Wikibooks

User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 1/Truth

< User:SteRos7‎ | sandbox‎ | Approaches to Knowledge‎ | Seminar 1

Truth in Mathematics

edit

Truth in mathematics is often thought to be objective. Something is considered true in mathematics if it can be formally proved. This means that unlike other disciplines, mathematics does not give rise to disputes or conflicting theories. This property has led to the debate of whether mathematics is a tool invented by humans to understand the world, like other disciplines, or something existing inherently in nature that we have merely discovered.[1] Unlike other disciplines mathematics is not considered a social construct and so all mathematicians should be at a consensus on every theory. However, throughout history, evidence has arisen challenging this notion.[2]

Every relationship in mathematics can be formally proved using a combination of other simpler mathematical relationships which act like building blocks. However, this breakdown can only go so far. The ‘atoms’ of mathematics are a set of laws called ‘axioms’, the Greek word for assumptions. From this small set of very simple rules (in algebra there are five) we can derive all other laws of maths and prove or disprove any conjecture. However, we have no way of proving these axioms themselves. Although they may seem trivial, for example the symmetric axiom which states that if a=b then b=a or the first axiom in Euclidean geometry which states that a straight line can be drawn between any two points, we have no way of formally proving them. They are used either because everyone can reach a consensus on them or because we can observe them existing in nature. Therefore, it is difficult to justify that maths is objective if its fundamental rules were reached empirically. There have been cases where certain areas of mathematics have been found to be inconsistent and axioms have had to be added or changed. For example, the Russell-Zermelo Paradox[3] found in set theory in 1903 and the creation of the axiom of choice.

In 1931, Kurt Gödel published two theorems about the incompleteness of mathematics and other axiomatic systems. The first proved that there would always be true statements within a consistent system that could not be proved nor disproved within the system and the second that a consistent system could not be used to prove its own consistency. This demonstrates that there will be mathematical relationships that might not be provable, for example the Goldbach Conjecture, discovered in 1742 and yet to be solved. This initially caused division in the mathematics community but has now come to be accepted by all[4] and has brought into question the infallible nature that mathematics has always been thought to have had.[5]

The Differing Approaches Towards Truths in Deontological Ethics

edit

How and what ethical truths are true is still widely debated and contested within the discipline of ethics. In the traditional Western school of thought, it was common to derive moral truths from religion and its subsequent knowledge, giving rise to divine-command theory[6].

The theory asserts a deontological perspective on morality, where actions have an inherent quality to them based on divine authority. God dictates what is right and wrong, and it is this divinity which grants the validity of the commandments[7][8]. Though contemporary views have shifted towards more secular belief systems such as the sciences, the theory can be seen as essentialist, providing an "objective" framework in which moral truths are generated. In essence, if God exists, and he is the creator of everything, he created moral truths[9]. And through one's faith in theism, these ethical truths are revealed to them via bible scripture, religious experiences, revelation, etc. 

Another deontological theory proposed by Immanuel Kant offers the concept of the categorical imperative. The moral law stating that one should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"[10]. Kant is fundamentally telling us to treat everyone like you would be treated.

Relying on human reasoning instead of an external authority, the categorical imperative lays a principle in which a rational actor could assess whether an action is right or wrong. It is thus understood that moral actions are rational and not because God decrees its righteousness. However, it is not to say that religion is irrational or arational since deriving moral truths from the divine command theory is held on the basis that the ones who place their faith in their deity or deities see them as all good and all-knowing, thus whatever commandment is put forward by them, it must fundamentally be good and just. 

Moreover, despite the difference in approaches, both theories can help us arrive at the same truths. One of God's commandments, "thou shalt not steal" could also be taken into account by the categorical imperative. If we were to universalise stealing, the idea of ownership would not exist, then stealing would not exist, contradicting the initial action of stealing, hence it is wrong as it is also irrational[11].

On the other hand, relativism contests that there are no objective moral truths at all, and that these so-called truths are culturally and temporally contingent[12]. God's commandments under this assumption could be true to a catholic priest, but false to an evolutionary biologist. 

Truth in Politics

edit

Truth in politics is something we should consider to be a given as those in power act on behalf of their citizens. Politicians are entrusted to uphold virtues and being truthful and honest is arguably the most important virtue. However, more often than not, politics and truth can conflict. Politicians act in favour of their own interests rather than those of the people they represent and to do so resort to dishonesty and deceit. This has become such commonplace that, unfortunately, very many people associate politicians with being untruthful.

Hannah Arendt wrote an essay “Truth and Politics” for the New Yorker in 1967 and it still holds up today. She spoke of factual and rational truth. There is an important distinction between them. Rational truth is unquestionable, it is always reproduceable whereas factual truth can be destroyed with little chance of re-emerging. The evidence of factual truth is eyewitness accounts, documents, testimonies that describe events. It is extremely dangerous when this type of truth is discredited especially from a political perspective.[13]

In recent times, following the advent of social media and the Internet, a political culture known as “post-truth politics” has become widespread. It is not the simple act of falsifying facts but the relegation of the truth to be unimportant comparatively. A liar, knows the truth, but chooses to persuade people of an alternate reality. On the other hand, post-truth dismisses truth entirely and is not merely lying. Truth can be disregarded as smear campaigns and scaremongering whilst lies and misinformation override facts by appealing to people’s emotions.[14] Notable instances which are associated with “post-truth politics” include the British EU referendum where figures were misleading and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign where there have been falsehoods and inaccuracies in Trump’s statements. This is further exacerbated by sensationalist headlines to entertain people’s limited attention span rather than quality articles.[15] Additionally, different news companies have their own agendas creating distrust in news and leading people to look for alternative sources of information.[16] There is not any moderation of information that is broadcast. The truth has become politicised and is no longer prioritised. What is factual and what is fiction? Reality has become blurry and the truth is hard to ascertain in this political climate.

When Truth Fails in Science

edit

Scientific truth is positivist, absolute and objective. Since its truth arises from objectivity, results should also be unaffected by contingency over time. Replicability is key to objectivity, but the decline effect - where observations loose potency or results can’t be repeated in later years - threatens this and appears as ‘facts losing their truth’. E.g. in neutrons, the weak coupling ratio has decreased 10 standard deviations between 1969-2001. This happens in experiments where datasets should not give a dramatic regression to the mean so the explanation of early statistical anomalies getting cancelled out as the experiment is repeated doesn’t hold. This raises questions of if something is ever true in the discipline of science, even if it is hard to objectively prove/repeat? The neutron structure is still taken to be true, despite the lack of repeatability in results.[17]

Publication bias can affect truth as scientific journals prefer to publish positive results that show effect rather. In his research into all published psychological studies T. Sterling found 97% had positive results. We can still observe this issue today in clinical trials as pharmaceutical companies don’t like null results.[18]

Similar to publication bias is the file-draw problem where scientists submit positive results for publishing but put the null results in the ‘file-drawer’ to forget about, so those reading have a false view of the experiment.[19]

Confirmation bias endangers repeatability and peer review, if a group of people all share the same preconception. Information that discredits a view can be subconsciously downplayed, perceived differently to someone with a opposite view, or ignored. It is easier to accept information that lets us reach the conclusion we want.[20] E.g. the question of Acupuncture’s validity comes with cultural bias, its widely accepted in the East, yet is widely laughed at in the West. This shows in clinical trials as its effectiveness was concluded in 47 trials in the East, yet only in 56% of 94 in the West.[21]

Funding bias has an impact on objective truth, meaning that depending who is funding scientific research, bias from the scientist is more likely. Future funding may be on the line so little tweaks may be done to the data/to the hypothesis to achieve results and a truth that is for the benefit of the funding body. E.g. while 93% of non-industry funded research showed concern about BPA’s harm, all industry-funded research concluded BPA causes no harm.[22]

The lack of independency effects truth, for example members of regulatory bodies often have consultancy/ownership/funding interests to do with the same pharmaceutical companies that are going to them for approval. [23]

Hype can also distort truth in science. How information is communicated to the public or scientific peers is a big factor in how much attention the research will receive, so exaggerating and dramatising is common meaning truth is falsified while still being promoted as truth.[24]

Participatory Action Research and Truth Claims

edit

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach to research which seeks to understand the world with the aim of bringing about change [25]. It is interdisciplinary, utilised in areas such as Sociology, Public Health, Community Psychology and Development, and determines to be ‘collective, self-reflective and empowering’[26][27].

It has been claimed that emancipatory research strategies, of which PAR is an example, lead to errors which undermine validity claims, and thus distort objective truths[28]. However, such limitations are said to be accounted for by practitioners of PAR, since it is recognised that a flexible application of methods can be taken in order to determine ‘probable truths’ which serve pragmatic functions[29]. Many factors influence the content and truthfulness of testimonies, including selectivity and memory bias, but also external constraints, cultural meanings, and the issue of translation. This is especially important when dealing with cultures which diverge significantly from that of the researchers involved. PAR approaches, such as that of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) are claimed to be particularly helpful in these contexts [30] [31].

In areas of conflict resolution, it is seen as important to understand that social groups construct their own historical narratives, and thus attempt to identify where power dynamics distort perspectives by the construction of hegemonic narratives of ‘truth’ by those who occupy powerful positions within a particular context[32]. Since emancipatory strategies seek to overcome such traps by being inclusive of marginalised voices, attempts to determine what can be reliably confirmed as true requires the utilisation of multiple methods of data collection which are subject to critical analysis and review. PAR thus utilises a flexible combination of methods such as semi-structured interviews, focus groups and interpretive discussions to enable access to various perspectives and experiences -including accounts which are conflicting- which are then subject to examination by cross-referencing with other sources, including archival and historical materials, and patterns of experience are also pursued to find areas of commonality which confer validity[33]. Processes of triangulation are thus seen as useful for overcoming weaknesses. and are in line with the coherence theory of truth, which, in addition to the requirement of being logically consistent, necessitates that discoveries from investigations must be able support each other by being synthesised within a whole system of knowledge [34].

Within disciplines of development and conflict resolution, pragmatic theories of truth – which define truth in terms of utility[35] - are also evident. Therefore, when dealing with partial truths, it is recognised that terminology matters. Referring to first-person accounts as ‘story-telling’ as opposed to ‘truth-telling’ diminishes the validity of experience [36]. An understanding of truth as positional and multi-dimensional thus serves psychological and socially validating purposes, such as the reassertion of agency where agency has been undermined or diminished. An interpretive paradigm is useful in this sense, being based on principles of discovering in what sense autobiographical narratives can be described as true, and for what purpose [37].

Truth In Art

edit

Unlike disciplines such as mathematics and the sciences where it is relatively easier to prove a belief is either true or false, things get trickier when we deal with the discipline of art. In mathematics, we can determine the truth via a priori justification (logic and deductive reasoning) to obtain an objective truth.[38] In science, we have hypotheses and through the rigorous process of the scientific method, we can determine with certainty if the hypothesis is true or false and hence obtain the truth[39].

However, in art, there is no method to obtain an objective artistic truth. For example, we have no way to determine the truth on whether something is art or non-art, and we have no way to determine the truth on whether something is good art vs bad art. This is due to the nature of knowledge in art as it is an inherently subjective discipline. Despite these, there are some ways to attain some level of truth in art.

One of the main ways we find “truth” in art is via testimony from art critics. Art critics are seen as a reliable judgement of taste and hence their opinions dictate which works of art are good or bad. However, very often, there is no consensus within art critics. Furthermore, art criticism is subjective and as Kant and Hume says, is merely “a matter of taste”.[40] Tastes change over time, which explains why some artists only became recognized long after their time.[41]

It may be easier to objectively judge art within artistic movements or within a school of thought. For example, when comparing two realist paintings, it is possible to judge which painting is “better” by judging which painting is more realistic and by analyzing the form of the paintings. However, it becomes impossible when judging paintings across different artistic movements or across different schools of thought (e.g. comparing abstract expressionist art with realist art).

At the end of the day, we have to be satisfied that we can never attain truth in art. After all, art is meant to be subjective.

Truth in Physics

edit

Truth in Physics does not refer to "true" judgements in the everyday sense of the world, it has a much more strong meaning referring to objective judgements. Physics appears to be one of the only discipline where truth seems to be unambiguous. We all share the same physical reality and it is applicable everywhere in life. Physics is a discipline that brings rational explanations for every phenomenon that occur in life. This discipline sets the background in which we resolve big issues and questions of social dilemmas but doesn't resolve them. To find the truth in Physics we follow a specific process. We start by " the process of verification", this process consists on accepting judgements into science. In physics we consider that no objective proposition is set as as axiom without proof, every proposition claimed as true should be provable. Starting judgements in Physics doesn't exist and there is no exception even for elementary judgements.

This process of verification of those judgements consists of the possibility of forming a "verification-chain' for each proposition that we try to prove. The possibility to do that constitutes the first criterion of assertion, we call it the "criterion of consistency". We then go through the "universal agreement" that refers to few laws including the domain of judgements to which it is applicable and the number of person's opinion that are relevant on the subject.

Finally to get the truth in Physics, we oppose the truth defined as the operational truth to the notion of truth defined by uncontrollable properties. In science only the operational truth is relevant to explain or understand phenomena.

However, even if Physics is one of the only discipline where truth is almost the most objective, absolute truth of a judgement doesn't exist and this notion is fictional and idealized. Indeed truth in this discipline could still be vague even in the best-established theories. As a relevant example the quantum mechanic has proved its worth but yet its interpretation remains incrustable.

The Journey Toward Scientific Truth

edit

Science would appear to be one of the most objective and accurate arbiters of truth. The scientific method, coupled with Karl Popper’s famous conception of a scientific claim to be one that is falsifiable, creates an intuitive and sensible system to determine objective truth. Yet even if we accept this in theory, the practice of science is still bound to human error and bias, flying in the face of claims of objective truth.

A key example is the currently ongoing replication crisis. Replication is a key pillar in the scientific method, but it has been found that many scientific studies cannot be replicated, especially in medicine and the social sciences. Two key papers that precipitated this crisis found that researchers from two biotech companies attempting to replicate landmark findings in preclinical research succeeded in only less than 20% of cases.[42][43] The effects of this crisis extend beyond just the studies in question; science is a collaborative process and many other studies have been built upon non-replicable results.

This crisis, to be sure, could indicate poor data analysis from scientists. Studies done by Daryl Bem, a respected psychologist, showed that people can predict the future through some sort of psychic ability.[44] While his findings were provocative, his methodology and statistical data analysis were sound and standard in the field of psychology. Many felt that for Bem to use methods standard in psychology to produce an absurd result, something was likely wrong with the methods, casting doubt on the entire field of psychology.[45] From an alternative viewpoint, this could be seen as subverting the scientific method to force-fit preconceived opinions on psychic abilities. Some subsequent attempts to replicate his findings have succeeded and some have failed;[46] the debate over these findings, extending to the entire field of psychology, is clearly not over.

Perhaps a more insidious problem would be if the replication crisis cannot be pinned on poor data analysis that can be addressed with better use of statistics, but is an inherent flaw in the practice of science today – as the publication bias would suggest.

The publication bias occurs when the results of a study affects its chances of being published and hence contributing to the sum of public scientific knowledge.[47] It is estimated that around 50% of studies go unpublished;[47] a disproportionate number of these show negative results.[48] In other words, the results of these studies do not support any relation between the studied variables. Through sheer probability, the results of a study could suggest a relation where there is none. This is not an issue in itself – the issue arises when this study is the only one to be published, while other studies refuting its findings remain unseen.

What then does this mean for the validity of science as a means of reaching objective truth? Evidently, science has not yet delivered a clear-cut objective truth in many areas. It would likely do us better to understand science not as a final arbiter of objective truth, but as a continual process. As more and more scientific studies are conducted, we can move further toward objective truth – perhaps never quite meeting it, but constantly progressing.

Truth in Media

edit

Truth is defined as the real facts about a situation. However, there are actually two visions of truth in our society: subjective and objective ones. Objective truths are truths that are undeniable, proved by scientific methods. For example, the fact that the Earth is round is a truth: we could conduct a list of experiences that will prove it over and over again. On the other hand, Subjective truths are those which are based off of a person’s perspective, feelings or opinion. [49] For example, “This girl is pretty” is a subjective truth. The media is really powerful in our modern society: with the news, documentaries, social medias, books, interviews, etc., it can influence us in believing some facts that aren’t objectively true. Media has a big power of giving information to people, information that they guarantee is true, but their notion of truth is sometimes subjective.

There are three main theories of thinking about truth: Correspondence theory of truth, Phenomenological theory of truth and Social Constructionist theory of truth.[50] Phenomenological theory of truth depends is the closest to subjective truth: it is actually based on individual perceptions and thoughts. This can be seen in movies or series like The Walking Dead where we can analyse and see the reaction of the humans facing a particular situation that is unlikely to but can happen. Correspondence theory of truth aims to produce knowledge which reflects the realities that exist. For example, in the media, this can be documentaries. Finally, social constructionism assumes the truths as social, truths which were constructed through societies and their evolutions over time. For example, in the media, we could think of how the information is given, from magazines to cellphones. As we can see, these theories allow us to understand that there isn’t one truth, but a lot of different, and that is why there are so many conflicts.

False information and conflicts in media could be triggered by biases, which can be voluntary or not. Biases can cause political conflicts, false-advertising and perpetuating stereotypes or amalgames. The Media is what the people tend to trust: they have enormous teams of journalists and their documents seem official and trustful. But some media can use their influence in order to take the people further away from the truth and see the world in a way that may not be in our best interest but in their best interest. For example, some medias cut documentary videos and don’t show everything in order for the people watching them to see only the good/bad parts of the video (depends if the video is to promote/condemn). In fact, since media and the news were invented, it was always a mean to control the people by controlling the common truth: people need to have a critic sense and always verify the sources for the world to get smarter and to avoid conspiracy theories.

Truth in statistics

edit

Statistics is highly valued in various disciplines. For example, statistical significance is the first publication requirement in many social sciences. Medical disciplines select treatments according to the best scientific evidence to date, which is often statistically-based evidence.[51].

Some say "numbers do not lie", but there is also a famous quote: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"[52].Pure numbers certainly cannot lie, but the source of the numbers, the selection of the numbers, the methodologies and the presentation of the numbers are subjective. For example, a vast majority of the clinical research on medications is conducted or funded by pharmaceutical companies, which encounter a conflict of interest between producing good scientific statistics and the statistics that will create a niche market for themselves.[53]. It is therefore needed to assess and interpret the strength of statistical evidence through essential quantities: the measure of the strength of the evidence, the probability that a specific study will generate a misleading evidence and finally the probability that observed evidence is misleading.

Therefore, while statistics can potentially reflect and reveal truths, it is inevitably subjective to some extent, and is frequently used to mislead the readers. Here are some of the criteria to help examine the truth in statistics:

1. Whether the differences in percentage findings are large enough to be meaningful. [54].

2. Whether the sample sizes are big and representative enough. [55].

3. Whether the survey design is clear and objective. To be more precise, the questions in the survey should not be ambiguous, leading or confusing.[56].

4. The scale of the graph. The same data can be presented to look different with changing of the scale of the graphs. [57].

Notes

edit

Paul F. Velleman (2008) Truth, Damn Truth, and Statistics, Journal of Statistics Education, 16:2, DOI: 10.1080/10691898.2008.11889565 [58] [59]

  1. ↑ Paul Ernest (6 September 1996). Is Mathematics Discovered or Invented? Retrieved 29 October 2020 from http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/e/pome/pome12/article2.htm
  2. ↑ Hilary Putnam (1975). Historia Mathematica 2: What is Mathematical Truth? pp. 529-533. Retrieved 29 October 2020 from What_is_Truth_in_Mathematics?
  3. ↑ A. D. Irvine, H. Deutsch (1995). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Russell's Paradox. Retrieved 29 October 2020 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/#:~:text=Also%20known%20as%20the%20Russell,Hence%20the%20paradox.
  4. ↑ Panu Raatikainen (2013) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. Section 5. Retrieved 29 October 2020 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
  5. ↑ Hilary Putnam (1975). Historia Mathematica 2: What is Mathematical Truth? p. 529. Retrieved 29 October 2020 from What_is_Truth_in_Mathematics?
  6. ↑ crashcourse. [Internet]. YouTube. YouTube; 2016 [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I
  7. ↑ LaFollette H, Persson I, Quinn PL. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory [Internet]. 2nd ed. Wiley Online Library. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell; 2013 [cited 2020Oct28]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00006.x?saml_referrer Chapter 4, p. 81
  8. ↑ Sullivan SO, Pecorino PA. I. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY and Criticisms of it [Internet]. Divine Command Theory. 2002 [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_7_deontological_theories_natural_law/divine_command_theory.htm
  9. ↑ Austin MW. Divine Command Theory [Internet]. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
  10. ↑ Kant I, Ellington JW. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals [Internet]. Internet Archive. [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: https://archive.org/details/groundingformet000kant p. 33
  11. ↑ Kant's Ethics [Internet]. A-Level Philosophy. [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk/handouts_ethics/KantsEthics.pdf
  12. ↑ Baghramian M, Carter JA. Relativism [Internet]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; 2020 [cited 2020Oct29]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
  13. ↑ Arendt, H., 1967. Truth And Politics. [online] The New Yorker. Available at: <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/02/25/truth-and-politics> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
  14. ↑ Bufacchi, V., 2020. What's The Difference Between Lies And Post-Truth In Politics? A Philosopher Explains. [online] The Conversation. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-lies-and-post-truth-in-politics-a-philosopher-explains-130442> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
  15. ↑ Davies, W., 2020. Why Can’T We Agree On What’S True Any More?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/19/why-cant-we-agree-on-whats-true-anymore> [Accessed 27 October 2020].
  16. ↑ Burkeman, O., 2020. How The News Took Over Reality. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/03/how-the-news-took-over-reality> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
  17. ↑ Lehrer J. The Truth Wears Off [Internet]. 6 December 2010. [Accessed 31st October]; Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off.
  18. ↑ Lehrer J. The Truth Wears Off [Internet]. 6 December 2010. [Accessed 31st October]; Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off.
  19. ↑ Book J. Why So Much Science is Wrong, False, Puffed, or Misleading [Internet]. 24 September 2020. [Accessed 31st October]; Available at: https://www.aier.org/article/why-so-m````uch-science-is-wrong-false-puffed-or-misleading/`.
  20. ↑ fs. Confirmation Bias and the Power of Disconfirming Evidence [Internet]. [Accessed 31st October]; Available at: https://fs.blog/2017/05/confirmation-bias/.
  21. ↑ Lehrer J. The Truth Wears Off [Internet]. 6 December 2010. [Accessed 31st October]; Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off.
  22. ↑ Gray G. Trust in research – the ethics of knowledge production [Presentation]. TEDxVictoria. December 22 2014.
  23. ↑ Gray G. Trust in research – the ethics of knowledge production [Presentation]. TEDxVictoria. December 22 2014.
  24. ↑ Weingart P. Is There a Hype Problem in Science? If So, How Is It Addressed?. In: Jamieson K H. and Kahan D M. and Scheufele D A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1-13.
  25. ↑ "Participatory Action Research: Key Terms". Participatory Methods. Institute of Development Studies. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  26. ↑ Baum, F., MacDougall, C., and Smith, D. (2006). "Participatory Action Research". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 60 (10): 854–857.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ Hall, B. L. (1992). ""Form Margins to Center? The Development and Purpose of Participatory Research"". The American Sociologist. 23 (4): 15–28.
  28. ↑ Lundy, P. and Mcgovern, M. (2006). "Participation,Truth and Partiality: Participatory Action Research, Community-based Truth-telling and Post-conflict Transition in Northern Ireland". Sociology. 40 (1): 71–88.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ↑ Lundy, P. and Mcgovern, M. (2006). "Participation,Truth and Partiality: Participatory Action Research, Community-based Truth-telling and Post-conflict Transition in Northern Ireland". Sociology. 40 (1): 71–88.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ↑ Lundy, P. and Mcgovern, M. (2006). "Participation,Truth and Partiality: Participatory Action Research, Community-based Truth-telling and Post-conflict Transition in Northern Ireland". Sociology. 40 (1): 71–88.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ↑ Vethiuzan, A. G. (2014). "On truth-telling and storytelling: Truth-seeking during research involving communities with an oral culture and a history of violent conflict". The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in South Africa. 10 (4): 19–35.
  32. ↑ Vethiuzan, A. G. (2014). "On truth-telling and storytelling: Truth-seeking during research involving communities with an oral culture and a history of violent conflict". The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in South Africa. 10 (4): 19–35.
  33. ↑ Vethiuzan, A. G. (2014). "On truth-telling and storytelling: Truth-seeking during research involving communities with an oral culture and a history of violent conflict". The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in South Africa. 10 (4): 19–35.
  34. ↑ Vethiuzan, A. G. (2014). "On truth-telling and storytelling: Truth-seeking during research involving communities with an oral culture and a history of violent conflict". The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in South Africa. 10 (4): 19–35.
  35. ↑ Capps, John. "The Pragmatic Theory of Truth". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 November 2020.
  36. ↑ Vethiuzan, A. G. (2014). "On truth-telling and storytelling: Truth-seeking during research involving communities with an oral culture and a history of violent conflict". The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in South Africa. 10 (4): 19–35.
  37. ↑ Blumer, K (2011). "Truth, Value and Memory in Life Stories". Documents of Life. 2: 233–254.
  38. ↑ 1. Russell B. A Priori Justification and Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2020 [cited 2 November 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#WhatSortPropPrioJustKnowAllOnlyModaProp
  39. ↑ 2. Anderson H, Hepburn B. Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2015 [cited 2 November 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
  40. ↑ 3. Lyas C. Art Criticism. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2 November 2020];. Available from: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/art-criticism/v-1
  41. ↑ 4. Ackerman J. Art History and the Problems of Criticism. Daedalus [Internet]. 1960 [cited 2 November 2020];89(1):253–263. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026565
  42. ↑ Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research. Nature, 483(7391), 531-533. doi:10.1038/483531a
  43. ↑ Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe It or Not: How Much Can We Rely on Published Data on Potential Drug Targets?. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712-712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1
  44. ↑ Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. doi:10.1037/a0021524
  45. ↑ Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of Science and the Replicability Crisis. Philosophy Compass, 14(11). doi:10.1111/phc3.12633
  46. ↑ Bem, D.J., Tressoldi, P. E., Rabeyron, T., & Duggan, M. (2016). Feeling the Future: A Meta-analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events. F1000Research, 4, 1188. doi:10.12688/f1000research.7177.2
  47. ↑ a b Song, F., Hooper, L., & Loke, Y. (2013). Publication Bias: What Is It? How Do We Measure It? How Do We Avoid It?. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials, 71. doi:10.2147/oajct.s34419
  48. ↑ Dirnagl, U., & Lauritzen, M. (2010). Fighting Publication Bias: Introducing the Negative Results Section. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 30(7), 1263–1264. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.51
  49. ↑ http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4316
  50. ↑ Nörreklit L., 2006. The Construction Of Truth Truth As Integration And Learning - A Contribution To Pragmatic Constructivism. 6th ed. [ebook] Danemark: Aalborg University. Available at: <https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/6042673/The_construction_of_truth>.
  51. ↑ Paul F. Velleman (2008) Truth, Damn Truth, and Statistics, Journal of Statistics Education, 16:2, DOI: 10.1080/10691898.2008.11889565
  52. ↑ Paul F. Velleman (2008) Truth, Damn Truth, and Statistics, Journal of Statistics Education, 16:2, DOI: 10.1080/10691898.2008.11889565.
  53. ↑ Lexchin J. (2012) Sponsorship bias in clinical research, Int J Risk Saf Med., 24(4):233-42. doi: 10.3233/JRS-2012-0574. PMID: 23135338.
  54. ↑ Nsfconsulting 5 problems with statistics. Available at: http://nsfconsulting.com.au/market-research-statistics-program-evaluation/ (Accessed: 10 November 2020).
  55. ↑ Nsfconsulting 5 problems with statistics. Available at: http://nsfconsulting.com.au/market-research-statistics-program-evaluation/ (Accessed: 10 November 2020).
  56. ↑ Nsfconsulting 5 problems with statistics. Available at: http://nsfconsulting.com.au/market-research-statistics-program-evaluation/ (Accessed: 10 November 2020).
  57. ↑ Nsfconsulting 5 problems with statistics. Available at: http://nsfconsulting.com.au/market-research-statistics-program-evaluation/ (Accessed: 10 November 2020).
  58. ↑ The search for Truth in Physics by George Musser available from : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-search-for-truth-in-physics/ Retrieved September 2019.
  59. ↑ The concept of Truth in Physics by Aleksander Wundheiler and Edward Poznański available online from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52869-4_15 retrieved July 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/Seminar_1/Truth&oldid=3767716"