“There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false”. Discuss this claim.
The essence of the Q: There are three key words - 'absolute', 'true' and 'false' - though the question focuses you on your ideas about 'truth' in general. When thinking further about the question, you must focus on examples of situations (or subjects) in which the distinction between truth and falsity matters... A common sense approach might be to argue that there are no absloute boundaries or criteria to decide what is true. TOK students like to take the relativist position: you are entitled to your opinion and I, mine; truth is simply a matter of opinion. Surely, however, there are some truths that cannot be denied whatever you or I feel about them. Can you think of any? Try to link your answer to the various WoKs - which of these help you most in deciding truth from falsity? Remember: while each WoK has its benefits, you have to balance this by exploring their flaws too. So ask yourself whether you belive in relativism or absloutism, or whether there is any middle ground. Make a list of other criteria that help to distinguish between the truth and falsity of knowledge claims: 'justification', 'verification', 'falsification', 'reliability', 'testability', 'experiment', 'agreement of the majority', 'evidence'... Find examples that show how these work. Take 'evidence', for instance: what counts as 'good' evidence? How do we gather reliable evidence? How far can evidence mislead our jusdgments?
Knowledge Issues: How do we decide upon the best criteria for deciding what is true? To what extent are any truths certain? In what way does our perception of what is true change over time? How far are the grounds for distinguishing true knowledge claims from false ones fixed? Are there any absolute truths? Is the problem relativism a problem at all and if so, to what extent is it insurmountable?
Approaches: If you look at another post, ToK Prescribed Titles (2010): Question 1, you get another angle on this question. In a comment to this post, a reader suggested that we need three criteria to distinguish between knowledge claims that are true or false:
1. Facticity : how does a knowledge claim relate to reality — in what way, to what extent...?
2. Reliability : how does a knowledge claim show self-consistency and how consistently does it respond to testing and/or observation?
3. Utility : can a knowledge claim be applied or used in concrete form? Do we have the proximate means of applying concrete tests of reliability and/or validity to it?
Do you agree with these or would you like to see another set of criteria? Try using various knowledge claims against these criteria as part of your planning. These knowledge claims can come from a range of AoKs:
Natural Sciences: "There is no life on Mars."
Human Sciences: "Anti-social behaviour is more a product of our genetic coding than our environment."
History: "The fall of the Roman Empire was caused largely by the Romans themselves."
The Arts: "van Gogh's Sunflowers is the most outstanding example of Impressionist art."
Ethics: "The Government should make ID cards compulsory."
Mathematics: "Parallel lines never meet."
Devise some of your own, but don't lost sight of the main Q and the knowledge issues you create.
