Questions 1: do I believe truth is discovered or made?
Possible viewpoints:
- 'relative' truth (i.e. as it happens to be at a given moment based on a set of evidence/information) is decided or discovered by a process or argument and reasoning e.g. an academic paper / court of law. BUT this doesn't make it universal/absolute truth because it is based on the wisdom of people with a range of interesting and subjective outlooks.
- is that 'discovering' truth or 'making' truth based on the perspectives of the process and participants?
- does 'truth as a discovery' only happen after we filter the cultural, social, historical etc. bias out?
- Any perception that involves opinions/feelings/ideas or simply convincing people one way over another probably involves viewing truth through some form of 'filter', i.e. cultural, social, historical. Ergo a perception of truth might look highly misguided to someone who does not see life through the same filters.
- Truth-making is related to knowing, experience, context, association, power, and choice. For example, the connections we choose among findings, our choice of relations with actors (researchers, subjects, policies), contribute to (or construct) a truth, which can be socially accepted (or not) within a community(s).
- The 'truth' can change based on new knowledge, therefore there are no absolute truths - truth is discovered. OR is 'truth' a static value and instead it is that our knowledge, understanding or perception of it that changes?
- e.g. everyone believes the 'truth' that a plant is green. However, new discoveries reveal that in fact the green is a result of the plant reflecting particular colours and that the structure of the molecule causes the pigmentation. These physical factors have always been there (i.e. constant), it's just that we didn't know. Our discoveries have improved our understanding.
- not being able to discover the absolute truth doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
- most of the time truth is made, however a quasi-absolute truth ('real' reality) may be discovered once we filter out the how and why of the “the meaning-making mechanisms of the social, mental and linguistic worlds that individuals inhabit”.
- ‘truth, and any agreement regarding what is valid knowledge – arises from the relationship between members of some stake-holding community’. This reinforces the impact of communities, cultures and political systems in their subjective construction and understanding of what is ‘real’ and what is ‘valid truth’ and the critical role of language and discourse in shaping and negotiating these views (and beliefs?). Is this temporal view of a subjective and dynamic truth therefore created, reinforced and legitimised by those who construct it?
- At what point does a ‘notion/idea/concept/ belief’ become truth’? At what point does the ‘communal test of validity through the argumentation of the participants in a discourse’ decide that something is ‘true’ or is ‘truth’ only ‘true’ to those who believe it to be so?
- Accepting that validity does not constitute a single truth, but can only provide a “thoroughly partial understanding” of a topic is likely to be an uncomfortable choice for many.
Question 2: as a researcher am I part of the action or resolutely outside looking in?
Possible viewpoints:- the very choice to research a subject and the choice of instruments -- not to mention the very design of the instruments themselves -- are embedded with culture, history, and power. This would suggest to me that the researcher is indirectly (involuntarily?) part of the action.
- because history, politics, power, and social references are embedded in a paradigm, researchers are contributing to a wider context (our meaning and knowledge of something) through the action of their research -- which is often a reaffirmation, causation and/or consequence of what is embedded in the paradigm.
My thoughts:
- All truth is subjective. Even physical laws are subject to doubt arising from what we don't yet know.
No comments:
Post a Comment