It seems that the word truth has lost its correct, original definition and is being used more and more to have opinions accepted or to influence the beliefs and actions of others. Those who claim their statements are the truth believe that if they state their unprovable assertions often enough others will believe it. Whether or not these people actually know their information is false does not matter. When anyone presents any claim to be truthful they have the responsibility of being able to provide factual evidence to prove their statements as the truth. Without proof who is to say what is the truth?.
Truth is an attribute of a fact or group of facts that can be proven by one or more established and generally accepted methods which have been defined and applied through the ages. These methods of proof are evident in their simplicity and authoritative in their observability. The are undeniable in their results and the majority of educated people are in unanimous agreement as to their properties and value. This agreement is evident in the laws and customs of the developed nations of the world in that they all have a commonality one to another.
These laws and customs require proof of the claimed facts by methods such as eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, physical evidence that is unique to the situation and identifiable in its nature, and the presumptive support of circumstantial evidence for the physical. Clothing, body fluids, hair, bone, fingerprints, DNA, and other, similar evidence of the facts are legal requirements that have been implemented by practically every government or judicial entity on Earth. They are universally accepted as valid methods of proving the truth of a matter.
There are procedures and activities which have been just as much rejected as the methods of proof have been embraced. Things considered useless as proof of truth, and even moreso, detrimental in the proving of facts include testimony by those with an interest or desire for a particular outcome (ulterior motive), testimony by those known to have previously offered false testimony (perjury), statements attesting to statements made by others (heresay), circumstances which are seen as irrelevant or not consistent with already proven facts (irrelevancy), most testimony of young children, speculation, and iteration of opinion except to that of one’s character (speculation). These are deemed inadmissable as proof of fact because their results are not consistent, often unidentifiable in their nature, and offer no undeniable verification of the truth of the facts presented. These rejected methods just don’t make anything plain or obvious, rather they tend to confuse and raise doubt. These rejected methods of proof are often the primary tools of defense counsels for just such reasons.
The methods and abilities that make reality discernable are the only methods that prove truth. No amount of insistence or perceived sincerity, no quantity of reiteration, and no amount of personal willpower proves thruth. Only indisputable, obviously recognizable evidence is proof of truth. Truth is not open to opinion or customizable per person, there is not my truth and your truth, there is only THE truth. Statements can either be proven impartially or must be considered less than true. There is no other possibilty. It either is or is not the truth, period.
A present day example of how the ability to prove truth has been abandoned is the ongoing fight by atheists, agnostics, and others to eliminate any and all forms of religious activity or observation from the public schools of our country. It is commonly accepted that prayer in school has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, is a violation of the seperation of church and state, and has been outlawed because it imposes the religious beliefs of some on those who wish to be free of religion. We have all heard news reports of the various court rulings implementing these regulations. That is the reality of our world, but it is not the truth. The truth, provable and without any question, is that the first ammendment to the constitution has never been repealed, it still says exactly what it has said for over two hundred years, and it is still the law in every state, county, school district, and courthouse in the USA. To prove that as the truth requires only a date in court and a judge implementing the law.
Would it be that all men able to speak were so zealous in their preparation of statements to be offered as true that they would gather and have ready the evidence proving so. But then what would become of politicians, greedy CEOs, and corrupt attorneys? Death by asphyxiation I fear, for not two consecutive breaths can be made by these without offering up the unprovable as truth.
In these fast times of jet travel and the internet where individuals can attain anonimity and, at once, worldwide access to listeners of all description, the thruth has especially become a vague concept, losing its most difinitive property, that being its provability. Today, general, non-specific statements on every imaginable topic are created in the tens of millions and published in every possible form with no regard or even thought of the provability thereof, and that by design. The philosophy which seems to have the most success at justifying this diatribe is expressed as, "You cannot deny what I say because you don’t know my situation and have no information about me or my statements. I have as much right to be believed as anyone does". This is a mindset that is as far from proving the truth as dirt is in its ability to sing songs.
When a thinking person reads a statement and recognizes that it is not completely accurate by any method of verification, or that it is absolutely false and provably so, and requests the person who made the statement to provide proof of the truthfulness of the statement, they are likely to receive a repitition of the same untrue statement, a word or two such as "what if", offered as argument of its possibility and, if you’re lucky, a challenge to prove their statement isn’t true. No offering of obvious evidence of physical reality, no undeniable realization of being, and no apology for the lack of such but, instead, a dogged insistence on its right to be believed as truth if not proven false.
When any statement is offered for consideration it falls upon the speaker to have the ability to prove what he has said and not on the audience to disprove it. Just imagine the world of science if researchers were to offer up cures for diseases that have not been proven effective and safe by clinical trials, and then sit back and await the results of its wide distribution and usage. We would not be at all shocked if the product was found to be not only ineffective but toxic as well. "Trash that one, let’s try the other concoction," would become the scientific method. Instead, clinical trials with control groups, conducted in blind manner are used to verify the claim that it cures the target ailment and does no harm in the process. Only after the trial ends and the evidence evaluated can certification be made as to its efficacy, not because the lab tech said so, but because the evidence was obvious and undeniable.
When I was growing up my dad taught me the ways of country folk. These people had a creed they followed in their dealings with others. Do no one any harm and none will come to you by them, do not bring suspicion upon the marital status of someone’s mother, do not attempt seduction of a wife not your own, and do not call anyone a liar without first hand knowledge and the proof, not only that he lied, but that he knew he was lying when he said it. If you violated that creed by accusing someone of lying you had best be prepared to prove the truth of your claim or suffer the deserved beat down. Today, however, the term liar is thrown about like rice on a bride, by people who have no personal relationship with the person they are accusing much less a first hand knowledge and proof of the lie. The people doing this accusing are, themselves, liars in every accepted definition of that term. They are without ethical knowledge or consciencious thought but are full of themselves and know of no one else’s rights as human but their own.
Oh, if only the wise and verbose Ben Franklin could see how well he predicted the decay of morality in a group of non-responsibilitists in a land of liberties such as ours. He knew that, given the freedom of thought and the liberty of action guaranteed by the Constitution, men of lesser character would take the measure and advantage of those whose ethics presided over their morality. In the perpetrator’s words, nice guys finish last.
I throw down a gauntlet and challenge every citizen of this free republic to treat others, even those you don’t know, as you would be treated. In other words, if you don’t want to be criticized for a lack of knowledge or making false accusations, don’t accuse someone of lying unless you can prove it, and do your research and have data proving your own claims of truth. Otherwise, be ready to be exposed as one who spreads non-factual, unprovable lies and falsehoods as it will surely come your way just as sure as you have caused it.
Glenn Flowers