Wikibooks

User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 7/ Truth

< User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox‎ | Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 7

Seminar Group 7 Truth Contributions

Truth edit

The concept of "truth" represents such notions as propositions, beliefs, assumptions, claims, etc., which agree with proven facts or reality.[1]. There are several theoretical approaches to this concept in the academic discourses: Correspondence theory, Coherence and Pragmatist theories[2]. This section presents how the concept of "truth" is approached in various academic disciplines.

Approaches to Truth in Jurisprudence: Main Legal Theories edit

In jurisprudence, the approach to the concept of "truth" is based on three main legal theories: legal positivism, legal realism, and legal interpretivism.

Legal positivism edit

The central idea of legal positivism is that the content of the law is contingent on social factors rather than on its moral implications.[3].Under the framework of this theory, it has been agreed that the content of the law is viewed as a social construction; however, the use of morality in explanation of the law validity causes great controversy and disagreement within the field of study. Therefore, legal positivists could be divided into two camps: inclusive and exclusive[4]. The former category is those in support of the implementation of moral values when explaining the law, whereas the latter argue against this idea. Nevertheless, among the positivist theorists, the source of law and its merits are viewed as two separate concepts. The law, established by official legal authority and recognized by the society, is referred to as the source. However, it does not imply any moral values and can be considered as «bad law» according to particular standards, but being authorized by officials, it is still the law. Thus it is apolitical, asocial, and completely autonomous. What’s more, legal positivism is based on the following theoretical beliefs: when studying and analyzing legal meanings, it should be considered separately not only from the history or sociology of law but also from criticism or assessment of law in relation to other issues; correct decisions are derived from strictly predetermined norms, established without any special alignment with the social justice. This theory is in support of non-cognitivist approach.[5].

Legal realism edit

The second approach to “truth” is the school of Legal Realism. It is the main opponent of legal positivism, as it does not recognize the value-free perspective. This approach maintains that the legal system is subjective, characterized by the inconsistency of judicial decisions and results. Scholars of this theory hold that decisions are made by judges, who are humans and, like all other human beings, have their own backgrounds[6].Thus, legal realism recognizes the political, social, and moral factors that influence the process of decision making and court judgment Moreover; realists believe that jurisprudence is subject to direct human influence as it is inseparable from the power of legal actors to write the law, so, they use ideas from social sciences to explain the relationships between the legal decisions and human behaviour[7].

Legal interpretivism edit

Legal interpretivism focuses on explaining the influence of legal institutions on the modifications of laws. The central argument of this approach is that the impact which practice of legal institutions has on the law is influenced by particular principles tenants which explain why such a role should be attributed to this practice[8]. So, the main aim of this focus on the interpretation of the actual legal practice is to define the normative implications of the practice on human rights and duties, by clarifying the principles under consideration[9]. The main postulations behind this approach are the following:

  • Law and moral values should not be completely alienated from each other, but there is a certain distinction between them.
  • Law should not be viewed as, simply, collection of facts, data, or conventions, but rather as something that legal practitioners seek to build within their domain.
  • Law is not an inherent phenomenon and does not exist separately from legal a legal system[10].

Truth in Psychology: Contrast of Approaches edit

Truth plays a valuable role in modern psychology, with its ability to justify the many varying areas of psychological research, particularly considering psychology's status as a more recently developed and ever-changing discipline.[11] This means however that the majority of key psychological studies and breakthroughs have taken place over the past century, and the discipline has had little time to become refined, experiencing a multitude of paradigm shifts and constituting of various conflicting approaches, making the concept of truth within psychology difficult to incorporate into practice.[12]

For example, the age old 'nature vs nurture' debate. The conflict between the Biological approach of viewing human behaviour as hereditary or having a biological aetiology and the Behaviourist approach and Social Learning Theory, which view all human behaviour as a result of humans reacting to their environment.[13] These two very different explanations of the same behaviour make it difficult to determine 'truth' within the discipline, especially in cases like the murder of James Bulger, wherein there was huge public debate over whether the perpetrators must have been 'born evil' to commit such unforgivable acts at a young age or they were re-enacting scenes from the film 'Child's play 3' which had been at Jon Venables' house.[14] So when psychology plays a role in criminal conviction, as it did here determining the length of sentencing and methods of rehabilitation for Venables and Thompson, truth is integral to the process- and when there are such different versions of it, it is hard to provide.

Truth in Sociology: multiples perspectives edit

In Sociology, truth is and has always been controversial, and as its methods have been diversifying since its creation, none is still universally recognized.

Sociology was defined by Auguste Comte as a natural science and was first emphasized as a scientific study. Using sociology, he wanted to remedy the social ills of the society. Structural functionalism, popularized by Herbert Spencer is an synchronic approach that tended to study small scales societies, that addresses the social structure, and follow the Comte’s idea of Sociology as a natural science (with the known metaphor of the society as a body, and the social norms and institutions as the organs)[15]. To deduce the truth, Comte would focus on a social phenomenon and see the common facts. It is a positivist approach, a posteriori knowledge, which is based on empirical evidence. About Positivism, Durkheim said “Our main goal is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct”. He defines the social fact as an entity, and so ignore all sociologists' subjectivity.

Marxist Sociology is another form of approach, developed by Karl Marx, who rejected Comtean positivism. Marxists sociology is a form of conflict theory (the way inequalities contribute to social differences and perpetuate differences in power) associated with Marxism’s aim of developing a positive science of capitalist society. Conflict theory draws truth mainly through the positive way it looks and is deduced of the competition for limited resources. [16]

The Symbolic Interactionist theory is on micro-level and its central point are the interactions between individuals and symbols. To symbolic interactionists, communication and one-to-one interactions are where they perceive truth. According to them, that is how people’s social world takes sense. Charles Horton Cooley theorized the fact that we see ourselves when we interact with others.Constructivism is the extension of symbolic interaction theory. It constructs truth through interactions, interviews, surveys on groups and we develop social constructs based on interactions with others. [17]

Problems with Truth in the Study of Evolution edit

The study of evolution involves several disciplines, including biological anthropology and evolutionary psychology. The discipline is a natural science and aims to reveal true evolutionary mechanisms, while remaining as objective and scientific as possible to reflect the “truth” behind lineages.

Much of evolutionary studies involve empirical methods and using evidence such as fossil records or techniques such as statistical modelling[18], which reflects the positivist approach to knowledge and truth of the discipline. It aims to understand the true process of evolution through models and theories within a framework[19]. The production of knowledge involves deduction from existing observations and theories and transforming data to language (e.g. hypotheses, analysis of results)[20]. However, the process of transforming data to language itself (such as handling of data) and the process of constructing and testing theories[21] is subject to flaws, such as unconscious biases held by researchers or problems with methods used, which may alter the conclusion reached and thus how researchers and the public view the “truth” of evolutionary studies. An example is the myth of the coy female — for a long time, researchers were blinded to the sexual behaviour of females[22][23] because of the male dominance in the field[24] and because of the influence of Darwin ’s theories[25]. In this case, the theories of evolutionary biology cannot fully mirror the truth of evolution because scientists were not fully impartial. Hence, truth is also subjective. Furthermore, the truth can change over time as theories are examined and further developed[26][27], such as in the case of Bateman’s principle — understanding of sexual selection has changed[28]. Knowledge in this discipline aims to be objective, but it may not be able to reflect the truth of evolution fully.

Truth in Eugenics and How it was Proven False edit

Eugenics, the literal meaning being ‘good birth’ or ‘well-born’, was a discipline that aimed to improve the human race by looking into how ‘good’ genetic traits could be bread into children (positive eugenics) and ‘bad’ genes could be phased out (negative eugenics)[29]. Francis Galton first coined the term in 1883, and is considered one of the founders of the discipline, with much of its popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries also being attributed to him[30]. Galton claimed that intelligence and abilities are inherited with an efficiency of 20%, and that it was possible through selective breeding to create a better ‘stock’ of humanity; once the idea became popularized, research programmes were set up, and many Western governments adopted the idea, leading to sterilisation and institutionalisation[31]. For example, between 1930 and 1970, around 60,000 people were sterilised in Sweden, with most of them being women[32].

The research done into eugenics was accepted as valid, empirical evidence and therefore, the findings considered a ‘mirror of reality’, a form of truth commonly associated with natural sciences. However, since eugenics has fallen out of popularity as a discipline, with its close connotations to Nazism and the mass murder or forced sterilisation of those considered genetically ‘unfit’, including tens of thousands of children in Nazi Germany[33], the so called AktionT4 program where more than 200,000 disabled people have been killed[34], more research has been done into the process of finding this ‘truth’. It has been proven that, while there is some validity to some of Galton’s and other researchers ideas, most of the findings proving eugenics to be a genuine science were exaggerated by the subconscious biases of the researches, and many of the traits they considered possible to breed out of humans have subsequently been proven not to be down to genetics at all, such as ‘criminality’, ‘feeblemindedness’ and epilepsy[35].

The fall of the discipline of eugenics is an example of how what was once considered truth, and accepted by most scientists was, in fact, invalid and the evidence that was used to prove it was false. It also shows that not all truth is a reflection of society, as scientists can produce incorrect evidence, and therefore instead of mirroring society, truth is constructed by society. Einstein wrote that “physical concepts are free creations of the human mind”[36] and are not solely determined by the world around us, as many belief; this represents a partly constructivist view on the existence of truth. There have also been many other instances in history where what was once considered truth has been proven incorrect, such as the conflict between Newton ’s stationary and Einstein ’s expanding theory of the universe[37]. The death of eugenics and the constantly updating perception we have of the universe around us shows how truth and evidence can be constructed to fit the narrative scientists are looking to prove, and poses the question: what else that we now consider truth and fact may be proven false in the future?

Truths in Anthropology: Colonial Critique edit

In anthropology, the truth lies in the study and understanding of how social and cultural experiences shape the social world and where differences and similarities in morals, values and structures exist across different contexts. The complexity surrounding these conversations of knowledge and truth within the discipline is in part attributed to the acknowledgement that truth differs in meaning depending on the context.[38] The other part is, as British anthropologist Henrietta Moore argues, that the truth ethnographic research seeks to reveal is ultimately a subjective one; the truth is filtered through lenses of researcher positionality, frameworks of methodology and what the driving force behind the investigation is.[38]

In the pursuit of anthropological 'truth', there exists first a multiplicity of definitions posited by anthropology which cover the relationship of the discipline with ethnology, etymology, empiricism, historicism.[39] This is further shaped by historical context, the many theories of anthropological thought - i.e. functionalism, evolutionism, structural functionalism, cultural relativism - the situating of the discipline within humanities or the social sciences and ideological or political perspectives (marxism, feminism, capitalism, etc.) of the anthropologist.[40]

An evident facet of truth in anthropology is the role power plays in shaping it; exemplified by the colonial connotation in the term ‘research’, power is implicit in the imbalanced positions of ‘researcher’ and ‘researched’ which has most often been the study of ‘Non-Western’ ‘Natives’ or ‘Indigenous peoples’ by European or ‘Western’ anthropologists.[41] In its early development, colonial anthropology most often established ‘truths’ that categorized societies as ‘primitive’/’savage’ or ‘developed’/ ‘civilized’[42] - only later evolving into a more modern role of study of the ‘Other’.[39]

Truth in anthropology relies on the ability of the individual – be it the reader or the writer – to think reflexively and critically about the anthropological truth or account that they encounter and shape. It is determined by the consideration of moral and ethical implications and, more generally, the who, the why and the wherein its research.[39] In conclusion, within this discipline it is imperative to consider, alongside these questions, that different forms of truth may well exist.[38]

Finding Truth in History edit

The problem of historical truth is one of the most discussed arguments since antiquity. In my sandbox I will only treat an aspect of this debate that intrigued me—namely Isaiah Berlin’s discussion of Tolstoy’s view of history.[43] Berlin argues that there are some historians (foxes) who are fascinated by the multiple variety of things and others (hedgehogs) who search for a universal criterion. According to Tolstoy, history “is a collection of fables and useless trifles; it presents only a blank succession of unexplained events…no theories can possibly fit the immense variety of possible human behavior.”[44] For Berlin in order to discover a truth in history we should reconstruct the past not only in terms of our own concepts and categories, but in terms of how past events must have appeared to those who participated in them.”[45] At first it seems that there is no truth in pluralism though I think that with interdisciplinary study we can move closer. Yet, Berlin saw that there are certain lessons in the study of history which we could now define as possible “truths.” For example the recurrent denial of the value of human life for the realization of economic certain ends and the neglect of the value of liberty susceptible to political abuse. These values can probably be seen as “truths” which pervade history, interact with politics and philosophy and can make a better future.

Truths in Political Studies: a Constructivist Approach edit

In general, science is understood as a way to explain the world that surrounds us. Truth is then considered as a reflection of how things are, in essence, therefore free of any biases. In political science, things are slightly trickier as political theory acknowledges the unavoidable existence of social, historical and even personal factors[46]. In other words, the study of politics always operates within a given context, and the framework of analysis in which truth claims arise are compelled to be ingrained in the permitted conditions of reality [47]. Truths, sometimes known as ‘usable knowledge’ in politics, and on what policymakers and politicians base their actions, are information that adheres to key principles. It should be first and foremost timely manner, meaning that it should be accurate and useful, meanwhile the process of policymaking. Furthermore, knowledge must minimize biases, notably by essentially involving participants that are not dependent upon the information [48]. In politics, the audience is often suspicious of potential biases or corruption. This is why international institutions sometimes get involved to ensure the legitimacy of political discourse, notably by undertaking interdisciplinary research or by peer evaluation [49]. In the end, paradoxically perhaps, the study of politics derives its legitimacy on information that is carefully free from the meddling of political bodies [50]. To conclude, the study of politics takes the support of truths deemed constructivists. Constructivism claims that truth and knowledge are created, not discovered and are part of a never-ending process where they constantly evolve according to new experiences [51]. Even though constructivists truths could be seen as less legitimate it is in any means less universally valid [52].

Post-truth Era edit

Post truth can be defined as “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”[53] . The crisis of truth in politics can be linked to the 2016 presidential election, where according to PolitiFact, 70% of Trump’s statements were false or partly false [54]. However, his popularity did not decline. This can be partly explained by the emergence on fake news on social media.

Because of the decline of traditional news media like journals and televisions, social media is for many, their main source of information. However, fake news poses a threat to democracy. Fake news spread six time faster than the truth on Twitter. During the 2016 election, “by a margin of 4 to 1, most fake news stories targeted Clinton’s campaign”[55] . But for a democratic society to function, the citizens must be well informed, in order to make an informed choice when voting. If there are no objective facts on which the population can agree on, it is likely that humans will turn to confirmations bias. Confirmation bias is a psychological phenomenon where individuals interpret, believe and look for facts that confirm their pre-existing biases. This, in turn, leads to more political polarisation [56] .

This phenomenon is reinforced by echo chambers or filter bubbles. Filter bubbles exist “where information, ideas or beliefs are amplified and reinforced by communication and repetition inside a defined system where competing views are underrepresented”[57] . This means that users have access to less diversity in terms of opinions and are not exposed to competing views.

Graphic Arts: Truth or Illusion? edit

In 1929, the surrealist painter René Magritte painted The Treachery of Images, often referred to as "This is not a pipe". [58] This painting expresses the concept that a representation of an object isn’t the object itself, which introduces the idea that graphic arts are just illusions of reality. Graphic arts include any form of visual art produced on flat surfaces [59]. Although, we live in a three-dimensional world which automatically conveys the idea that any depiction of our world on a flat canvas is untrue. In a 1923 letter to Marcus de Zayas, Pablo Picasso stated “We all know that Art is not the truth. Art is a lie that makes us realise the truth.”[60]. We can then ask ourselves what is that truth: is it an anatomical, positivist truth as shown in Leonardo da Vinci’s work Vitruvian Man [61] or is it an interpretive, phenomenological truth according to how the artist perceives the reality around him, e.g. Picasso’s Guernica [62], a cubist portrayal of the bombing of Basque Country town during the Spanish civil war.

Another potential explanation may be that art offers us a constructivist truth : in 1873 Nietzsche said in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense "Truth are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions" [63]. In that sense, an artist’s role is to trick the spectator into forgetting - or at least ignoring - the fact that their piece is not part of our reality.

Claude Monet, one of the most famous impressionists, epitomises that idea : focusing on what he sees and not on what he thinks he sees, Monet depicts movements and instability of things through visible paint strokes put together to form a truthful illusion of our reality, without questioning the resemblance (or not) with what we already know.

Here, truth is not determined by how well the artist recreates what he sees (photorealism) nor in contrast with the idea of a lie, but by how an artist captures the human experience, both as a unique and shared representation.

  1. ↑ [https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic ]Truth [Internet].[cited 2020Nov2]
  2. ↑ [https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic ]Truth [Internet].[cited 2020Nov2]
  3. ↑ [1]Green L, Adams T. Legal Positivism [Internet]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; 2019 [cited 2020Nov1]
  4. ↑ Priel D. Farewell to the Exclusive–Inclusive Debate. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2005 Dec 1;25(4):675-96.
  5. ↑ H. L. A. Hart, "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals" (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 593, 601–602
  6. ↑ [2]Llewellyn KN. Some Realism about Realism: Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review. 1931;44(8):1222–64
  7. ↑ .[3]"Legal Realism. West's Encyclopedia of American Law.Encyclopedia.com. 16 Oct. 2020. [Internet]. Encyclopedia.com. Encyclopedia.com; 2020 [cited 2020Nov1]
  8. ↑ [4]Stavropoulos N. Legal Interpretivism [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020Nov1]
  9. ↑ [5]Stavropoulos N. Legal Interpretivism [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020Nov1]
  10. ↑ [6]Dickson J. Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning [Internet]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; 2010 [cited 2020Nov1]
  11. ↑ Haig, D. and Borsboom, D., 2012. Truth, science and psychology. Theory and Psychology, 22, pp.272-289.
  12. ↑ Henriques, G., 2004. A new vision for the field: Introduction to the second special issue on the unified theory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(1), pp.3-6.
  13. ↑ Ceci, S. and Williams, W., 1999. The Nature-Nurture Debate: The Essential Readings.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  14. ↑ Naisby, L., 2017. The Sentencing of Thompson and Venables for the Murder of James Bulger. [Blog] Life Changing: University of Sunderland Social Sciences Blog, Available at: <https://sunderlandsocialsciences.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/the-murder-of-james-bulger/> [Accessed 3 November 2020].
  15. ↑ Levine DN. The organism metaphor in sociology. Social Research. 1995 Jul 1:239-65.
  16. ↑ [<a href="https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-sociological-theories-of-karl-marx.html">] [The Sociological Theories of Karl Marx</a> The Sociological Theories of Karl Marx. Study.com, 18 March 2015]
  17. ↑ [7] [Sociological perspecteive]
  18. ↑ Pagel M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999 Oct;401(6756):877-84.
  19. ↑ Vepsäläinen K, Spence JR. Generalization in ecology and evolutionary biology: from hypothesis to paradigm. Biology and Philosophy. 2000 Mar 1;15(2):211-38.
  20. ↑ Snell F, editor. Progress in theoretical biology. Elsevier; 2012 Dec 2.
  21. ↑ Platnick NI, Gaffney ES. Evolutionary biology: A Popperian perspective.
  22. ↑ Hrdy SB. Raising Darwin’s consciousness. Human nature. 1997 Mar 1;8(1):1-49.
  23. ↑ Tang-Martínez Z. Rethinking Bateman’s principles: challenging persistent myths of sexually reluctant females and promiscuous males. The Journal of Sex Research. 2016 May 3;53(4-5):532-59.
  24. ↑ Hrdy SB. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. na; 1986.
  25. ↑ Hrdy SB. The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2000 Apr;907(1):75-96.
  26. ↑ Rosslenbroich B. The notion of progress in evolutionary biology–the unresolved problem and an empirical suggestion. Biology and Philosophy. 2006 Jan 1;21(1):41-70.
  27. ↑ Snyder BF, Gowaty PA. A reappraisal of Bateman's classic study of intrasexual selection. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution. 2007 Nov;61(11):2457-68.
  28. ↑ Dewsbury DA. The Darwin-Bateman paradigm in historical context. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2005 Nov 1;45(5):831-7.
  29. ↑ Goering, Sara, "Eugenics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), [URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/eugenics/>.]
  30. ↑ Keleves, Daniel. Eugenics and Human Rights, BMJ. 1999 Aug 14; 319(7207): 435–438. [8]
  31. ↑ Norrgard, K. (2008) Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education 1(1):170. [9]
  32. ↑ Keleves, Daniel. Eugenics and Human Rights, BMJ. 1999 Aug 14; 319(7207): 435–438. [10]
  33. ↑ Wikler, Daniel. Can we learn from eugenics?, Journal of Medical Ethics 1999;25:183-194 [11]
  34. ↑ 1.Mueller T, Beddies T. "The Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living" in National Socialist Germany. International Journal of Mental Health. 2006;35(3):94-104.
  35. ↑ Norrgard, K. (2008) Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education 1(1):170. [12]
  36. ↑ Einstein, A. & Infeld, L. (1967) The Evolution of Physics, New York: Simon & Schuster Clarion Book (Original 1938), p.31
  37. ↑ Ernst von Glasersfeld, The Radical Constructivist View of Science, [13]
  38. ↑ a b c Moore H. The Truths of Anthropology. Cambridge Anthropology [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2 November 2020];25(1):52-58. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23820720
  39. ↑ a b c Fabian J. Cultural anthropology and the question of knowledge. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2 November 2020];18(2):439-453. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41507968
  40. ↑ Lewis H. The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and Its Consequences. American Anthropologist [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2 November 2020];100(3):716-731. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/682051
  41. ↑ Smith L. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books; 2012.
  42. ↑ Pels P. What has anthropology learned from the anthropology of colonialism?. Social Anthropology/ Anthropologie Sociale [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2 November 2020];16(3). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2008.00046.x
  43. ↑ Isaiah Berlin, Hedgehog and the Fog: an Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History, Princeton, 2103 [internet] [Accessed October 30, 2020] Available from: http://psulibrary.palawan.edu.ph/wtbooks/resources/pdf/903700.pdf; “Finding Truth in History,” FS Blog, [internet] [Accessed October 30, 2020] Available from: https://fs.blog/2017/10/finding-truth-history/; James Cracraft, “A Berlin for Historians,” [internet] in History of Theory, vol 41, 2002, pp. 277-300 [Accessed October 30, 2020] Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3590687
  44. ↑ Isaiah Berlin, Hedgehog and the Fog: an Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History, Princeton, 2103, p. 15 and 21 [internet] [Accessed October 30, 2020] Available from: http://psulibrary.palawan.edu.ph/wtbooks/resources/pdf/903700.pdf
  45. ↑ “Isaiah Berlin, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [internet] [Accessed October 20, 2020] Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/
  46. ↑ Wiser J L. Political Theory, Personal Knowledge, and Public Truth. The Journal of Politics; 1974.
  47. ↑ Soobrayan V. Ethics, truth and politics in constructivist qualitative research. Westminster Studies in Education; 2003.
  48. ↑ Haas P. When does power listen to the truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European public policy; 2004.
  49. ↑ Haas P. When does power listen to the truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European public policy; 2004.
  50. ↑ Haas P. When does power listen to the truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European public policy; 2004.
  51. ↑ Schwandt T. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research; 1994.
  52. ↑ Wiser J L. Political Theory, Personal Knowledge, and Public Truth. The Journal of Politics; 1974.
  53. ↑ POST-TRUTH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary [Internet]. Dictionary.cambridge.org. 2020 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/post-truth
  54. ↑ Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Cook J. Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the "Post-Truth" Era [Internet]. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Elsevier; 2017 [cited 2020Nov9].
  55. ↑ Gaughan AJ. Illiberal Democracy: The Toxic Mix of Fake News, Hyperpolarization, and Partisan Election Administration [Internet]. HeinOnline. [cited 2020Nov10]. Available from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals p.66
  56. ↑ Gaughan AJ. Illiberal Democracy: The Toxic Mix of Fake News, Hyperpolarization, and Partisan Election Administration [Internet]. HeinOnline. [cited 2020Nov10]. Available from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals p.69
  57. ↑ Bakir V, McStay A. Fake News and The Economy of Emotions [Internet]. Digital Journalism. 2017 [cited 2020Nov10]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645?needAccess=true p.161
  58. ↑ The Treachery of Images (This is Not a Pipe) (La trahison des images [Ceci n’est pas une pipe]) | LACMA Collections [Internet]. collections.lacma.org. Available from: https://collections.lacma.org/node/239578 ‌
  59. ↑ The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Graphic art. In: Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/art/graphic-art ‌
  60. ↑ Picasso P. 1923. ‌
  61. ↑ The Vitruvian Man [Internet]. Stanford.edu. 2019. Available from: http://leonardodavinci.stanford.edu/submissions/clabaugh/history/leonardo.html ‌
  62. ↑ Pablo P. Guernica [Internet]. Museoreinasofia.es. 2019. Available from: https://www.museoreinasofia.es/coleccion/obra/guernica ‌
  63. ↑ Friedrich Nietzsche. On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense. Erscheinungsort Nicht Ermittelbar] Aristeus Books; 2012. ‌
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/Seminar_group_7/_Truth&oldid=3767536"