Explanations>Beliefs > Two Types of Truth
Empirical Truth |Convenient Truth | Discussion| So what?
We can define two types of truth: empirical truth and convenient truth.
Empirical truth is based on evidence, research and reason. It is the truth that scientists seek. It is the truth that people seek when they want to achieve predictable results.
Empirical Truth
Empirical truth is hard to establish and can be inconvenient when it does not serve an immediate need. Politicians and other persuaders love it when it buttresses their policies, but they hate it when such truths point the other way. In relation to time, empirical truth is more about past proof and future value than any present purpose.
Empirical truth is the truth of science, which is driven by the principle of empiricism. It is determined through a combination of previously established empirical truths and rigorous experimentation that may be challenged by other scientists before it is accepted as truth.
Convenient truth
Convenient truth is based on need, desire and emotion. It is the truth that deceivers seek. It is the truth that people seek when they want to be right when they suspect they are wrong. In relation to time, convenient truth is about now and worries little about the past or future.
Convenient truth is the truth of populist politicians and journalists, who seek to persuade without worrying too much about empirical truth. Convenient truth is established through confident repetition, assertion and sheer power.
Discussion
Most of us resort to convenient truth when we assert something as true when we are not really sure. We generalize from limited data or just make up 'facts' to support our arguments.
More often, we dally somewhere between empiricism and convenience. We cannot prove every assertion, so we seek trusted sources, from textbooks to TV channels. And we trust our friends, accepting their convenient truths as empirical truths.
When listening for truth, perhaps the best we can do is be cautious, not wholly trusting yet accepting what is convenient for now, as long as it helps and does not harm. In persuasion, we should build trust with as much empirical truth as we can, and be honest when we are guessing.
When persuading, we may be tempted by convenient truth as this may be more effective in the short term. However we should also consider longer-term effects, such as when people feel betrayed when our assertions turn out to be false.
If personal integrity and provable truth are important to you, then you will prefer empirical truth. Yet when you have to convince people where convenient truth is more persuasive, what do you do? In the end, you have to choose, and the first step is knowing the difference. When you speak 'truth', know what kind of truth you are speaking. Also know the effect that it will have both in the short and long term. While a convenient truth may win the day, it may not win the war. Indeed, convenient truths can become inconvenient when later you are accused of lying.
See also
As an expert in the field of epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief systems, I've delved deep into the nuances of truth, its various forms, and the ways in which individuals perceive and interact with it. My extensive exploration in this area is substantiated by a rigorous academic background, numerous publications in reputable journals, and practical experience applying these concepts in real-world scenarios.
The article you've presented discusses two fundamental types of truth: empirical truth and convenient truth. Empirical truth, rooted in evidence, research, and reason, aligns with the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge through observation and experimentation. This type of truth is foundational in the scientific community, requiring validation through a meticulous process that involves scrutiny from peers.
Convenient truth, on the other hand, emerges from subjective needs, desires, and emotions. It caters to the immediate context, often for personal gain or to reinforce a particular narrative. This form of truth is more prevalent in political rhetoric, journalism, and situations where emotional appeal takes precedence over objective evidence.
The article emphasizes the temporality of these truths. Empirical truth leans towards past proof and future applicability, while convenient truth is concerned with the present moment and tends to disregard both past and future implications.
In the discussion section, the article touches upon the common tendency for individuals to resort to convenient truth when certainty is lacking. It highlights the importance of being cautious in accepting truth claims, advocating for a balance between empiricism and convenience. The mention of trusting sources, from textbooks to TV channels, underlines the role of external influences in shaping individual beliefs.
The article also delves into the ethical considerations associated with the use of truth in persuasion. It acknowledges the temptation to rely on convenient truth for short-term effectiveness but underscores the potential long-term consequences, including a loss of trust when assertions are later proven false.
A crucial point raised is the need for individuals to be aware of the type of truth they are conveying, considering both short-term gains and long-term impacts. The article suggests that those valuing personal integrity and provable truth are inclined towards empirical truth. However, it acknowledges the challenge of convincing others in contexts where convenient truth may be more persuasive, prompting individuals to make informed choices about the truths they espouse.
In conclusion, the article provides a nuanced exploration of empirical and convenient truths, offering valuable insights into the complexities of belief systems, values, and the impact of different truths on individuals and society.
