Getting to the Truth is important…

But what is “truth”?

1. What is a claim?
2. What types of claims are there?
3. What do we mean by truth?
4. What kinds of claims can be judged scientifically?

1. Weber: Value of science is that it gives us truth about whether means achieve our ends

2. Forst: access to truth is necessary in order to exercise freedom as autonomy (informed decisions)

3. Arendt: without truth, we build a world together on a foundation of shifting lies (which will be chaotic and fall apart)

What kinds of claims to truth do we make?

What is our approach to knowing or finding truth?

Forst says that power involves giving reasons to motivate people to change what they think and do.

Those reasons can be thought of a claims about what is true.

claim:

(For our purposes) a statement about what is valid or true or right.

• If you can add “is true” to the end or “it is true that”/“it is correct to say that” to the beginning of the statement without changing the meaning, it is a (validity) claim.

Don’t overthink this definition. It is as simple as it seems.

basis:

(For our purposes) the basis for a claim is the reason we should accept the validity of that claim. It includes

• the evidence that is used to “prove” the claim is true

• and the warrant: assumptions required for the evidence to be valid “proof”

colloquially, we refer to both parts as “evidence”

claim: “It rained last night.”

basis: “I looked outside and can see the street is wet.”

What is the evidence?

What are the assumptions linking that evidence to the claim?

Three dimensions

1. Empirical vs. Normative
2. Varieties of empirical and normative claims/questions
3. Falsifiable vs. unfalsifiable

empirical claim:

is a claim about what is/what exists in the world or how things that exist affect each other.

normative claim:

is a claim about what is desirable or undesirable, good or bad.

• assert what should or should not be.
• “should” implied by the language of “right”/“wrong”
• “should” implied by “too much”, “enough”, or “not enough” of something.
• “should” implied by standards for what is “better”/“worse”

Return to the board: look at the reasons/claims given in the ad

• which are empirical? which are normative?

descriptive claims:

claims about what exists (or has existed/will exist) in the world:

• what phenomena exist (what kinds of things exist?)
• what is the type of a specific phenomenon (what is this thing?)
• amount/frequency of phenomena (how much of something is there?)
• relative amount/frequency of phenomena across different places/times (how much of something is there here vs. there/now vs. then?)
• what patterns are there in the shared appearance/non-appearance of different phenomena (does this thing usually appear together with that other thing?)

causal claims:

are claims about the how one phenomena (\(X\)) affects or causes another phenomena (\(Y\)). Causal claims state that \(X\) acts on \(Y\) in some way, not merely that they appear together in some pattern:

• the effect that one thing or event has on another thing (effects of causes)
• the cause of some event or thing in the world (causes of effects)
• the conditions under which some thing or event happens (causes of effects)
• the process through which one thing affects another (causes of effects)

1. Canada is not experiencing an increase in immigration

2. Above average immigration rates do not lead to political conflict

3. New immigrants are employed at rates higher than native born citizens

4. Below average immigration slows economic growth

5. Canada should admit 100,000 more immigrants per year

value judgments:

are normative claims that

• state what goal or ideal is “right” or “good”
• or provide criteria/rules for judging what is “better” or “worse”.

They are not:

• empirical claims for which the evidence is invalid or missing
• empirical claims that we can’t persuade someone to drop in the face of better evidence

“Vancouver is a city on the edge. It seems politicians and the police are unable, unwilling or incapable of stopping what has turned into a version of Dante’s Hell on the Downtown Eastside — illicit drug sales, open drug use, the stolen property bazaar, garbage, weapons, assaults, rape.

Vancouver no longer has a public health crisis that can be solved by needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, a naloxone-carting population, and pharmaceuticals substituted for illicit drugs. It is going to take more to solve the housing crisis by repurposing older hotels and simply putting roofs over people’s heads — a lot more.

Solving it requires bold leadership and a willingness to go beyond what has been done in the past, using evidence-based solutions that are in the best interests of all residents. Everyone deserves to feel safe, protected and respected, regardless of which neighbourhood they live in.”

• Editorial in the Vancouver Sun

prescriptive claims:

are normative claims that assert what kinds of actions should be taken

• hint: like a doctor or pharmacist, it prescribes a course of action.
• there is a connection to reasons given by power.

Return to the board: look at the reasons/claims given in the ad

• which are descriptive? causal? value judgments? prescriptive claims?

• Reality \(\to\) Mind

What shapes do you see?

What color are these fruits?

What color are these chess pieces?

What color are these fruits?

• Reality \(\xrightarrow{}\) Mind
• Reality \(\xleftarrow{}\) Mind

Kant lead a kind of “Copernican Revolution”

• our mind is part of reality and it structures our perception of reality
• we do not have direct/unmediated experience of reality.
• we have to reckon with how our perception is limited/flawed/misleading

Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason distinguishes between:

noumena: the “things in themselves” in their existence independent of our perception

phenomena: the things experienced through the senses and filtered through the categories of our minds

This puts limits on what we can know to be true:

• We can never know the noumena. We can only seek to make inferences about the independent reality based on the phenomena. >- “Immanuel Kant, the arch-destroyer in the realm of thought, far surpassed in terrorism Maximilian Robespierre.” - Heinrich Heine

We are interested in scientific truth attainable through the faculty of Reason.

scientific truth assumes:

1. there is an objective reality (noumena) outside of our perceptions
2. we all experience the same objective reality with others
3. this reality operates under consistent rules
4. we can only learn about this objective reality through our sense experiences (phenomena) as filtered through our minds.

• All other assumptions, concepts, claims are open to challenge.

Weber (a Kant stan) distinguishes science from “theology” in that

In “theology”: specific facts or values are taken as “revelation” or “faith” and cannot be questioned; other values or facts must be made to fit them.

It makes more assumptions than science.

• “Theology” can be religious but also secular (e.g. free-market capitalism will lift all; history will progress toward equal society in which all share in owning means of production; technological development will be good for humanity)

If we take up this idea of scientific truth, it has important implications for:

1. which types of claims we can judge to be true or false
2. how we use evidence to judge claims to be true or false.

In “Science as a Vocation”, Weber includes this line:

“Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question: the only question important for us: What shall we do and how shall we live?” - Tolstoi

• Weber’s point: scientific truth cannot apply to claims about value; cannot address normative claims

Think, then write down…

• genre, artist, or song

In groups, discuss your beliefs about the best music.

Discuss: how would you prove who is right… scientifically?

Normative claims always reach beyond empirical experience.

• thus, we cannot use our sense experiences (phenomena) to learn about them.

Only empirical claims can be judged using scientific conception of truth.

1. What is a claim?
2. What types of claims are there: empirical and normative; descriptive and causal; value judgments and prescriptive claims
3. What do we mean by truth: scientific truth
4. What kinds of claims can be judged scientifically? Only empirical claims

Next class: HOW do we find truth, using science?