Truth Ways of Knowing the

¶ … Truth Ways of Knowing the Truth Human knowledge can at times seem a very fickle thing. This is not necessarily because empirical and objective truth does not exist (though this has long been a highly debated and important contention in philosophical queries, and remains so today), but rather because it can be difficult for individuals to distinguish between what they truly know to be true -- what appears to have an empirical and therefore objective basis, that is -- and what they believe to be true.

The ways of knowing identified in the general theories of knowledge -- sense perception, reasoning, emotion, and language/symbol -- all have a different relationship with the knowledge of real and objective truth vs. simple belief. Sense Perception Perhaps the clearest and most solid relationship between an ay of knowing and empirical truth is delivered through the senses. It is through our perception, after all, that we are able to measure things, and it is the ability to duplicate measurements that equates to objectivity.

Subjective terms like "big" and "small," for instance, mean little in the way of real truth; a person who has only ever encountered Chihuahuas might consider a terrier a big dog, while someone who grew up with huskies would call the same breed small, but the ability to actually measure the dog's height and weight provides an objective classification (or classifications) for the dog's size.

These measurements require our perceptions -- sight and touch, at the very least -- and in this way it can be seen that perceptions lead to empirical truth. This is, in actuality, the definition of empirical truth. Perception cannot be trusted completely, however. Not only do different individuals appear to have different levels of acuity with different perceptions, meaning that the "truths" perceived through the sense would have subtle differences without objective standards of measure, but our perceptions are also filtered through our minds.

People hearing voices or seeing hallucinations are extreme examples of this fact; the differences found in eyewitness accounts of certain events is a more basic illustration of the way that perceived "truths" can differ. So although sense perceptions are one of the most instrumental ways in which an objective concept of a truth or truths can be formed, these perceptions must be properly related to outside measures and other interrelationships. Reasoning Reasoning, or rationality has consistently been considered another primary source of discovering objective truth.

The debate between perception and rationality is, in fact, one of the oldest questions in philosophy. Renee Descartes famously said, "I think therefore I am" (actually, Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum," but the translation is close).

This is the ultimate argue for rationality as a means of perceiving objective truth; the perceived world might be perceived differently by other people, and the entire thing could in fact be an illusion working on the minds of every individual, but that which can be logically deduced -- such as one's own existence by the fact that one is thinking -- is a way of knowing that cannot be tampered with through such illusory forces.

Rationality and logic, that is, are not subject to the human fallibilities of perception and differences in the senses. This does not mean, however, that reasoning is a perfect way for finding the truth; there are definite limitations to the knowledge that can be achieved through reasoning, and other more insidious problems. An error in logic, for example, would lead an individual to a false belief in truth, and not to real objective truth.

These errors are easy to make, both due to complicated systems of cause and effect in logical progressions and due to human prejudices in thought that individuals often resist overcoming. Religion is a perfect example of this; many people of different religions claim to "know" that their faith is the correct one, but obviously not everyone could be correct in this "knowledge." In order for reason to lead to truth, then, it -- like perception -- must be objective and untainted by personal proclivities.

Emotion Emotional knowledge is a tricky way of knowing when objective truth is the object being sought. It is emotional conviction, after all, that convinces people that their religious beliefs are a form of knowledge rather than a matter of faith. At the same time, emotional truth can be one of the only ways to form an accurate opinion of many human phenomena. Attempting to determine the best course of action in a tense political situation, for example, depends upon emotional knowledge and conclusions.

Human activities do not take place in an objective world, and though empirical and objective truth can be achieved through the perceptions of the senses and through reasoning, these will not apply to human situations without emotional tempering. Without a complete awareness and understanding of the emotional issues at work in a given scenario, other knowledge is virtually useless. That being said, emotion is the way of knowing that requires perhaps the most careful attention when what is being sought is true knowledge rather than simply a belief in truth.

The emotionality of religious convictions and "knowledge" has already been detailed above, but there are many other ways that emotions can lead to belief rather than truth. This is the point behind the design of many scientific experiments, especially double-blind trials. In these scenarios, information regarding experimental subjects is hidden from researchers in order to keep their emotional desires from influencing the experiment's results.

It is not that the scientists would necessarily alter their findings based on their expected or desired outcomes, but emotions can alter exception and reasoning if not checked. Language/Symbols The final way of knowing, language and symbols, can also be highly insidious when it comes to discovering real truth.

The system of language and symbols that an individual learns in large part dictates the way they perceive and interact with the world, and can just as easily lead to misapprehensions and mistruths as it can to the transmission of truth. Still, language is an invaluable way of attaining knowledge and truth. It is, in fact, necessary for the formation of ideas -- imagine trying to formulate a though without any sort of language or symbolic imagery.

The remaining "knowledge" would be purely instinctual: a plant might be recognized as poisonous and so be avoided, but there would not be any conscious connection of the dots. There would simply be a biological "don't eat" imperative associated with the planet. Language.