True And False Essay, Research Paper

True and False seem to be such clear and simple footings, antonyms and reciprocally sole. In world, nevertheless we may populate, in much or even most of our cognition the fuzzed country in between the two. Discourse the troubles of efforts to pull a clear line between the two classs in at least two countries of cognition.

The inquiry of the definition of true and false has for centuries of western civilisation baffled the greatest of philosophers. The inquiry being non merely merely the definition of True and false, but instead where one can pull the line which delineates/segregates the two. In order to generalize an reply for this inquiry an probe into at least two countries of cognition must be conducted for contrasting intents. For this peculiar try these countries are Mathematics and Psychology. The difference in relation to the above inquiry between the two countries of cognition is that they are about exact antonyms. There exists an intrinsic truth to proper mathematics ( proper mathematics illustration 7+5=12 ) because it is based upon and interconnected with Kant? s man-made judgements and a priori cognition, whilst Psychology claims its base with a posteriori cognition and analytic judgements. In add-on Plato contends in direct contrast to Protagoras that truth International Relations and Security Network? t relation and is nonsubjective and absolute. Hence proper mathematics with its footing in a priori cognition ( universally and needfully True ) is the kernel of & # 8220 ; unfuzziness, & # 8221 ; whilst Psychology is because of its basis/support of a posteriori/experience cognition is the opposite, the prototype of & # 8220 ; fuzziness. & # 8221 ; Immanuel Kant contends that interior of our head exists what he calls a priori, or before experience cognition, which is universally and needfully True. Kant states that this a priori cognition, of which clip and infinite is an built-in portion, is the footing for our building of cognition which we strive to construct higher and higher, larger and larger metaphorically. In order to warrant the being of a priori return for illustration the human signifier. If one was to do invalidate the human signifier of all perceptual features ( a posteriori ) the lone thing left is the infinite which it occupies, hence the infinite must be else the object does non be. This is besides true of clip, causality, and other a priori, which lie outside the realm phenomena or experience. So these a priori are universally and needfully True, and all cognition adheres to these the congenital concepts of the head. Plato made a statement about the nature of truth, a rational position that truth is non comparative, but instead nonsubjective and absolute. This position upon the nature of truth is displayed through the following composed duologue created by Dr. Sahakian between Plato and Protagoras. Protagoras: Plato, what is true for you, is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Plato: Make you intend to state that my personal sentiment is true? Protagoras: Indeed, that is exactly what I mean. Plato: But my beloved Protagoras, my sentiment is that truth is non comparative ; truth is non amatter of sentiment, but nonsubjective and absolute. Furthermore, my sentiment is thatyou belief in the relativity of true is perfectly false and should be abandoned.Do you still hold that my sentiment is true? Protagoras: Yes, you are rather right. By saying that truth is non comparative, Plato is basically touching to its? nonsubjective and absolute features. These features in bend lend that there exists within the frame work of the human head all truth which is entirely nonsubjective, limited, and unchanging. How so are these positions applicable to the countries of Mathematicss and Psychology? Let us take for illustration mathematics, which is portion of the & # 8220 ; exact scientific disciplines, & # 8221 ; coupled with geometry and logic. Take for illustration the proper Mathematics statement & # 8220 ; 7+5=12 & # 8243 ; , called a man-made judgement by Kant. This statement/synthetic judgement although symbols are used to place the figure is universally true because its basis/support lies in a priori cognition. If person was nevertheless to province that & # 8220 ; 7+5=12 & # 8243 ; , so we would declare the statement to be false, because it contradicts the proper Mathematics statement of & # 8220 ; 7+5=12. & # 8221 ; Harmonizing to Plato truth is absolute and unchanging as is the statement & # 8220 ; 7+5=12. & # 8221 ; Besides as a general regulation proper Mathematics plants in perfect harmoniousness with nature, and can accurately depict it in many ways ( Physics ) , one time once more suggesting to its built-in truth. Therefore in the instance of proper mathematics ( proper being defined as correct like in the instance of & # 8220 ; 7+5=12 & # 8243 ; ) , it follows that ( in its deficiency of contradiction to the a priori cognition under which its basis/support prevarications ) all proper Mathematics statement are ever true. In order to pull the delineating/segregating line in this country of cognition one must entirely take a proper Mathematics statement & # 8220 ; 7+5=12 & # 8243 ; and topographic point on the true side, an

d take a non-proper (incorrect) Mathematics and consequently declare it false on the basis of contradiction to the true statement. Hence upon the acceptance that proper Mathematics is inherently universally true and the ease with which segregating/delineating lines can be drawn under the guise of the question, there truly exists no “fuzzy” areaIn contrast Psychology as a social science is defined as the science of behavior and mental processes, and holds is basis/support as a pure empirical or experience related science. Unlike the area of knowledge called Mathematics, Psychology provides assertions about human behavior by using not an edifice of knowledge both with the edifice itself and a strong a priori foundation, but rather with solely the edifice of experience related knowledge. Kant calls these assertions analytical judgments. These analytic judgments are empirical, or a posteriori/experience related in form, and unlike synthetic judgments mentioned before do not use universally true knowledge as their basis or support.Let us revisit the example of the proper Mathematics statement of “7+5=12,” and conduct the same test on a Psychological assertion as performed earlier. A Psychologist could assert for example that humans create art based on repressed sexual desire (as Freud did). He would then support this assertion, not with limited a priori universally true knowledge as in Mathematics, but rather with an infinite expanse of empirical or experience related knowledge/observation. So in affect all Psychologists are using knowledge which is not universally and neccesarily true to produce what are held to be “true” perspectives on human behavior. These empiricists, as scientists have an infinite amount of empirical data (subjective in Psychology?s case) to express in order to support their assertions, and perspectives on the behavior. Hence they can “pick and choose” (subjective) so to speak data which supports their claim, in direct contradiction to Plato?s statement of the objective and absolute Truth. In Contrast the mathematician uses limited universally true a priori knowledge to make an assertion/synthetic judgment, like “7+5=12.” This subjectivity explains the plurality of perspectives on human behavior which include but are in no way limited to the humanist, existentialist, behaviorist, cognition, psychoanalytic, and operant conditioning perspectives.All of these perspectives lend for confusion as to which one is true. However none of them are “true” in the sense of the discussion because they are all supported by empirical knowledge existing only in the sphere of experience(a posteriori knowledge), and the truth which they profess contradicts Plato?s Concept of a objective and absolute Truth. Its opposite proper Mathematics statements/synthetic judgments are supported as discussed above by a priori knowledge which is universally and necessarily true, and forms the foundation of the edifice of knowledge as inherent constructs of the mind. Given that in order to determine that something is false one must compare it to something true and visa versa, one can see that this comparison cannot occur in Psychology, because nothing can be proven to be True as stated above. Hence a line of delineation/segregation cannot be drawn, as their is no true or false in this area of knowledge, but rather a sea of “fuzziness” and confusion fostered by a plurality of perspectives all professed to be true.The lines of segregation/delineation between true and false are inherently difficult to draw. The selection of the two areas of knowledge Mathematics and Psychology yielded their bases in a priori and a posteriori knowledge respectively. The assertion can then be made that Mathematics being absolutely true in its proper form has with in it the ability to delineate between true and false, thereby typifying “unfuzziness.” In contrast Psychology a science whose basis lies in a posteriori knowledge lacks the ability to delineate between true and false. This a subjective area of knowledge cannot produce true or false statements, thus exhibiting its “fuzziness.” In addition Psychology like the majority of empirical sciences has an infinite array of knowledge to select from for support, which further discounts its? “reliability.” Psychology interestingly exemplifies the characteristics of the majority of our knowledge. Therefore by association that which we call “knowledge” is in reality a “fuzzy” mess, and a majority of what is held to be “true” is in reality not. This a product of Post-Modern Western Civilization can be used to attribute to the mass of humanity in our society which seems to aimlessly wander “dazed and confused.” As such the sources of our knowledge, television for example, should be viewed with great caution, and statements such as “United Nations officials fear that?..,” should be more closely investigated so as not to accept it as an absolute truth.