Science communication needs to do away with these loose, charitable terms which serve only to level the linguistic playing field for weaker or unsupported viewpoints. It is always a good reason to be skeptical of the message being delivered when you hear of these placeholder truths. A real truth is as good as the standalone word, and a genuine communicator of it should be able to demonstrate it clearly.

---