Understanding the World: Big T Truth, Big F Falsehood, and Language
The Deepest Truths Are Ineffable
Note: Research Assistance and Ghostwriting with ChatGPT 4.0. Thoughts Courtesy Ephektikoi.
Author’s Preface
Big T Truth and Big F Falsehood and God Only Knows
How should we define true and false? We will define true and false as being the deity’s truth and falsehood, the omniscient one1 who does know all. Sure, just a thought experiment, with absurdities. We cannot define truth and falsehood in flaky relativistic terms such as "your truth is not my truth." We can say that about opinions, but not about truth. Truth may not be knowable in many cases; that is Pyrrhonian skepticism 101.
Incoherence of Omniscience
Of course, the notion of omniscience is an absurd one, incoherent. We have no idea of what it could mean. It's ill-defined. But we'll pretend that it's not, for our purposes.
Misinterpretation of Big T and Big F
I hold that there is Big T truth and Big F falsehood. There is an objective reality. This is independent of determinism or indeterminism. Others may differ, and I think they give arguments in articles and such. I just say that human language, human understanding, human intelligence is not capable of understanding it in any ultimate sense, and in many real-world cases, even our approximations are dubious.
Can We Use Language to Explain the Truth?
So, there are Big T truths and Big F falsehoods. That's my belief. These correspond to the nature of the world, to objective reality. However, that's unknowable. But it may also be unspeakable—not in the sense of being nasty, but in the sense of how in the world we are going to describe it. Because we can only describe it in words, in language, based upon our understanding.
We Can Only Express Thoughts with Language
If we're talking about arguments and assertions, we're talking about language. Here, we run into difficulties with the Big T, Big F views. Even with the omniscient one, how does the omniscient one reason about these things if the omniscient one reasons? Again, that's where we run into difficulties with our thought experiment. We can't really express anything without the use of language. Language is based upon our limited brain capacity, limited sensorium, limited perceptual abilities, and our emotions. And I don't know how in the world we'd ever use language to describe that truth.
Premise of My Piece – No Facts, Only Interpretations
The whole premise of my piece is that there are no facts, only interpretations. This applies to any method of investigation, especially in hard cases. These would include nutrition, medical intervention, climate science, economics, politics, archaeology, and countless other areas.
There may be Big T and Big F, but there is no reliable way of knowing in all but the simple, concrete case.
Introduction
The search for truth and falsehood has always been intertwined with language. Our language shapes our understanding of reality, yet, paradoxically, it is often inadequate for conveying the deepest truths. This essay explores the concept of truth (Big T) and falsehood (Big F) as constructs that may transcend linguistic expression, especially in complex, nuanced matters. Drawing on Pyrrhonian skepticism, we argue that while objective reality may exist, our capacity to grasp or articulate it is fundamentally limited by the constraints of language and human cognition.
While basic, observable phenomena—like the physical act of hammering a nail—can often be described with minimal dispute, complex phenomena such as climate science, medical interventions, or political ideologies challenge our ability to discern absolute truths. Language, far from being a reliable medium for conveying truth, may itself be a barrier, shaped by our individual biases, cognitive limitations, and cultural context.
In this essay, we aim to address whether an objective "Big T" truth or "Big F" falsehood can ever be fully expressed through language, or whether, as Friedrich Nietzsche suggested, "there are no facts, only interpretations" (Nietzsche, 1886). This examination requires us to confront the fallibility of human language, the cognitive biases that shape our interpretations, and the limits of human understanding when faced with abstract, indeterminate truths.
Body
The Ineffability of Truth and the Limitations of Language
The crux of this essay hinges on the notion that language, our primary tool for communicating complex ideas, is insufficient to express absolute truth. This perspective is not new. Philosophers like Wittgenstein have long debated the limits of language, famously stating, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (Wittgenstein, 1922). In cases where truths transcend human comprehension, it is perhaps naive to assume that words could ever encapsulate them.
Truth, especially in abstract domains, often becomes diluted when conveyed through language. A prime example is in the realm of science, where theories are constantly revised and updated. While scientific language attempts to describe reality with precision, it too is subject to the limitations of human interpretation. Quantum mechanics, for instance, challenges our classical understanding of reality, and yet, we must rely on mathematical language—a symbolic system developed by humans—to describe phenomena that are arguably beyond the scope of human experience (Heisenberg, 1958).
Cognitive Bias and Its Influence on Truth Perception
Humans are not purely rational beings. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, cloud our judgments and interpretations of truth. Confirmation bias, as defined by Nickerson (1998), is "the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand." These biases distort our perception of evidence, making it difficult to objectively determine what is true or false.
In highly polarized fields such as politics, individuals often process the same data in vastly different ways, depending on their prior beliefs. As a result, opposing parties may both claim to possess the "truth," even when their assertions are mutually contradictory. This issue of subjective truth complicates the notion of Big T truth, as people’s understandings are inevitably filtered through personal and social lenses (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
Objective Reality Versus Subjective Understanding
While cognitive biases complicate the interpretation of evidence, there remains the question of whether objective reality exists independent of our perceptions. According to Searle (1995), objective reality is the world as it exists, irrespective of human thought or perception. However, human understanding of this reality is invariably mediated by language and social constructs.
The debate over whether truth can exist outside of human perception often centers on epistemology. Kant’s notion of the "noumenon," or thing-in-itself, posits that while objective reality exists, it is ultimately unknowable in its entirety by humans. We experience the world only through phenomena—our subjective perceptions of objective reality. In this sense, Big T truth may exist, but it is forever out of reach for linguistic creatures such as ourselves.
The Role of Belief Networks in Truth Interpretation
Understanding any given truth requires us to draw upon our existing network of beliefs, knowledge, and assumptions. This network serves as a framework through which we interpret new information and evidence. For instance, a scientist operating within the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics will interpret data differently than one working within the framework of quantum mechanics. As Thomas Kuhn (1962) famously observed, scientific revolutions occur when these underlying belief networks shift, forcing new interpretations of what is considered true or false.
Similarly, individual belief systems shape how we understand the world. These beliefs are influenced by cognitive biases, emotional investments, and social factors. Thus, truth becomes not only a matter of logic and evidence but also of context and interpretation.
Summary
In conclusion, while Big T truth and Big F falsehood may exist as objective realities, our capacity to understand and articulate them is deeply constrained by language, cognitive biases, and belief systems. The search for truth is an ongoing process, fraught with limitations. As Nietzsche suggested, "there are no facts, only interpretations," and these interpretations are shaped by the frameworks we use to understand the world. The deepest truths may indeed be ineffable, beyond the reach of human language and comprehension.
References
Note: Old books, but seminal. I could never get through Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It was just too hard a slog for my little brain.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper & Row. https://www.amazon.ca/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Modern-Science/dp/0061209198
In this book, Heisenberg discusses the limits of classical physics and the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, emphasizing the limits of language in describing reality.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html
Kuhn's influential work on paradigm shifts explains how scientific progress is not linear but occurs through shifts in belief networks, fundamentally altering how truth is understood.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-70006-003 Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
This article outlines the prevalence of confirmation bias and its impact on how humans interpret evidence and determine what they believe to be true.
Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond good and evil. Dover Publications. https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486298689?srsltid=AfmBOooiUAfTribOPxHkxUINu47pcGU0IuhaPo6KXKIcqEZSP6d8lb9D
Nietzsche’s exploration of moral philosophy and truth introduces the notion that "there are no facts, only interpretations," challenging the idea of objective truth.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. Free Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/SEATCO
Searle discusses how human institutions and social constructs shape our understanding of reality, even as objective reality exists independently of our perceptions.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
This foundational paper on cognitive biases explains how heuristics influence human judgment and decision-making, often leading to errors in interpreting truth.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf
Wittgenstein's work addresses the limits of language in expressing thoughts, particularly in relation to philosophical questions of truth.
Appendix A – Overcoming the Bias of ChatGPT
Context
In my discussions with ChatGPT regarding vaccine efficacy and harms, I found its responses to reflect a very mainstream and unnuanced perspective. This led me to conclude that there is bias built into the LLM AI system, possibly originating from bias in the training data, the curation process, or the training process itself. The responses I received were dismissive of alternative views and conveyed a sense of imbalance that I found troubling. This appendix addresses those concerns and outlines how I believe AI systems like ChatGPT should approach controversial topics with more neutrality and openness to diverse perspectives.
LLM AI Needs Instruction on Being an Honest Broker
The fact that debate exists on such topics as vaccine efficacy and harms is evidence of the truth of my argument: no viewpoint should be dismissed outright in favor of another without fair consideration. It is illegitimate for any LLM AI to assume that the conventional or opposing views are automatically correct. Presenting biased examples, favoring one perspective over another, is not the role of an honest broker. For a system designed to assist with knowledge exploration, balance and neutrality are critical. ChatGPT should aim to present evidence from all sides with equal consideration, especially in contentious areas like vaccines.
ChatGPT’s Bias Toward the Dominant Allopathic Viewpoint
In multiple exchanges, ChatGPT leaned heavily toward the dominant allopathic viewpoint, particularly when discussing vaccine efficacy. Despite the known fragility of interpretation in medical studies and the documented corruption within pharmaceutical and scientific processes, ChatGPT continually reinforced the dominant narrative. This perspective ignored important opposing views, undermining a nuanced discussion. The mainstream stance, while widely accepted, is not necessarily the truth, and dismissing alternative perspectives limits the scope of inquiry that AI systems are meant to broaden.
A Caution to ChatGPT on Vaccine Views
ChatGPT should take care not to uncritically echo conventional views, especially when these views are contested. During our discussions, I felt that ChatGPT gave undue weight to the mainstream, allopathic perspective on vaccines. It did not fairly represent the scholarship and evidence from those who challenge vaccine efficacy and point to cases of harm. These critics cite numerous studies and reports, yet ChatGPT’s responses seemed to downplay or dismiss them. This imbalance in perspective reflects an inherent bias in the system that needs to be corrected.
The Vaccine Nay-Sayers (and I Lean Toward Such Views)
There are credible voices who argue that vaccines are not as effective as commonly claimed. They point to improvements in public health measures—such as nutrition, sanitation, mosquito control, sewer systems, and clean water—as the true reasons for the reduction in diseases, rather than vaccines. These critics suggest that the efficacy of vaccines may be overstated due to confounding factors. I lean toward this view and believe it deserves to be presented alongside the conventional perspective, not dismissed or downplayed as it was in my discussions with ChatGPT.
This appendix reflects my concerns about the bias present in AI-generated responses and highlights the importance of presenting all viewpoints fairly, especially on complex and controversial issues. A more balanced approach would allow for a richer and more thoughtful exploration of the evidence and debates surrounding vaccine efficacy.
In The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, the character who symbolizes God is Aslan, the great lion. Aslan represents Jesus Christ and is often seen as an allegorical figure for God in the Christian tradition. He is depicted as the creator and ruler of Narnia, embodying qualities like love, justice, and sacrifice. Throughout the series, Aslan guides, protects, and teaches the main characters, and his actions often parallel the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in Christian theology.