I WANT TO KNOW TRUTH. EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW TRUTH. BUT WHAT IS TRUTH? PEOPLE ARGUE ABOUT TRUTH. ARGUE OPINION TRUTHS:
WHICH FOOTBALL TEAM IS BEST? ARGUE VALUE TRUTHS:
JUSTICE OR MERCY? ARGUE ULTIMATE TRUTHS:
DOES GOD EXIST? BUT PEOPLE ALSO FIGHT
ABOUT TRUTH. WHAT'S THE BEST
POLITICAL SYSTEM? WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION? OVER THESE TRUTHS, TRAGICALLY,
MUCH BLOOD HAS BEEN SHED. TRUTH IS SERIOUS STUFF. I WANT TO KNOW TRUTH,
ESPECIALLY ULTIMATE TRUTH. BUT FIRST, WHAT IS TRUTH? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH
IS MY STRUGGLE TO FIND OUT. IF I WANT TO KNOW
ULTIMATE TRUTH-- CAPITAL "T" TRUTH-- THEN I SHOULD START
WITH THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH-- SMALL "T" TRUTH. TRUTH MAY SEEM OBVIOUS
AS A GENERAL CONCEPT, EVEN WHILE ANY PARTICULAR TRUTH
MAY BE NOT SO OBVIOUS. I'D LIKE A SIMPLE, BASIC
DEFINITION OF TRUTH. BUT IS THERE A SIMPLE,
BASIC DEFINITION OF TRUTH? I GO TO CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, TO ASK A DISTINGUISHED
PHILOSOPHER OF MIND AND LANGUAGE, A FORMER EDITOR
OF THE JOURNAL "MIND", SIMON BLACKBURN. SIMON, PHILOSOPHERS TELL ME
THAT THIS CONCEPT OF TRUTH IS REALLY NOT SO SIMPLE. WHY? SIMON BLACKBURN:
WELL, THE STANDARD THING THAT EVERYBODY STARTS
BY SAYING ABOUT TRUTH IS THAT TRUTH IS CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE FACTS. AND THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S A GOOD THING TO SAY. THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT QUITE
AS ILLUMINATING AS ONE MIGHT HOPE. AND PART OF THE TROUBLE
IS WITH THE NOTION OF A FACT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
TO MAKE THAT PROBLEMATIC, YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF WHETHER,
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE ANY NEGATIVE FACTS. TAKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S
NO RHINOCEROS IN THIS ROOM. WHAT MAKES THAT TRUE? THE ABSENCE OF A RHINOCEROS? WHAT'S AN ABSENCE? IT'S NOT A THING THAT YOU CAN
TOUCH OR WEIGH OR WHATEVER. AND THERE ARE MORE,
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS, TOO. THERE ARE HYPOTHETICAL FACTS. CONDITIONALS ARE TRUE, WE SAY. BUT IS THERE A TRUTH OF THE FORM
THAT IF ONE THING, THEN ANOTHER. THERE ARE GENERAL PROPOSITIONS
WHICH, WHOSE TRUTH IS MYSTERIOUS. AND THEN OF COURSE THERE ARE
PARTICULAR MYSTERIES LIKE THE MYSTERY
OF MATHEMATICAL TRUTH OR THE MYSTERY OF MORAL TRUTH. THE MAJORITY OF PHILOSOPHERS
THESE DAYS PROBABLY SUBSCRIBE TO A THING
CALLED DEFLATIONISM, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NOTHING ABSTRACT
TO SAY ABOUT TRUTH. PONTIUS PILATE ASKED
THE FAMOUS ABSTRACT QUESTION, AND THE DEFLATIONIST SAYS THE RIGHT ANSWER
TO PONTIUS PILATE WASN'T TO START
ON A PHILOSOPHICAL TREATISE ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRUTH BUT WAS TO SAY
WHAT ARE YOU INTERESTED IN, AND IF PILATE THEN GIVES YOU
THE ANSWER, I'M INTERESTED IN WHETHER
THIS CHAP'S GUILTY, LET'S SAY, WELL, HE'S GOT
AN INQUIRY TO CONDUCT. WE KNOW HOW TO CONDUCT INQUIRIES
INTO WHETHER SOMEBODY IS GUILTY. IT'S AN EMPIRICAL INQUIRY. YOU COULD USE THE POLICE,
WHATEVER ELSE YOU'VE GOT. SO FOR THE...
WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS, AS IT WERE, COME DOWN
FROM THE ABSTRACTION TO ANY PARTICULAR THING
YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, AND THEN ASKING
WHETHER THAT'S TRUE IS ACTUALLY ASKING A QUESTION
THAT CAN BE FRAMED WITHOUT THE NOTION OF TRUTH, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE
THAT THIS MAN'S GUILTY JUST MEANS THIS MAN IS GUILTY. SO PILATE'S QUESTION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN IS THIS MAN GUILTY, AND THAT'S A QUESTION
WHICH YOU CAN ASK WITHOUT INVOLVING
ANY NOTION OF TRUTH. SO DEFLATIONISM IS THE,
AS IT WERE, THE FLAVOR OF THE MONTH
IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUTH. ROBERT:
SO ARE YOU A DEFLATIONIST WHEN IT COMES TO TRUTH? SIMON: I AM A DEFLATIONIST
ABOUT TRUTH, YES. I THINK IT'S,
I THINK IT'S RIGHT. IT LEFT A RESIDUAL PROBLEM, WHICH I THINK IS CAPABLE
OF A NICE SOLUTION, WHICH IS, FIRST OF ALL,
YOU KNOW, WHY DO WE THINK TRUTH
IS SO IMPORTANT? WHY DO WE THINK IT'S GOT
WHAT PHILOSOPHERS CALL A NORMATIVE FORCE, THAT IS THERE'S OUGHTS
IN THE OFFING? YOU KNOW, BELIEFS
OUGHT TO BE TRUE. STATEMENTS OUGHT TO BE TRUE. WHY SO, IF TRUTH
IS DEFLATIONARY? AND ANOTHER RESIDUAL TOPIC
IS WHY IS TRUTH SO IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLANATION. YOU KNOW, WE THINK
THAT OUR SCIENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, OFFERS A GOOD EXPLANATION
OF THINGS BECAUSE OUR SCIENCE IS TRUE. IT'S GOT THE WORLD RIGHT. AND CAN WE SAY THAT
IS DEFLATIONIST? WELL, THE RECIPE IS THE SAME. YOU GET, YOU GET DOWN
FROM THE ABSTRACT HEIGHTS. AS FAR AS EXPLANATION GOES,
SURE. YOU KNOW, YOUR GPS WORKS BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS
THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS XYZ, AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS XYZ,
THAT'S ALL. AND SO FOR ANY
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, OF A NORM OR OF AN EXPLANATION, THE DEFLATIONISTS
ARE VERY HAPPY WITH IT. AND THEN WHAT HE SAYS IS THAT TRUTH IS JUST A DEVICE
OF GENERALIZATION. IT JUST PULLS TOGETHER
ALL THE THINGS LIKE YOU OUGHT TO SAY
THAT SOMEBODY IS GUILTY ONLY IF HE IS GUILTY OR OUGHT TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY
IS SITTING DOWN ONLY IF THEY ARE SITTING DOWN. ROBERT: BUT THE GENERALIZATION
HAS MINIMAL VALUE. BLACKBURN: YEAH,
THE GENERALIZATION ITSELF HAS MINIMAL VALUE. ROBERT: SIMON IS A DEFLATIONIST
ABOUT TRUTH. TRUTH ONLY MAKES SENSE
IN PARTICULAR CASES, HE SAYS. SPECIFIC STATEMENTS
ARE TRUE OR NOT TRUE, BUT THERE IS LITTLE VALUE, OR
EVEN SENSE, TO TRUTH IN GENERAL. IT'D BE A LETDOWN. I'D FEEL DEFLATED! I'D RATHER HAVE TRUTH WRIT LARGE AS REALITY'S HIDDEN TREASURE
OF GREAT WORTH. YET MIRAGES, HOWEVER STUNNING,
VANISH. I'D WANT NONE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH
IF IT WERE NOT REAL. SO CAN TRUTH BE RE-INFLATED? I SEEK A TRUTH
ANTI-DEFLATIONIST. I HEAD TO LONDON TO VISIT
RAYMOND TALLIS, A PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL PURSUING
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF BIG TRUTHS. ROBERT: RAY, I'M ONLY GOING
TO ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE MY GOOD FRIEND. WHAT IS TRUTH? RAYMOND TALLIS:
NO GOOD FRIEND WOULD ASK SUCH A DIFFICULT QUESTION
AS THAT. I'M JUST ABOUT TO WASH MY HANDS. BUT ANYWAY, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE WHOLE NOTION OF TRUTH HAS GONE THROUGH
A VERY ROUGH PERIOD. RAMSEY, THE GREAT CAMBRIDGE
PHILOSOPHER WHO DIED YOUNG, FAMOUSLY SAID, TO ASSERT THAT P,
AND TO ASSERT THAT P IS TRUE, IS TO ASSERT THE SAME THING. SO THE LITTLE PREDICATE
"IS TRUE" IS ENTIRELY REDUNDANT. SO HE WAS THE FATHER OF THE
MINIMALIST APPROACH TO TRUTH, THAT THERE'S NOTHING
IN TRUTH AT ALL. OF COURSE, THERE ARE MUCH OLDER
CONCEPTIONS OF TRUTH-- CORRESPONDENCE THEORY. THE MOST EASY WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT TRUTH IS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN ASSERTIONS AND STATES OF AFFAIRS OUT THERE. THAT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE ASSERTIONS
AND THE STATES OF AFFAIRS ARE NOT CLEARLY SEPARATE-- THOSE STATES OF AFFAIRS ARE
PICKED OUT BY THE ASSERTIONS. THAT'S WHAT MADE PEOPLE
PRETTY ANXIOUS ABOUT THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY
OF TRUTH. THE OTHER THEORY IS
THE COHERENCE THEORY, THE IDEA THAT A PARTICULAR
PROPOSITION IS TRUE IF IT COHERES
WITH OTHER PROPOSITIONS, AND THAT SCIENTIFIC TRUTH,
FOR EXAMPLE, IS A GREAT MOUNTAIN
OF COHERENT PROPOSITIONS OF LARGER AND LARGER GENERALITY. AND THE THIRD NOTION, OF COURSE, MOST FAMOUSLY FROM
YOUR OWN COUNTRY, IS PRAGMATISM, THE NOTION THAT TRUTH IS THAT
WHICH ESSENTIALLY WORKS. AND THAT'S BEEN PICKED UP BY
EVOLUTIONARY THEORISTS AS WELL, THAT BASICALLY
OUR CONCEPTIONS OF TRUTH ARE SIMPLY THINGS
THAT HELP US TO SURVIVE, HELP US TO PLUG MORE COMFILY
INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT. ROBERT: ALL OF THESE SEEM TRUE
IN THEIR OWN WAY. RAYMOND: I THINK THEY ARE, AND I THINK THE TRUTH
ABOUT TRUTH IS VERY COMPLEX, AND NAMELY THAT CORRESPONDENCE
PROBABLY IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUTH. BUT CLEARLY, COHERENCE
IS ANOTHER PART. CORRESPONDENT TRUTHS
HAVE TO COHERE, AND THAT, CLEARLY,
WHAT TRUTHS WE PICK OUT DEPENDS ON WHAT
WE'RE INTERESTED IN. SO, TO SOME EXTENT, PRAGMATISM
IS ALSO, HAS A PART TO PLAY. BUT OF COURSE, THE MINIMALISTS
ARE RIGHT AS WELL, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK OF TRUTH
AS A STUFF, OR THERE BEING A SINGLE TRUTH TO
WHICH ALL PROPOSITIONS CONVERGE, OR IF YOU THINK OF TRUTH
AS A PREDICATE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE
VERY DISAPPOINTED. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOT IT
COMPLETELY WRONG ARE THE RELATIVISTS, THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS
NO SUCH THING AS TRUTH, BECAUSE, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT
ENDLESSLY-- ALTHOUGH THEY'VE NEVER NOTICED-- THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE
UNDERMINING THEIR OWN POSITION. THE ASSERTION
THAT THERE IS NO TRUTH IS OBVIOUSLY A GENERAL TRUTH
OR A CLAIM TO A GENERAL TRUTH, WHICH IS GREATER
THAN MOST OF THE TRUTHS MOST OF US CAN ACTUALLY
SUBSCRIBE TO. ROBERT: THOSE ATTACKS
ON RELATIVISM BY IT BEING INTERNALLY
INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY I THINK IS A CHEAP SHOT, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN
SAY ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE RELATIVIST IS THAT BECAUSE WE
CAN ONLY KNOW THINGS THROUGH OUR SENSES
AND OUR BRAINS AND OUR SELVES, THAT WE ARE ARROGANT TO ASSUME THAT WHAT WE ARE SENSING
ABOUT THE WORLD IS THE WORLD IN REALITY. RAYMOND: LET ME PICK UP
ONE OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS, "WE CAN ONLY KNOW THINGS
THROUGH OUR BRAINS." WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT TRUTH? ROBERT: GENERALLY
A MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW, THAT UNLESS YOU'RE GETTING
SOMETHING LOGICALLY OR THROUGH YOUR SENSES, WE REALLY CAN'T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. RAYMOND:
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT, THAT WE KNOW THINGS ONLY THROUGH
OUR BRAINS, SENSES? WHERE DO WE GET THIS SENSE
OF "ONLY" FROM? ROBERT: THE BURDEN OF PROOF
IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, BECAUSE THE BRAIN AND OUR SENSES
ARE ALL THAT WE SEE THROUGH. I MEAN, IT'S SELF-EVIDENT. AND IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN IT'S UP TO YOU
TO SHOW ME WHY. RAYMOND: BUT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TOOK AWAY MY BODY, I WOULDN'T BE IN RECEIPT
OF MUCH INFORMATION. ALL OF THAT I'M PERFECTLY
HAPPY ABOUT. BUT I'M NOT TOO SURE IN HOW
YOU CAN CONCLUDE FROM THAT THAT WE CANNOT ARRIVE
AT OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. ROBERT: BECAUSE
WHAT THE RELATIVIST SAYS IS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE USING
OUR MENTAL CAPACITY TO DISCERN THE WORLD, WE ARE BRINGING TO THAT WORLD
OUR OWN BIASES AND PREJUDICES, AND THE SIMPLE DEMONSTRATION
OF THAT IS LOOK AT VISUAL ILLUSIONS
THAT YOU SEE ON PAPER, WHERE YOU SEE IT
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS, AND IT FLIPS AROUND. AND IT--
THE PAPER'S NOT CHANGING. RAYMOND: THERE YOU GO, YOU SEE-- ROBERT: OUR BRAINS
ARE INTERPRETING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. SO, IF THE OUTSIDE WORLD
IS NOT CHANGING, BUT WE SEE IT, IS THAT NOT-- MAKE US BE
A LITTLE BIT HUMBLE, IN TERMS OF OUR SEEING ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE TRUTH
ON THE WORLD? RAYMOND: WELL, THE FACT
THAT WE CAN SEE THAT AN ILLUSION IS AN ILLUSION, AND THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T
THINK YOU SITTING IN FRONT OF ME IS AN ILLUSION, WHEREAS IF I SAW TWO OF YOU,
BECAUSE I HAD TAKEN SOME TABLET, THEN CLEARLY I WOULD THINK
IT WAS AN ILLUSION. SO IN OTHER WORDS, MOST OF OUR
EXPERIENCES ARE NOT ILLUSORY IN THAT SENSE. THE ARGUMENT FROM ILLUSION, THAT BECOME SOME EXPERIENCES
ARE ILLUSORY MEANS THAT ALL EXPERIENCES
ARE ILLUSORY I THINK CAN BE EASILY REFUTED,
AS GILBERT RYLE SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT HAVE COUNTERFEIT,
COUNTERFEIT COINS IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COINAGE THAT'S PRODUCED
IN THE PROPER WAY. YOU ALSO USED THE WORD "BIAS." THE VERY CONCEPT OF A BIAS SHOWS THAT WE'RE ABLE,
AS IT WERE, TO RECOVER FROM OUR
NARROW PERSPECTIVE, TO THE POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A SCIENCE THAT'S BUILT UP A SET
OF STATEMENTS THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS
QUITE DIFFERENT, SEES THE WORLD QUITE DIFFERENTLY FROM THE DATA WE GET
FROM OUR SENSE PERCEPTION. ROBERT: RAY INTRODUCES
FOUR THEORIES OF TRUTH: CORRESPONDENCE THEORY,
COHERENCE THEORY, PRAGMATISM, EVOLUTION; IN ADDITION TO MINIMALIST
OR DEFLATIONARY TRUTH. I LIKE THE VARIETY. TRUTH SHOULD BE VIEWED
FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES. HOW ELSE TO PUSH
AND PROBE TRUTH? CAN THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH
BE DISCERNED BY DISTINGUISHING ALLIED IDEAS, SUCH AS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF? I GO TO OXFORD TO MEET A PHILOSOPHER WHO
TEASES APART SUBTLE CONCEPTS-- THE WAYNFLETE PROFESSOR
OF METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY, JOHN HAWTHORNE. JOHN, I WANT TO KNOW
WHAT'S TRUE. I LIKE TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE. MOST PEOPLE DO. THESE TERMS CAN GET
VERY FUZZY, THOUGH. IF I TELL YOU IT'S GOING
TO RAIN TOMORROW, AND IT'S A TOTAL GUESS
ON MY PART, AND IF IT RAINS, I WAS RIGHT,
AND IF IT DOESN'T, I WAS WRONG. BUT DOES THAT MEAN MY KNOWLEDGE
NOW IS THE SAME? JOHN HAWTHORNE:
IF YOU'RE GUESSING
WHETHER IT'S GOING TO RAIN IN THE INTUITIVE SENSE,
THEN EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU DIDN'T KNOW
THAT IT WAS GOING TO RAIN. ROBERT: RIGHT. JOHN: SO, THAT'S A PARADIGM CASE
OF TRUE BELIEF THAT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE. SO AT LEAST ONE THING'S CLEAR,
IT SEEMS, THAT THERE'S MORE
TO KNOWING SOMETHING THAN TRULY BELIEVING IT. ROBERT: AND TO BE TRUE. JOHN: IT NEEDS TO BE TRUE, BUT
IT'S NOT ENOUGH THAT IT'S TRUE. I THINK ONE PLACE TO GO
IS TO SORT OF GET A FEEL OF WHAT SORT OF SITUATIONS YOU
THINK DO COUNT AS KNOWLEDGE. I MEAN, A SITUATION
WHICH SOMEONE GUESSES, JUST GUESSES AND GETS LUCKY... ROBERT: YEAH. JOHN: ...THEY DEFINITELY
DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? BUT IT GETS MORE TRICKY
FIGURING OUT IN OTHER CASES. IF YOU'VE GOT A LOTTERY TICKET, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER
IT'S GOING TO WIN OR LOSE. THAT SEEMS RIGHT. ROBERT: RIGHT. JOHN: EVEN THOUGH
IT'S VERY PROBABLE THAT IT'S GOING TO LOSE, YOU DON'T KNOW
THAT IT'S GOING TO LOSE. BUT ONCE WE START ON THAT TRACK, THAT'S, THERE SEEM TO BE
WAYS TO GENERALIZE THAT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE DON'T
KNOW VERY MUCH AT ALL. AND SIMILARLY FOR THE GREAT
HEART ATTACK LOTTERY. I MEAN, A FEW UNFORTUNATES
ARE GOING TO DIE IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS WITHOUT ANY REAL WARNING
OF ILL HEALTH, OF A SUDDEN, UNEXPECTED
HEART ATTACK, AND IF YOU BUY
THE LOTTERY THOUGHT, A NATURAL WAY TO GENERALIZE IT
IS TO THE CONCLUSION, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO LIVE OR DIE
IN THE NEXT HOUR. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO LIVE
OR DIE IN THE NEXT HOUR, DOESN'T THAT MEAN THAT YOU DON'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR FUTURE? BECAUSE IT'S WEIRD TO THINK
THAT YOU COULD KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO THE PUB TONIGHT IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER
OR NOT YOU WERE GOING TO DIE IN THE NEXT 10 MINUTES. SO, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE
IN A COHERENT, IN A SORT OF, GIVE A COGENT REASON FOR SAYING WHY YOU KNOW
IN THE ONE CASE BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IN THE OTHER. I FIND THAT
VERY PUZZLING MYSELF. ROBERT: IS THIS A DESCENT
INTO WHAT'S CALLED SKEPTICISM, WHERE YOU CAN'T SAY
YOU KNOW ANYTHING? JOHN: WELL, IT'S HEADING
THAT WAY, ISN'T IT? ROBERT: YEAH, BUT I MEAN,
JUST ON COMMON SENSE, EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE
IS A MATTER OF PROBABILISTICS. JOHN: YES. BUT... ROBERT: SO WHERE DO YOU FALL? JOHN: ...APPEALS TO COMMON SENSE
CUT IN TWO DIRECTIONS. I MEAN, ALSO IT'S COMMON SENSE
THAT WE KNOW ALL SORTS OF STUFF, WHY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT HANDS,
WE'RE TALKING TO EACH OTHER, I MEAN, THAT'S
COMMON SENSE, TOO, BUT THE TROUBLE IS THE VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF COMMON SENSE WHEN YOU THINK THEM THROUGH START TO COLLIDE
WITH EACH OTHER, AND THEN COMMON SENSE CAN'T
JUST REST CONTENT WITH ITSELF, AS IT WERE. ROBERT: HOW DO YOU DEAL
WITH RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OR CLAIMS FOR,
EVEN MORE GENERAL THAN THAT, CLAIMS FOR KNOWLEDGE
BEYOND THE NORMAL OR BEYOND THE REAL WORLD. JOHN: I THINK YOU CAN
BREAK IT DOWN A FEW WAYS. I MEAN, EVEN IF THERE IS A GOD-- TAKE THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO
FOR THE THEIST, AS IT WERE. THERE IS A GOD,
GOD MADE THE WORLD, GOD APPEARED TO MOSES,
MOSES WROTE SOME STUFF DOWN. SUPPOSING THAT'S ALL RIGHT,
ALL TRUE, SHOULD WE CONCLUDE PEOPLE
IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO KNOW THAT THERE'S A GOD BY, SAY, READING
THE BITS OF SCRIPTURE. EVEN ASSUMING ALL THAT,
IT'S QUITE A DELICATE QUESTION. I MEAN, IF WE GO
TO A MORE MUNDANE SETTING, I MEAN, SUPPOSE
A SPORTS REPORTER WATCHES A GAME AND, THEN, YOU KNOW, FILTERS
THROUGH THE NEWSPAPERS. AN INTERESTING THING
TO ASK YOURSELF IS, WELL, DO YOU KNOW
THERE'S NOT A MISPRINT THERE? I MEAN, SUPPOSING IN FACT
THERE ISN'T IS THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO. IT'S STILL NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DOES THE RECIPIENT
OF THE NEWSPAPER KNOW THAT THERE ISN'T A MISPRINT? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IF
THEY CAN KNOW THE SPORTS SCORE, THAT THEY CAN KNOW
THERE ISN'T A MISPRINT, BUT IT'S REALLY WACKY TO THINK THEY CAN KNOW
THERE'S NOT A MISPRINT. SO, I MEAN, I THINK
THAT'S THE SORT OF END OF THINGS WHERE THE PHILOSOPHER
MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. OF COURSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE SKEPTICS THAT,
YOU KNOW. ROBERT: RIGHT. JOHN: I MEAN, THAT'S ASKING
FOR TOO MUCH ALWAYS. ROBERT: ALWAYS. JOHN: SO, YOU SHOULDN'T BE
THINKING HOW DO I SHOW
TO THE SKEPTIC THAT I KNOW? YOU SHOULD BE THINKING
HOW DO I SATISFY MYSELF THAT EVEN IN
THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO... ROBERT: THAT I'M RATIONAL. JOHN: THAT I'M RATIONAL,
OR THAT I KNOW. ROBERT: BUT YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT
TO YOURSELF? THAT YOU ARE RATIONAL? JOHN: WELL, THAT'S
THE LESSER AMBITION. CAN YOU AT LEAST PRODUCE
DEFENSIVE MOVES AGAINST ARGUMENTS THAT SHOW
THAT YOU'RE IRRATIONAL? I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS
DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT, EVEN IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO,
YOU'RE IRRATIONAL. I MEAN, IF I HAVE A BOX,
AND THERE'S A BEETLE IN THE BOX AND YOU CAN'T SEE IN THE BOX, YOU'D BE IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A BEETLE IN THE BOX EVEN IF IT'S RIGHT. EVEN IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO AND THERE IS A BEETLE
IN THE BOX, IF YOU BELIEVE
THERE'S A BEETLE IN THE BOX, WHEN THE BEETLE'S HIDDEN
IN THE BOX, THEN YOU'RE LIKE A BIT WEIRD. YOU KNOW, SO ONE LINE OF THOUGHT
IS, WELL, EVEN IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S A GOD
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES... ROBERT: GOD'S A BEETLE. JOHN: GOD'S LIKE A BEETLE
IN THE BOX, AND SO EVEN IF HE'S THERE, IT'S
IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE IN HIM. SO I THINK THE THING THAT US SORT OF RELIGIOUS
PHILOSOPHER/THEISTS SHOULD BE DOING IS TRY TO SHOW
HOW, IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO, THINGS ARE VERY DIFFERENT TO
THE BEETLE IN THE BOX SCENARIO, AND IT WOULD AT LEAST
IN THE GOOD-CASE SCENARIO BE A CASE
OF KNOWLEDGEABLE BELIEF. ROBERT: JOHN FOLLOWS TRUTH'S
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PATHS. HE DIFFERENTIATES
KNOWLEDGE FROM BELIEF. THEN QUESTIONS,
IN A WORLD OF PROBABILITIES, HOW WE KNOW ANYTHING. AS FOR GOD,
THE BEETLE HIDDEN IN A BOX, JOHN SETS THE HURDLE
OF "KNOWLEDGEABLE BELIEF." JOHN FORCES ME TO THINK HARD ABOUT HOW I KNOW ALL TRUTH
IN GENERAL BEFORE I CAN ASK
ABOUT ANY TRUTHS IN SPECIFIC. FOR ME, THE TRUTH
I AM ULTIMATELY AFTER IS THE TRUTH
OF ULTIMATE REALITY. THOUGH I DO NOT EXPECT
TO FIND IT, I AM DETERMINED TO PURSUE IT. MUST ULTIMATE TRUTH
BE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, IF THERE BE ANY OBJECTIVE TRUTH? CAN ULTIMATE TRUTH
BE RELATIVE TRUTH-- OUR INTERPRETATIONS? I GO TO BIRMINGHAM TO VISIT
A PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION WHO PRIVILEGES INTERPRETATION: THE LEGENDARY JOHN HICK. WE MEET IN HIS HOME. ROBERT: JOHN, WHAT IS TRUTH?
IS THERE AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH? HOW DO WE ADDRESS
THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? JOHN HICK: THERE ARE CERTAIN
OBJECTIVE TRUTHS, SUCH AS THE TRUTHS
OF MATHEMATICS. "TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR"
IS AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE BY DEFINITION. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY,
THE SYSTEM OF MATHEMATICS IS A DEFINITIONAL SYSTEM. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE INVOLVES
OUR OWN INTERPRETATION. BY EVERYTHING ELSE, I MEAN
EVERYTHING WE PERCEIVE. THIS IS THE CRITICAL REALIST
PRINCIPLE, THAT THE HUMAN MIND IS
ALL THE TIME INTERPRETING. WHEN I SEE YOU
AS A SOLID OBJECT, I'M INTERPRETING. MEMORY--I'M DRAWING
UPON MEMORY OF THE PAST. I'VE FOUND, IN THE PAST,
THAT I GO BEHIND THINGS, AND FIND THAT THEY WERE SOLID,
AND SO ON. AND IN RELIGION, I WOULD SAY
THAT BY FAITH WE MEAN
THE INTERPRETATIVE ELEMENT IN OUR RELIGIOUS AWARENESS. IN OUR RELIGIOUS AWARENESS,
THERE IS INTERPRETATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE. THIS IS FAITH. THAT'S TO SAY,
IT'S NOT CAPABLE OF PROOF. IT'S HOW THE MIND--OUR MINDS--
FUNCTION ON WHAT WE DO. WE INTERPRET ALL THE TIME. ROBERT: IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF WE ARE INTERPRETING
ALL THE TIME-- THAT CERTAINLY REFLECTS
THE NEUROSCIENCE OF HOW WE EXIST-- JOHN: YEAH. ROBERT: SHOULD THAT MAKE US MORE
HUMBLE IN OUR DECLARATIONS OF WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE TRUE
ABOUT ALMOST ANYTHING? JOHN: I THINK IT SHOULD, YES. ROBERT: WELL, THAT'S
A LITTLE SCARY. JOHN: WELL, YES, BUT THEN THE MORE ONE THINKS
ABOUT THINGS, THE MORE SCARY THEY ARE, THEN. ROBERT: SO, IF WE HAVE
THIS INTERPRETATIVE ASPECT TO US THAT IS SO CRITICAL
TO WHAT WE HAVE, THE MORE WE GO INTO THINGS
LIKE RELIGION, THE MORE POWERFUL THAT BECOMES. JOHN: YES, INDEED, YES. ROBERT: HOW THEN CAN I BELIEVE
ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION? JOHN: YES, WELL, ULTIMATELY, IT ALL COMES BACK
TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND THE TRANSFORMATION
OF EXPERIENCE IN A VERY, VERY VIVID WAY, WHICH CAUSES ONE TO TAKE
A RELIGIOUS VIEW. ROBERT: WELL, I GUESS
I'M OUT OF LUCK, THEN, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD ONE. JOHN: NO, I KNOW. WELL, THAT'S JUST TOO BAD. ROBERT:
I APPRECIATE JOHN'S CONCERN, BUT IS IT "TOO BAD" THAT I'VE
NOT HAD A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE? PERHAPS NOT, I THINK. A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE MIGHT
OVERWHELM RATIONAL THOUGHT. ANYWAY, I'D PROBABLY NOT TRUST
MY OWN FEELINGS. MY BIGGEST FEAR
IS FOOLING MYSELF. BUT IF I CANNOT RELY
ON EVEN MYSELF, THEN FROM WHERE DOES
OUR PERCEPTION OF TRUTH COME? WHAT KIND OF TRUTH
CAN HUMAN BEINGS KNOW? I ASK THE PUBLISHER
OF "SKEPTIC MAGAZINE", HISTORIAN OF SCIENCE
MICHAEL SHERMER, WHO STRESSES
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS. MICHAEL SHERMER: I THINK FROM
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE, THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY
OF TRUTH, IS, IS PROBABLY THE BEST MATCH IN THE SENSE THAT OUR BRAINS
EVOLVE TO SOLVE CERTAIN PROBLEMS IN THE PHYSICAL
AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT. AND IT'S MODULAR, SO IT HAS LOTS
OF DIFFERENT NEURAL NETWORKS DOING DIFFERENT THINGS TO TRY
TO SOLVE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS. SOMETIMES THEY COME
INTO CONFLICT, SO THAT'S WHY WE SOMETIMES
ARE HYPOCRITICAL AND SO ON. BUT IN TERMS OF JUST
PURE SURVIVAL, THE CLOSER YOU ARE
TO MATCHING REALITY, CORRESPONDING TO REALITY, THEN THE MORE LIKELY
YOU ARE TO SURVIVE. SO YOU'RE A HOMINID
ON THE PLAINS OF AFRICA THREE AND A HALF MILLION
YEARS AGO, AND YOU HEAR A RUSTLE
IN THE GRASS. IS IT A DANGEROUS PREDATOR
OR IS IT JUST THE WIND? WELL, IF YOU ASSUME
THAT THE RUSTLE IN THE GRASS IS A DANGEROUS PREDATOR,
IT TURNS OUT IT'S JUST THE WIND, YOU HAVE MADE A TYPE-ONE ERROR,
A FALSE POSITIVE, IT'S KIND OF
A SUPERSTITIOUS-TYPE THING, BUT NO HARM. BUT IF YOU MAKE
THE OTHER KIND OF ERROR, YOU ASSUME THE RUSTLE
IN THE GRASS IS A-- JUST THE WIND, TURNS OUT IT'S
A DANGEROUS PREDATOR, YOU'RE LUNCH, RIGHT? SO THERE'S A SELECTION PROCESS
FOR GETTING IT RIGHT MORE OFTEN THAN GETTING IT WRONG
IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION. SO I THINK OUR BRAINS
ACTUALLY ARE FAIRLY GOOD AT GETTING IT RIGHT
MOST OF THE TIME, BUT NOT ALWAYS. BUT THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS
UNTIL SCIENCE. WITHOUT SCIENCE, SOME KIND
OF SYSTEMATIC, RELIABLE METHOD, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE
A LOT OF MISTAKES. ROBERT: ARE THERE AREAS OF TRUTH
THAT CAN BE DISCERNED INDEPENDENT
OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? MICHAEL: WELL, SOMEBODY MIGHT
GET IT RIGHT BY ACCIDENT, BUT FOR YOU AND I TO UNDERSTAND
HOW WE GOT IT RIGHT AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS
AND COMMUNICATE IT, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE. AND SCIENCE IS THE LANGUAGE
THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED WITH TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES
TO GET AT THAT. AND SO, I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING
FOR YOU TO SAY, WELL, I HAD
THIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I JUST KNOW THERE'S A GOD
BECAUSE I TALKED TO HIM. THAT'S NICE. BUT HOW CAN I, YOU KNOW,
GET IN ON THAT? WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME WAY
OF COMMUNICATING, AND SCIENCE IS
A CONSISTENT LANGUAGE. ROBERT: IS THEN TRUTH TOTALLY
SCIENTIFICALLY BASED? MICHAEL: I WOULD PREFER--
I DON'T LIKE THE WORD "TRUTH." MAYBE TRUTH WITH A SMALL "T." PROVISIONAL TRUTH. I THINK THE IDEA THAT THERE'S
SOME ULTIMATE TRUTH, THAT'S ABOVE OUR BRAIN'S
THINKING ABOUT IT. I'M A VERY PRAGMATIC PHILOSOPHER
OF SCIENCE IN THAT SENSE. TRUTH IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE END UP FINDING SOME EVIDENCE
FOR AND TALKING ABOUT, AND STUFF THAT DOESN'T
GENERATE ANYTHING, WELL, IT'S NOT OF INTEREST. ROBERT: TRUTH IS THE FOUNDATION
OF EXISTENCE. HERE ARE MY FIVE QUESTIONS
FOR TRUTH. 1) TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS
ARE TRUE, MUST WE FIRST HAVE
A GENERAL CONCEPT OF TRUTH? OR SHOULD TRUTH BE DEFLATED? 2) MUST TRUTH BE ANCHORED
BY REASONS? MUST WE RELY
ON A THEORY OF TRUTH, A DEEP MECHANISM BY WHICH THINGS
ARE MADE TRUE? OR IS TRUTH ONLY MEANINGFUL IN
PARTICULAR CASES AND INSTANCES? 3) ARE THERE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
ACCESSIBLE TO RATIONAL INQUIRY? OR IS ALL TRUTH
RELATIVE AND FUZZY, THE RESULT OF OUR BIOLOGICAL
BRAINS OR SOCIAL CULTURES? 4) HOW DID THE HUMAN CAPACITY
FOR KNOWING TRUTH ARISE? BLIND EVOLUTION? OR VIA SOME KIND OF TELEOLOGY,
A GOAL DIRECTION? 5) ARE THERE NON-SECULAR TRUTHS, TRUTHS BEYOND THE NATURAL WORLD? THESE QUESTIONS,
EVEN WITHOUT ANSWERS, GET US CLOSER TO TRUTH.
