Are You sure you want to delete Member from list ?
To begin my case, I propose one simple question: What is truth?
You might be surprised to learn that there is no universally accepted definition of it. I could rest my case here, but for the fun of it, let’s dig deeper. The topic is far too vast for a single article, so we’ll take a bird’s-eye view before zooming in on one example.
Let’s first look at some well-known attempts to define truth:
This is the most commonly accepted understanding of truth. It suggests that a statement or belief is true if it corresponds with objective reality.
Example and criticism: “The sky is blue” seems to correspond with objective reality, but is it? To further test this, ask a color-blind person about the color of the sky.
This theory suggests that something is true if it is consistent with other things in a larger system of beliefs.
Example and criticism: Saying 2 = 2 works within mathematics, but does it always hold in real life? Suppose two people stand on one side of the road and two on the other. Are they truly “equal”?
Some may say yes, but let me ask you this question. How about their weight, height, mental capacity, etc? Now, in this case, if you were to equally distribute people in two groups, you may need a 5-figure IQ or even higher.
Pragmatist theory explains the truth based on the usefulness and practicality of something. Lol, is this definition not enough criticism of this theory, or should we look further into it?
Example and criticism: That definition alone almost critiques itself. It may serve well for personal political gains, but it fails to explain the truth in any objective sense.
Now that you have looked into some of the most famous theories that try or not try to explain the truth. Let’s now look into the truth science offers us today. I will be taking an example from psychology.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known study in psychology. This study was initially conducted in 1999 by the two psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger at Cornell University. The original paper of this study has been cited 42,000 times as of 2024. However, you must know that this study became a continuous debate over its truth in the mid-2010s.
Edward Nuhfer and his colleagues in 2016 identified an autocorrelation in their observed data. This means that this study is more vague than saying that Hitler killed six million Jews.
The Dunning-Kruger effect, a scientific 'truth' cited tens of thousands of times, serves as a powerful reminder: even the most widely accepted scientific knowledge may contain internal flaws, begging the question: How credible is the knowledge we build on such shifting foundations?
