Simple Sword of Truth
KENT BARKER
The Hastings Independent has published a couple of pieces recently that have come in for comment or criticism. On this Opinion page, Tin Foil Hatter, was about conspiracy theorists. On the Environment page last issue, Inconvenient Facts questioned whether climate change is entirely man-made.
We’ll come on to whether it is desirable, or even sensible, for HIP to be publishing controversial views later, but first let’s deal with the question or concept of ‘truth’.
One correspondent said, “I’m aware that this is the Opinion page, but you still have an obligation not to print lies”. Another accused the environment piece as being “riddled with half-truths”. But is there any such thing as an absolute truth? Writer Larry Walsh seeks to distinguish between facts and truths: “A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Facts go beyond theories. They’re proven through calculation and experience, or they’re something that definitively occurred in the past. Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief.”
But in science, at least, facts may be fluid. “Proof in science does not exist” says Physics Lecturer Michael Biercuc. “A basic principle in science is that any law, theory, or otherwise can be disproven if new facts or evidence are presented… So long as the evidence is consistent with the theory, we consider the theory validated. But it will never be proven.” US academic Zachary Elkins agrees: “Scientific facts may be changed or discarded if new evidence doesn’t support them.”
But why rely on slightly random academics or writers when we have artificial intelligence available. Ask ChatGBT: “Is it possible to prove anything?” and you elicit the response: “It is not possible to prove anything with absolute certainty as all knowledge is subject to revision or doubt … In scientific enquiry, for example, theories and hypotheses are considered provisionally true until new evidence disproves them.”
Even in law, it is accepted that there are no immutable facts. In a UK criminal court, guilt has to be established ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. And even ‘proof’ of guilt such as DNA or fingerprint evidence can be shown to be erroneous – Andrew Malkinson was cleared by the appeal court last month after 17 years in prison for a rape in 2003. Fresh DNA had linked another man to the crime. And there have been many other similar miscarriages of justice.
So there is no absolute truth in either science or law, only individual belief in the preponderance of evidence. But as we know evidence can be, and frankly often is, distorted. We rely on peer reviews to authenticate scientific theories or hypotheses. But it’s known this is often corrupt. People have reviewed their own research under fake names. Others have been paid to come up with a certain stance in their review. There are ‘predatory’ journals who, for a fee, will accept any article submitted. So even ‘weight of evidence’ on any given topic might be misleading.
Then there is the nature of lies or half truths themselves. A simple definition of a lie is that it is something untrue, said or written in order to deceive. But isn’t that overly simplistic? A child might lie because they believe something, whether or not it is actually true. We even legitimise and teach them to do this by lying about Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. And an adult might well genuinely believe something and propagate a view without in any way intending to deceive. Who hasn’t mustered ‘evidence’ to support their viewpoint in a heated conversation or argument? Perhaps erroneously, rather than mendaciously.
There seems to many, particularly the older generation, to be a real danger in overt certainty. Unquestioning belief is what leads to people being ‘no platformed’ and to cancel culture. You may have your own theories about who killed JFK, or whether 9/11 was a CIA plot or, indeed, whether climate change is man-made, but you are highly unlikely to be able to absolutely prove them one way or the other. You may cite a preponderance of evidence to support your view, but even here you should be careful. Vested interests, international corporations, big money and revolving doors may have distorted that evidence.
Even Albert Einstein said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
So should there be ‘no go’ areas for discussion within the pages of HIP? Among the paper’s stated values as a community publication are: “The newspaper recognises that there will be a wide range of views within the community, and it seeks to cover a broad spectrum of those views.” HIP also supports the “right to the freedom of expression.” (Those values will always be mediated by the obligation to refuse material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.)
Finally, the Hastings Independent is run collectively and does not have one single editorial position. So this article is not the ‘view’ of the newspaper, but the author’s alone.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Bloody well said Kent Barker!