Truth in terms of fit

It used to be fashionable to talk about truth as something almost wholly contingent upon the experience of the subjective self. “Objective truth” was anathema. Truth was pliable, malleable, and subject to perspective. Just the possibility of being able to “create our own truth” was stimulating! But, for better or for worse, those happy days are gone. What was once fashionable and stimulating has become grotesque, frightening, and all too real. People who have power are creating their own truth. Now, we have “alternative facts” and “fake news.” Consequently, what used to be stylish and smart is now out. The conversation is no longer about how wonderful it is that we are free to create our own truth. So, what now? How shall we think and talk about truth, now?

One way we used to think about truth, a way often derided as antiquated, is in terms of accurate representation. A statement, for instance, is true if it accurately represents the world. Or, to say the same thing, the truth accurately represents the way things *in fact* are. If I say, “It’s raining outside” and it is *in fact* raining outside then I have said something true. And, if you believe my true statement about the current state of precipitation then what you believe is also true. In this sense, truth is what connects our thoughts (beliefs and statements, at least) with the world.

More recently, this way of thinking about truth has been rejected. The complaint has been that we just can’t know all that. We can’t know if our beliefs or statements accurately represent the way things *in fact* are. I can’t step outside my own experience in order to evaluate the representational veracity of what I believe to be true. And, if I can’t do that, then whatever way the world may be in and of itself, the truth about the world is outside my ability to know in any robust sense. Sure, experience seems to impinge upon me, but I can’t get outside that experience to know what impinges upon me in some objective way, so…

So then, what is truth? Some have argued, by varying degree, that truth is solely concerned with our subjective experience. Just forget about knowing the way the world might be. Since we have no guarantee that we can know the way things are, truth is simply how things seem to me, or how they seem to you. The hope of knowing in an objective way is an illusion. I can only experience the world as I do, but I can’t experience it as you do. In this sense, we are insulated from censure. By that we mean, "Who are you to tell me I’m wrong?!"

In its most extreme sense (and to some the most exciting one) truth is something we create. I create truth for me, and you for you. It doesn’t even matter that we can’t know the way the world is, because we can create what it is for ourselves. There is my truth, and then there is your truth, and then there is the truth of that person over there, and so on. And sometimes, we do it together. If we so happen to want some of the same things, then truth is whatever we agree on. Truth is malleable. But, this malleability is not simply the result of changing circumstances or experience. Truth is a creation of the subjective self. And, sometimes, truth is a creation of the intersubjective agreement between selves.

Let me just say up front, I get all that. I agree that one’s perception of the truth can and does vary due to experience, social location, changing circumstances, etc. It just seems to me that the arguments for rejecting the idea of truth as accurate representation make more sense if we’re talking about philosophy, ethics, and religion than if we’re talking about the sciences. There are a lot of areas where we can be wrong in what we claim to know. I consider epistemic (or doxastic) humility to be a prime virtue. How I wish that the whole world would nurture such a virtue. But, when it comes to that cold, fact-like science stuff we realize something is connecting between what we think about the world and the way the world works. That seems pretty close to having some understanding (some representation) of the way the world is. Even so, if we still insist on rejecting accurate representation then we can ease our misgivings with talk of “high probability.” And why not, isn’t all science just math anyway?

At any rate, I agree that it seems unreasonable to assume what we seek to know. It doesn’t seem that we should assume the world is a certain way when, in truth, we can’t be certain that it is. But, of course, that works both ways. I can’t assume the world isn’t a certain way when I can’t know for certain that it isn’t *in fact* just that way. The premise for rejecting accurate representation is itself based on something that we just can’t know. But again, what argument is beyond critique, right? Maybe the truth is, outside of some fact-like science stuff, a wholly subjective/intersubjective affair.

Let me stop here and mention one important benefit of the subjective/intersubjective notion of truth. If truth as accurate representation is rejected and truth is essentially about subjective experience then all truth is equal. This is an important point. If we both are equal in that neither of us have access to the way things are, then my assessment of things and your assessment of things are both equally veridical. How can they both not be? Who is the arbitrator of truth here anyway?

And there is a moral take away from this: I shouldn’t mistreat or judge you when you don’t see the world as I do, because neither one of us “have the truth.” That is, neither one of us have access to an accurate representation. The benefit here is that the subjective/intersubjective notion of truth creates room for disagreement based on both us knowing our mutual ignorance. If we both know we can both be wrong then there is no reason to ostracize, judge, and exclude based on disagreements concerning truth. To be honest, I get that too. In fact, I have been fond of talking about this benefit. That’s not to say I believe we *in fact* create truth. Hardly. What I do think is that we don’t have as much access as we would like to and; therefore, humility is needed. I also think there is great benefit in a common recognition of our mutual ignorance. But…

That kind of talk has gone out of style, and quickly. It used to be common to hear talk about the subjective nature and intersubjective nature of truth. That has all changed. Those who have promoted a subjective/intersubjective notion of truth have become silent. And maybe it helps to point out that the silence is not some come-lately adherence to Wittgenstein’s imperative. On the contrary, things in the world have changed. Something has happened to “truth” that we neither expected nor like and we have a pretty good representation it.  

Look folks, we live in a world with “alternative facts.” One is tempted to say the chickens have come home to roost. But, it so pitiable and undeniable that we must simply face it: there is truth out there beyond our subjective experience and we need to talk about it. People are creating their own truth and it clearly does not represent the way things are. The very natural urge to connect our thoughts with the way things are in the world has become an irresistible urge. Things are not right, things are not being represented accurately and we know it. The pendulum has swung, and it has swung in a way surprising to even the most ardent rejecter of accurate representation. I am sure historians will one day look back (assuming someone is there to look back) and point to this as a time of significant shift when it comes to how we think and talk about truth.

The rejection of truth as something subjective/intersubjective is already happening. But, no one is really talking about it. The facts have changed the perception, but no one wants to go back to that antiquated way of talking about accurate representation. So, what do we do? How do we talk about truth now?

Another option, still available to us, is the pragmatic one. It’s unfortunate that a pragmatic understanding of truth is usually summed up in the too-often used phrase “whatever works.” That seems a bit of a caricature to me. So, let me make an offering. Another way to think about truth in pragmatic terms is to think of truth in terms of fit. Truth is that which is fitting to the circumstances. If I am framing a wood-frame house I want my measurements and cuts to be “true.” I want the joints to fit, so that the house will be sturdy. Thinking of truth in terms of fit has some of the benefits we wanted when thinking in terms of accurate representation.

We want our statements to fit the way the world is. So, to the point: we’re just going to go ahead and assume that the world is *in fact* some way even if we can’t know for sure what that way is. We will intentionally leave the skeptical question to speculation and seek to represent the world as best we can. We want our statements to represent how things are and do so in an accurate way. We want this not because we think we have some kind of special access, but because it is fitting, it is appropriate. It is how the world works. If our beliefs and statements fit the world, then things work.  

If we misjudge or misrepresent how things are, it can have consequences that we may or may not want. So, we have to try for fit. We already know this. There is a way of living together that is fitting. We know this. It includes speaking to each other in a way that, as best we can, represents what is the case. And so, we intend that our statements should represent the way the world is. Notice, the emphasis is on intention of will and not merely perception of facts. Maybe my representation is wrong, and it is good to be aware of the possibility, but an accurate representation is still what I’m seeking to obtain and share. If we succeed it will show. And, if we don’t that will show, too.   

Thinking about truth in terms of fit gives truth a moral quality. This is what is missing from understanding truth as accurate representation. When it comes to truth, we are not simply interested in information. Truth is more than mere statements that represent; although, it certainly includes them. If my statement misrepresents the way the world is then it is not fitting, i.e. it is a lie. But, what is fitting also includes the way I live in relation to the world and in relation to others, not just how I think or speak about these things. Thinking of truth in terms of fit brings a quality of wisdom into a situation that is too often talked about only in terms of knowledge.

And that’s what we want to retain from the previous rejection of accurate representation. We want to retain the goal of people living together, in peace, while still being able to disagree. What is true and fitting pertains to how I live in relation to others as well as to the information I have and share. It is fitting to know I can be wrong, so it is fitting to have some humility. But, it is also fitting to seek, as far as my ability allows, to represent the way the world is. I don’t want to be too dramatic here, but life depends on fit.

So, what is fitting? It is living in relation to the world and to each other in such a way that life flourishes. The truth matters as concerns what is fitting to say and what is fitting to do. There is more that could be said here, but that is enough for now. What I am getting at is this: we need to start talking about the truth, again. Maybe we need to nurture a more pragmatic, fitting approach to living (not just thinking) the truth. And, maybe we should get right on that.