What is 'Truth'?

Basic definition

The basic definition is that something is true if it corresponds with reality. However, this is too general for our purposes, and it is necessary to operationalise it by clarifying what we mean by reality and corresponds. Unfortunately, the meaning you attach to each of these depends upon your wider belief system. So if you were hoping to use the sword of truth to help you judge between belief systems, you may find it falling apart in your hands!


Operational definition

However, I think there is a way out this problem. As with most debates over definitions of terms, the best approach is to be guided by the reason why one is interested in the term in the first place. The main reason why we value truth is in order to help us to cope with reality. We believe that better understanding reality will enable us to choose the most appropriate objectives for our lives, and be able to pursue them in the most effective way. For instance, whether or not God exists is likely to have big implications for the purpose of our lives, and so knowing the truth about this is very useful. Equally, knowing the truth about when the number 11 bus arrives may be useful in ensuring we get to work on time.

We experience reality indirectly through the medium of our sense organs. For instance, we do not see the number 11 bus directly, but rather have the visual sense experience of it, which could be an hallucination if the visual faculty is not working properly. If we value truth in order to help us cope with reality, it is therefore because it enables us to accurately predict our sense experiences. Whether or not God exists is important because it has a great bearing on my sense experiences after I die e.g. how much heat I feel! If God does exist and there is life after death, then I want an accurate prediction of what it will be like and how I can act to ensure it is happy. Equally, accurately predicting the arrival of the number 11 bus allows me to act to ensure that I can get to work on time and avoid experiencing the wrath of my boss.

An operational definition of truth can therefore be the accurate prediction of sense experiences. This was first proposed by William James and is known as the pragmatist definition of truth: “The idea, for example, may be that a certain door opens into a room where a glass of beer may be bought. If opening the door leads to the actual sight and taste of the beer, the man calls the idea true.” (William James, The Meaning of Truth).


But what about reality itself?

Of course, a theory that is able to provide accurate predictions may nevertheless be wrong in its underlying account of reality. However, it is likely that experiences will eventually occur which go against its predictions and a more accurate account will take its place. This has been the case in science as technological improvements in how we observe reality such as microscopes and telescopes, have provided new sense experiences to be predicted. The hope is to gradually converge on a true account. But if at the end of the day this convergence never happens is it really so bad? If the theory’s predictions are always accurate then it has served its main purpose in successfully guiding our interactions with reality. In any case, we will never know that it is not the true account because we can never compare a statement with reality since we cannot access reality directly. So there is no point in worrying about it.

Although I just said that it isn't possible to access reality directly, mystics claim that we can. As you will see, the test for the truth that follows from our operational definition of truth, still enables the mystic to make their case and get a fair hearing. If their belief system beats others in a Belief System Debate and so is the most likely to be true, then we can change the definition of truth to a more theory-specific one.

To see how we can find truth, based on this definition, go to Truth - how can we find it?