If the Truth Be Damned "The veritable lie," writes Plato, "is a thing that all gods and men abhor." Veracity is prized as a virtue even by those lacking moral character. Jude P. Dougherty

VARIOUS SENSES OF 'TRUE'

t must be acknowledged that we use the word true in many senses. We speak of "remaining true," meaning faithful to one's friends, to one's spouse, to one's employer; of "being true to one's self," meaning the maintenance of one's integrity. The carpenter employs the word true when describing or seeking an alignment or perfect right angle. We use true as a synonym for pure, unadulterated. But the primary meanings of the word refer to matters of judgment and veracity.
        Mistakes in measurement, in planning, in identification occur frequently and do not necessarily scandalize us, regrettable as they may sometimes be. We are not shocked by carelessness, by slipshod inquiry, by errors in reporting. But deliberate falsification--lying--does scandalize, as Plato noted, especially when done by a high official who should be a model of integrity. The case of a U.S. president lying to the public has repercussions throughout society. Henceforth, the president himself will not be taken seriously; his ability to lead will be impaired. An immediate effect may be felt within the judicial system. Law courts cannot function in the absence of a respect for truth. If leaders can lie with impunity, the example is not lost on the rank and file. Justice suffers, as does respect for authority.

Sensationalist reporting is just another way of bearing false witness and may entail moral culpability as well as logical error.

        The alert will recognize the most common forms of lying: half-truths, deliberate ambiguity, the withholding of data, and the use of misleading terms such as pro-choice, partial-birth abortion, collective guilt, affirmative action, and global warming. Much commercial advertising is deliberately misleading. A subtle form of verbal subterfuge occurs when the expert in one field makes pronouncements in another field outside of his competence and authority. The sophistry of the politician is so commonplace that few believe any campaign rhetoric. That is the price of the lie: disbelief, lack of trust, and skepticism cause communication to fail, resulting in the opposite of what is sought.
        A lack of respect for truth has grave consequences for both the individual and society. Consider the childhood story of the boy who cried "wolf" when there was no wolf and who consequently was not believed when there was one. The habitual liar, fabricator, or exaggerator is not trusted. A person who lies about one thing will not be taken at his word on another. How is one to judge when he is speaking truthfully? In the commercial world, one's word is one's bond. Failure to honor one's verbal commitment renders one unable to do business. If I order ten gross and later say I ordered only eight, I will not again have the confidence of the vendor. I have closed a door.
        It must be acknowledged that not all cultures prize truth in the same way. Traditional Western standards do not prevail globally. In a culture, as in a people, where the truth is not honored, the native may know how to function, but the outsider will be at a disadvantage in both social and commercial conduct. For example, certain falsehoods are accepted as mere pleasantries--"You look well," "You are always right"--by an unspoken acknowledgment that these expressions are not to be taken at face value. Cultural variations are to be found. Furthermore, in the cultural difference between oriental and occidental modes of expression, only the naive Westerner would consider certain oriental expressions of homage to be truthful statements.
        Somewhere between truth and falsity there is something we may call "misconstrual," where a metaphor in one context is taken literally in another area of learning. This happens most frequently when concepts suggestive in one science take on a different meaning in another or in ordinary discourse. I have in mind concepts such as "evolution," "relativity," "indeterminacy," "anti-matter," and "black holes." There is a term of derision that one hears in certain scientific circles--"publishing in the New York Times"--meaning the propensity to seek favorable notice before publication in a learned journal reviewed by peers. The assumption is that the catchy phrase or suggestive report will be amplified in a sensational, usually distorted version by journalists in the interest of a "story." Sensationalist reporting is just another way of bearing false witness and may entail moral culpability as well as logical error.

PERILS OF RELATIVISM

common denial that truth is attainable, or at best is relative, is practiced in the media, wherein one account is "balanced" by another, with the reader or viewer left to his own resources to determine the truth of the matter. Who has not seen the accomplished expert or venerable statesman contradicted by the upstart or novice? The impression given is that the truth, such as it is, depends on your viewpoint. Knowledge creates rather than captures its object.
         One notorious claim is the notion that it doesn't matter whether our beliefs are true or false but whether they allow us to achieve our more substantive goals such as happiness and well-being. This doctrine asserts that the meaning of any idea whatsoever--scientific, religious, philosophical, social, or personal--can only be found in the succession of experimental consequences that follow it. "Truth" and "error," if they are ascertainable at all, are identical with consequences. On this account truth has no cognitive value. This doctrine is sometimes labeled pragmatic and falsely attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce (1839--1914).

St. Francis of the Fields, Max Beckmann

        In his 1877 article "Illustrations of the Logic of Science," Peirce noted that the scientific method is but one of several ways of fixing beliefs. Beliefs, he maintained, are essentially habits of action. The natural sciences, wrote Peirce, make our ideas clear by pointing to the sensible effects of those ideas and to the habits of action inspired by them. Take the example of a mineralogist who clarifies the notion hard by citing the sensible effects of x's being harder than y insofar as x will scratch y and not be scratched by it, thus leading to the habitual use of x to scratch y. The pragmatic effect is that to divide a sheet of glass, we reach for an instrument made of high-carbon steel and not a silver butter knife. Peirce's pragmatism is a theory of meaning rather than a theory of truth. In addition to veracity and the "truth of propositions," Peirce, in the tradition of Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas, distinguishes what he calls transcendental truth. This is the truth that belongs to things as things, the truth sought by the natural sciences insofar as they inquire into the real character of things. Aquinas called this ontological truth, the conformity of things with their idea in the mind of the supreme source of all truth, the Creator.
        William James transformed Peirce's observation that ideas often derive their meaning in the sciences from the use to which they are put into a generalization about abstract knowledge. The value of religious belief, for example, is to be determined by its consequence. In James' extension of Peirce's pragmatism, statements should be considered true if they are useful to us. It is well known that Peirce did not approve of the way James expanded and distorted his theory of pragmatism, and in 1905 he changed the name of his own theory from pragmatism to pragmaticism, a name ugly enough, he thought, to render it secure from kidnappers.
        Peirce's original contention may be considered valuable to the extent that in some fields of science there are propositions that we cannot prove or disprove but that we accept simply because they are useful in suggesting new theories or modes of inquiry. But, if we don't know whether the statements are true or false, why call them true rather than useful hypotheses? Peirce himself preferred the latter designation.
        It is doubtful that James' so-called pragmatic theory of truth, because of its simplicity, enjoys much allegiance in the sciences today, but it seems to have taken hold in the popular culture, where we frequently hear expressions such as "Truth is a matter of usefulness" or "What is true for you may not be true for me."

COMMONSENSE UNDERSTANDINGS OF TRUTH

ndergirding what may be called a commonsense understanding of the nature of truth is the conviction that there are natural structures accessible to human enquiry, structures independent of the human mind, intelligible in themselves, that the human mind is capable of grasping through its activity. Put another way, this notion of truth implies that nature controls our thinking about it. We do not create the structures, which are the referent of our language. Just the opposite. Things are the source of our judgments about them. This is contrary to the doctrine that "inquiry creates the structures that it deals with." Philosophers may deny that there are natures independent of the mind that thinks them, but such a doctrine flies in the face of common sense.

Falling Man, by Max Beckmann

         One subtle but socially dangerous form of denying the truth is the entertainment media's propensity to present vice as normal or as socially acceptable behavior. Fornication, adultery, and sodomy are portrayed as commonplace with no hint of the devastating effects those modes of behavior have on the individual and on society as a whole. There used to be a cardinal principle that governed fiction, at least among the conscientious: sin is to be portrayed as sin, not as a preferable or optional mode of action. In a secularized society the notion of "sin" may no longer prevail, but whatever it is called, everyone recognizes that some kinds of behavior are personally and socially destructive.
        Another deception is the practice of many organizations that call themselves by names chosen to disguise their true purpose. Names such as the "American Civil Liberties Union," "Catholics for a Free Choice," "The Feminist Majority," "Planned Parenthood," and "People for the American Way" promise goals at variance with the true objectives of the organization. The names themselves take euphemism to new heights and constitute a new kind of propaganda.
        Deception is not always public. We can be false to ourselves, denying failings in ourselves that we ought to acknowledge. This implies some insight into what self-perfection ought to entail and that knowledge in turn rests upon a philosophy of life, a moral outlook if you will. Philosophies that may lay claim to allegiance are plural in number. To ascertain the truth of any one philosophy may require considerable learning. Most people adopt the basic moral outlook perpetuated in their family or immediate community. Religion is more likely to be its source rather than any explicit philosophy. Over the course of millennia, the intellect of the West has appropriated the wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, finding it in a large measure compatible with biblical teaching. The Gospels themselves were received by men formed in Greek and Roman philosophy; from them, we have the great theological traditions that have shaped the West. These are perennial sources of self-understanding and social policy, providing "the truth that frees" even in the midst of adverse conditions.