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?

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.

Whether a reason is good depends on the basis for the claim.

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?

What claims are in this ad? Bases for these claims?

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?

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 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’s trade surplus with the United States has grown over the past decade.
2. The 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs caused Canadian producers to shift their sales toward domestic and overseas markets.
3. Canadian provinces most dependent on U.S. exports have higher unemployment rates than those with more diversified trade relationships.
4. U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber have reduced Canadian forestry employment.
5. Canada should deepen its trade partnership with the European Union rather than trying to restore access to U.S. markets.

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”.
• often implied.

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

‘Associate member’ of the EU? Why not, Canada?

But taking into account both the benefits and costs, there exists considerable potential for EU associate membership to be a net win for Canada.

Integrating our military production with the EU would benefit our industry since Canadian manufacturing is struggling with the Trump tariffs. If Canada were part of EU defence procurement, we might see the commercial demand that would justify using defence manufacturing to replace declining auto manufacturing. …The EU seems to want countries such as Canada to expand supply of these commodities. So, I would expect a satisfactory arrangement could be made allowing Canada to have higher than normal carbon emissions. Would the EU tolerate our provincial restrictions on trade and labour mobility given that equivalent restrictions are not allowed within the EU? Probably not and it actually could be a really good thing for Canada. … These domestic restrictions are a major drag on the Canadian economy.

The European bureaucracy and complex regulations spring to mind as a key cost. It is possible that EU red tape might further slow innovation in Canada, but the reality is that we already have a lot of red tape and slow innovation, so negotiations may not lead to much growth in red tape. It could in fact lead to less red tape because Canada, which has resolved to cut red tape, has the potential to nudge the EU bureaucracy in a better direction.

However much U.S. President Trump would be displeased by Canada’s closer ties to the EU, it is unclear that he would further punish us in terms of tariffs, for fear of a backlash by his own voters already worried about affordability. Mr. Carney should continue to pursue closer ties with the EU.

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 faculties of Understanding and 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.

Reason gives us the assumptions 2 and 3:

• we assume that, in principle, everything can be explained by a set of unified rules.

This is dangerous if we let Reason go, untethered to experience (need 4).

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. (Always a move to reason about things we can’t experience)

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?