FREE ESSAY ON THREE TESTS OF TRUTH

THREE TESTS OF TRUTH

Three Tests of Truth Philosophy Essay -word count: 1,528
In a court of law expert witnesses are required to demonstrate the truth beyond
reasonable doubt. This is difficult for a 'knower', such as a historian, to be able to
assert this at the witness stand. 
Let's say that a young couple has just been married. The young couple stays together for
a couple of months before they break up. When the two individually write reports on why
the divorce is necessary, the judge is confused about the disparity between them. Thus,
he calls upon a historian who specializes in the history of certain marriages and
divorces to act as an expert witness for this court case. The historian is given
information on the case both first-hand by the husband and the wife as well as from some
secondary sources. This historian's job is to use his expertise to determine the truth of
what really happened that caused the divorce of the couple.
First and foremost, the historian knows that he must try to get as close to the objective
truth as possible; he has to select a single set of data from groups of different
information to construct a single truth, or 'what really happened'. Since he is dealing
with a modern case, as opposed to his usual account of a past divorce case, the historian
is tempted to list all the data from the primary sources. Fortunately, he remembers that
listing all the different points of view is not more objective, simply because they may
contradict. Regardless of the varying points of view, the past event only could have
occurred in one way-that is the truth. Therefore, to say that the event transpired in
many different ways that are all equally valid is no longer a search for single truth. As
von Ranke said, the historian's task is to find out how it really was. 
Consequently, the historian tries to 'lift' himself from the data. He also must remove
his biases from the sources of the information. For instance, he cannot be biased against
the husband's brother who backed into his brand-new convertible just a week ago. He must
give the brother's information the same treatment because it may be valuable. After
achieving this, the historian can move on to the actual selection of the data.
The historian's next step is to use the correspondence test of truth by trying to find
the certain data that is pretty well constant amongst all the information. This
correspondence theory is the same one that is used in science, where scientists do
different experiments; if their data is constant, then a scientific theory can be made
about the data. For example, when scientists did experiments on the reaction between iron
and oxygen, they kept on producing the same rusty coloured substance: iron oxide. Thus,
they are able to conclude that 
iron + oxygen = iron oxide
is a truth. Like chemistry, history uses correspondence between data. Presuppose that all
reports of the separated couple indicate that the husband did not remember his wife's
birthday and that she did not want children. What gives this data extra durability is
that it was found in both the husband's and the wife's account, as well as in the
secondary sources' information. Moreover, it makes indicative statements about why the
divorce could have occurred. Therefore, it is possible to conclude with a measure of
confidence that the statements are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the historian questions his judgement and begins to think, 'Does
correspondence necessarily mean that the data is true?' He immediately remembers his high
school history class where he studied documents about the American Revolution written by
people from the American and British sides. Although the data differed in many ways,
there was a lot of consistency between the two sides. When considering the battle at
Lexington Green, both sides contained consistent information: that there was a first
shot, that the British shot at the Americans, and that the British killed a number of
people. However, in historical information from different sources, some data may be
contradictory. In this case, there may have been a multitude of American sources which
said that the first shot was British while there may have been only a few British sources
available, all of which stated the opposite. One could say that because there is a larger
degree of correspondence that the British shot first, that is must be true. But, that may
not be correct in all instances. Hence, there must be other methods of deciding what is
the truth in addition to correspondence.
In the case of contradiction, the selection of data is much harder; the historian must
extend his investigation. Suppose there is conflicting data between the two sides
regarding the issue of who's turn it was to take out the garbage on the first Sunday of
the first week of their marriage. Assume that the husband's side claims that the garbage
was the wife's responsibility while the wife's side claims that it was the husband's
responsibility. How does the historian choose who is being truthful if they are such
direct contradictions?
Here, the selection is much more personal. This process is parallel to the search for
religious truth. The person himself has to get contradictory information from different
sources and somehow select which data, or in some cases, which religion, is true. One way
that the historian can decide is by using his intuition; he might have a 'feeling' that
one side is correct. Unfortunately, especially for this particular case, the historian
cannot solely rely on his intuition. However, it can be used in co-operation with other
sources of knowledge.
The historian can also use reason. Perhaps it was absolutely preposterous that the wife
be responsible for garbage duty because in the husband's report, he had indicated that he
was responsible for all of the physical work around the household. Thus, the historian
could safely assume that the wife could not have been responsible and that the man was
lying when questioned about the garbage problem. This procedure involves a coherent test
of truth. That is, a test of whether the husband's report was coherent in itself. If it
was not, then its details would be discredited as a reliable source of historical
information. Again, although the historian cannot make an absolute judgement-there is
always some level of doubt-reason is one of the more reliable ways of discovering truth
in this particular case.
Another way that he could select data is by using testimony. He could find her family
doctor and ask whether the woman had been injured during the marriage in any way. This
would indicate that the husband may have been physically abusive toward his wife. This is
also reliable, although can be a problem if there is doubt in the authoritative source.
The last possible source of knowledge is empiricism. If the historian saw the wife's leg
in a cast, he could probably make a judgement as to how and when it happened. Although
this way is very reliable for this specific case, it is not often possible in historical
situations to actually observe the subjects concerned.
In any case, these four sources of knowledge should be used in 'ensemble'. It is
essential that the historian uses all of the possible strategies. When regarding a system
of knowledge such as history where judgements must be made, there is a great importance
in investigating all the possible techniques so that as much of the truth as possible can
be recovered.
Judging from this extensive process of finding the truth of what actually happened to
this couple's marriage, one can see why it may be difficult for this historian to be able
to demonstrate the truth 'beyond reasonable doubt' at the witness stand.
Historical truth in the essence of the concept, as also demonstrated by the historian's
process, is hard to find and is very difficult to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This
is because historical truth requires the courage and self-confidence to make choices and,
above all, to leave things out in selection. This formula is very human and therefore,
has many implications. Human interpretation is pervasive in the search for truth, such
that truth becomes part of the historian and part of human nature which contains
intelligence, emotion, and beliefs in a single mind. Thus, we must have an enormous
amount of faith in ourselves: in our ability to search and recognize the truth in things.
Historical truth and knowledge, then, becomes tainted by its selective nature. One could
say that history is defined by natural selection: history is determined by the past
data's ability to be selected, based on its capability to survive as truth in the human
environment.
All in all, historical truth is subject to a commensalism between past data and the
contemporary historian; because of this, the discovery and expression of ultimate,
untainted truth is impossible. Like the one involved in the divorce case, then, the
historian must rely on his ability to select facts and on the four ways of knowing in
order to demonstrate the truth 'beyond reasonable doubt' as best he can, in all its
difficulty. 
Bibliography
Bibliography:
Carr, E.H. What is History?. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1984.
Tuchman, Barbara. In Search of History article: excerpt from Practicing History. 
Random Thoughts about History article: collection of quotations