Distinctions Between Whats True, Whats False

Distinctions Between Whats True, Whats FalseThe conjurement There are no over concuring distinctions between what is veritable up and what is false is both elucidate and incorrect when examining legitimate areas of knowledge and ways of knowing. To evaluate the enunciatements accuracy we must understand the substance of the words adjust, false and absolute. In my opinion several(prenominal)thing that has been proven as correct or documentary is lawful. On the other hand, something which has failed to be proven square is false, yet this definition itself may be incorrect as others powerfulness argue that a contain which has not been credited as true does not necessarily mean it is false. Lastly, the term absolute is something perfect or unlimited. barely, how only whent end something be proven true, and if it has, then who determines when there is enough trial impression to make it true? Norm aloney we rely on evidence to uphold us prove the validity of a claim, particularly for diachronic and scientific claims. On the other hand, evidence used could contain problems of knowledge overdue to bias which could be associated with it. then, what kind of evidence is needed to have a justified trueness in the diverse areas of knowledge?In my opinion, recognition is one of the most important ways of knowing, since we often depend on it to determine whether a claim is true or false. For grammatical case, the existence of light is considered a fact due to perceptionyet to a person who has been blind their wholly life, light would be considered a myth since they have never comprehend it. On the other hand, perception can deceive us and snuff it us away from the integrity. Take for instance a schizophrenic patient. lore has proven that people who suffer schizophrenia are delusional.1The people they interact with are true to them but their existence to us is false. What gives us the make up to deny their existence? Perhaps we are the ones who have a restriction to our senses that stops us from training what schizophrenic patients see. Therefore perception could be considered relative as it creates different truths to different individuals and is therefore inhering. Nevertheless it is not just perception alone which leads us to the truth.Science is a field of force that is based on hard, design and systematic evidence before truths can be r distributivelyed. Through tests and observations possible explanations or hypotheses are formed and posterior developed into scientific claims which could be regarded as true or false. For example, the stall theory, which states that all living(a) organisms are composed of cells, that cells are the smallest units of life and that they come on from pre-existing cells, was derived from several similar hypotheses and then confirmed later on galore(postnominal) scientists experiments and observations.2The cell theory is considered true by a large numeral of scientists yet i t can be argued that we cannot claim that the theory is an absolute truth since reinvigorated evidence can appear and contradict explanations to the theory which could lead, after further experimentation, to new and improved knowledge and a more faultless truth. This is apparent when examining the induced-fit model by Koshland which was discovered after the lock and expose model was developed to describe the mechanism of enzyme action.3The induced model highlighted that legitimate enzymes could catalyse several similar reactions contradicting the stamp that enzymes were as rigid as previous(prenominal)ly proposed by the lock and key model. From the above examples we can see that scientists are able to distinguish between a true claim and a false one, to a certain extent, and that new truths are construct from previous claims which were/are believed to be true but, that it is approximately impossible to state that a claim is the absolute truth. I believe the problem with scie ntific claims is that most scientists have not tested the validity of the previous scientific truths on which they build their new scientific claim. This makes the previous scientific truths, subjective truths, but scientists use these subjective truths in the hope of finding target truth.Meanwhile, not all scientific claims which have been proven true run true. Science has witnessed paradigm shifts such as the shift in the belief that stress and spicy food were the causes to stomach ulcers. This was thought because the judgement of bacteria surviving in the acidic environment of a stomach was not a possibility, yet it was later proven that the true cause of ulcers was a bacterium know as Helicobacter pylori which lives in the mucus layer effective the stomach wall cells.4This example shows that science has its limitations at certain points of m and that what we believe is true today may not be true tomorrow, therefore embracing Karl Poppers idea of falsification. These paradig m shifts also lead to the idea that there may be no absolute proof in science that can verify nor falsify the validity of a scientific hypothesis. Therefore, should science embrace the concept of relativism, the idea that some claims are true for some people but not necessarily true for all?5If we deny the concept of relativism, would it prevent us from moving forward and gaining new knowledge since scientific knowledge comes from known truths? I believe that we should bear in mind the chance that any scientific claim known now could be altered or changed at any moment, but as knowers ourselves we should avoid gullibility by continuing to question these scientific claims especially during classes such as the sciences where we as students are exposed to these claims through and through secondary sources.History is an area of knowledge where ascertain true historical claims is in truth different from in science since knowers cannot directly observe the past.6It is up to historians an d the evidence left behind to develop historical claims and prove their validity. During a History class, I was asked to evaluate a few sources of evidence in relation to the Vietnam War. Each source showed different aspects of the war. Here, I was introduced to propaganda and how far forth from the truth it can lead people. Certain evidence such as photographs can deceive us again due to our perception as each person may conclude something different. The media is often accused of using certain photographs which appear to convey a certain message tether to biases. Reasoning, one of the ways of knowing, is used in order to conclude on past events. However, how reliable is the historical evidence? Is it all correct, or does it populate of fabricated facts?I once gave a seminar on the Arab-Israeli contrast, the central conflict in the novel One More River, by Lynne Reid Banks. Countries such as the US have failed to work out this conflict due to the two stories of each nation. Fo r both Palestinians and Israelis, most of the evidence they have is based on their beliefs and stories. However stories in history are often not considered as legitimate evidence, for the truth to be determined. Where does the truth really lie with the assumption that previous generations of both sides may have tried to hide the truth in order to insure that future generations could continue to claim the land as their own? Other nations are involved in trying to subside this conflict, and emotions can receive a major part in determining whose side you take through religious or linguistic affinity. The media play on emotion and help shape peoples opinions towards certain topics through the very language, tone and imagery that are used. Language and emotions can either veil the truth or make it clearer. The media are full of news stories that take to their own biases, often negatively influencing the perception of the readers/viewers. In such instances, it is almost impossible to establish what is true and what is really false.Mathematics is an area of knowledge which begins logically from a set of axioms (assumptions)7from which objective truth is stereotypically claimed to be present. For example, 1+1 will always equal 2 yet this example faces counter-claims such as the fact that 1+1= from an artistic stead forms a window. It could also be argued that when looking at a real life situation where 1 man and 1 woman enrol a theater of operations we should have 2 people in the house according to the definition, but what if the woman is in the early stages of pregnancy? Therefore in contrary to perception, there would be more than two living human beings in the house, disproving the mathematical definition. An example of objective truth in mathematics is the fact that parallel lines never meet. If they meet, then they would no continuing be parallel. In my opinion, math is the not the strongest area of knowledge which agrees with the statement at hand since distinctions between true and false mathematical claims is possible. However, some areas in mathematics rebriny subjective. For instance, it could be argued that in order to solve a mathematical equation, mathematical theories and laws must be accepted, making the truth in maths subjective.Over all, after examining three of the six main areas of knowledge, mathematics seems to least support the claim that There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false, as there is much objective truth in mathematics. We see that different areas of knowledge use different ways of knowing as evidence to distinguish between true and false statements in addition to the problems associated with them. Lastly we see how difficult it is to state that absolute truths exist as well as form an absolute distinction between what is true and what is false.Word count 1598