text:
User:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 4/Truth

Truth in Cartography
Cartography is the 'discipline dealing with the art, science and technology of making and using maps'. Cartographers start by collecting data from the featured area so they can detect patterns to present. They try to depict this data accurately on a map which is then given to a map user to interpret. Users change the map accordingly and create a final projection. The cartographic process is a lengthy one and it involves many components from different disciplines. If we define truth as the state of being perfectly in line with reality, it is easy to come to the conclusion that no map is true. Whether it is because maps are an easy picture of a more complex truth or because they simplify complicated patterns, or even because they just are not precise enough. The goal of a map is therefore not to be true but rather to be the least false possible while keeping its clarity.

Persuasive Cartography
Persuasive cartography describes maps intended to influence opinions rather than display impartial geographic information. There are many factors which affect how a map is perceived, including text, colours, projections, shading, and images. As cartographers make decisions about these factors, few maps display a completely objective view of reality. They can have this influence on opinions and beliefs because most people assume maps are objective and true, made by professionals who would never purposely misinform.

A common example of distortion is the Mercator projection. While this projection is useful for navigation, it has often been criticised for misrepresenting sizes - specifically diminishing areas close to the equator and enlarging world powers. Canada and Russia, for instance, seem to make up about 25% of the Earth's landmass when actually they only hold 5%. Another discrepancy, brought to the world's attention by the computer-graphics designer Kai Krause, is 'The True Size of Africa'. The map aims to 'fight against rampant Immapancy' by showing several countries packed into Africa's outline. The term 'Mercator Effect' has since been coined, which refers to the alleged effect this projection has on our cognitive map of people. A more accurate depiction of landmasses, the Gall-Peters projection, is now increasingly being used.

This phenomenon also applies to political maps, namely the political map of India. Published in 2015 by the country's official survey office, the map includes the disputed regions of Jammu and Kashmir within its territory. While Pakistan does label this region as 'disputed territory' on their map, the colour-coding implies it is under singular control. Another instance of such a phenomenon is Western Sahara, a territory claimed and occupied by Morocco. On Moroccan maps, Western Sahara and Morocco account for one and only territory. However, on world maps in other countries, Western Sahara is not displayed as being Moroccan but rather showed as a different territory, with a line separating the two lands. Politically influenced maps can significantly affect the beliefs of one country’s citizens, especially as these maps are government endorsed.

The Platonic argument for mathematical truths
Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics is the view that mathematical objects exist independently of the human mind, and that therefore, mathematical truths are discovered, as opposed to invented. The name “Platonism” refers to the view’s origins in Plato’s theory of abstract and eternal Forms, but the views of Platonism are not necessarily related to those held by Plato himself.

The most notable argument for Mathematical Platonism was put forward by Gottlob Frege and is based on two premises. Firstly, that mathematical sentences serve to refer to mathematical objects, and secondly, that succeeding in doing so makes them mathematical theorems, and all mathematical theorems true.

Proof for mathematical truths
Not all Philosophers of Mathematics agree on the existence of mathematical truths, and not all of those who do agree on how to prove those truths. Frege and other logicists appeal to logic, claiming that because all of mathematics can be reduced to logic, mathematical theorems are necessary logical truths. Alternatively, mathematical truths have also been defended through appeals to empirical science. The most notable argument of such kind is known as the Indispensability argument and was made by Willard Quine and Hilary Putnam. The argument is based on the assertion that all entities indispensable to theories in empirical science must be accepted as true, and because mathematical theorems are indispensable, they must be true. A third alternative is mathematical naturalism, which questions altogether the expectation to prove the truth of mathematical statements according to non-mathematical standards such as logic or empirical science, when the disciplines of logic and science are allowed to set their own standards.

Arguments against mathematical truths
The existence of mathematical truths is a central debate to the Philosophy of Mathematics, and there is significant objection to Platonism. Paul Benacerraf’s epistemological argument is considered the most significant challenge to Platonism, asserting that for knowledge to be acquired about an object, there must be a causal relationship between the acquirer and the object. The inability to connect the perception of mathematical objects to our cognitive faculties, Benecerraf argues, therefore makes mathematical truths impossible.

The Question of Truth in Law
In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “the basic purpose of a trial is the determination of truth.”. Law should serve the truth and be a tool to uncover it. But if trials were working perfectly, the existence of appeals would be baseless. Trials establish a ‘formal legal truth’ based on facts presented in the court. While it is expected this formal legal truth is the same as the substantive truth, it isn’t always the case.

R. Summers give two reasons for this divergence: the first is mostly cost considerations. One cannot defend himself as well as someone who can afford a very good lawyer. In these cases, the substantive truth might not be uncovered due to a lack of trial preparation for example. The second reason calls into question the trial court procedures. The facts are supposed to lead to the substantive truth; however they are constrained by the law and can’t all be accepted in court. For example, a coerced confession isn’t considered as valid and can’t be taken into account by a judge even if it leads to the substantive truth.

In addition, if it said that the purpose of a trial is to uncover the truth, both parties (defense and prosecution) do not always seek to inquire the truth but only to defend their cause. S. Haack qualifies the trial of a contest as to whether enough proof is given, and not a search for the truth.

Moreover, those who give the verdict and create the formal legal truth are men. They can be influenced and manipulated into believing something is true. Also, the verdict can be based on testimonies of witnesses who relate what they remember. But as shown in the section 'Construction of Truth in Memory', the truth in memory isn't always reliable and eyewitness testimonies are subject to various biases and distortions. For example, research has shown that 71% of eye-witnesses change their accounts to include false memories when given the opportunity to confer with other witnesses, a phenomenon called Co-witness contamination. Thus, if law as a discipline is to be trusted because it brings people together in a community where they obey the same rules, the truth it seeks to discover is constructed by men, which makes it questionable.

The question of Truth within Fine Arts
Starting from the ancient Greek art, the only aim of artists is to achieve the most perfect reproduction of reality. In consequence, Art appears to be an imitation of the artists’ environment: a mirror of reality. With this first definition of Art, the question of truth within the discipline of fine arts cannot be ignored.

On the one hand, fine arts are reduced to the status of imitation as expressed by Plato in Republic. He compares the artist to a man who would ‘walk around’ with a mirror, since according to him the artist is imitating the appearances in reality but certainly not the Truth. Artists are considered as copyists who produce illusions and deceive the public, such as Zeuxis who made extremely realistic paintings during the ancient Greek period.

On the other hand, philosophers as Hegel explain that art occurs between pure sensibility and pure thinking. Hegel notably developed the idea of a “spiritualized sensibility”, where the material aspect of an object of art is idealised. Thus, he placed Art as superior to nature and argued that this spiritualized appearance is truer than the appearance in the reality. Furthermore, the French philosopher Henri Bergson defines the function of art as being not an imitation but a revelation of the Truth. In his opinion, fine arts break all of the ‘conventions’ that blind us and drive us away from the Truth. The artist perceives the true reality whereas common mortals perceive it only superficially.

Therefore, the notion of Truth is still being challenged through the discipline of fine arts as artistic movements continue to emerge. The vision of works of art as evidence is clearly questioned.

Truth in photography
Photography used to be deemed as a method of objectively capturing reality. Its foundation in mechanics promoted the idea of unbiased and uncorrupted documentation. This concept follows the correspondence theory of truth; this presentation of reality through images would be a presentation of truth as it is a direct link to aspects of the real world. This idea is shown through the use of photographs as indisputable proof in situations such as the court of law.

However, in contrast to the early days of cameras, photography has evolved to place more significance on the photographer and their ability to push certain narratives through their manipulation of the imagery. Staging, framing, cropping and other methods of manipulation have caused a shift in the discipline which is more congruent to post-modernist and modernist theories alongside more constructivist approaches to truth in which truth is/ can be transient and temporary as well as a product of the values and assumptions of the photographer. Geoffrey Batchen claims that ‘photographers intervene in every photograph they make, whether by orchestrating or directly interfering in the scene being imaged’. In Oxford University and World Press’s research into the habits of photojournalists, 51.8% of the 1,556 photographers who were surveyed said they sometimes staged images and even though the subsequent surveys in 2016 and 2018 showed a growing consensus against the ethics of altering and staging photographs, the percentage of photographers doing it did not change dramatically. These results clearly show the prevalence of constructed truth in the sense that, consciously and subconsciously, photographs are a reflection of the people who took them, their interests and their motivations.

Additionally, with the rise of modern technology, digitalisation and retouching has unlocked even more ways to alter images. This has bypassed the idea of selective truth to the possibility of forgery and hoaxes in the sense that images can be entirely digitally manufactured, with no groundings of reality. An example of this is in the photographs circulated of Donald Trump's inauguration on the 20th of January 2017 in which a government photographer edited the official inauguration images to make the crowd look larger after Donald trump himself requested they be edited. Investigative reports from the Freedom of Information Act revealed the forgery after claims of the inauguration being the most populated yet. This introduces a core conflict in approaches to truth; this would be deemed utterly false under mirror theories yet constructivist thinking may argue that bias has always been present in photography as it is in all aspects of life and that altering of photographs is just a different vehicle for the construction of truth.

Pandemics wreaking Pandemonium: Seeking Truth in Social and Political Science
The 2020 pandemic is currently exposing the potential separation of truth between political and medical science subsequently reducing the competing harm between the impact on the economy, society’s physical health and society’s mental health. .The manipulation and rejection of the data published surrounding coronavirus has obfuscated “truth”. During times of immense stress and pressure, people can lack judgemental agility whilst craving the resolution of uncertainty – a dangerous combination. . Around the 1st of September, Nature website stated that over 30 countries had 600,000 more deaths than the yearly average predictions but only 413,041 of those deaths were officially caused by the virus itself. . The virus has caused correlated deaths due to the economy, mental health, distribution of resources. .

Society's desire for certainty is important in relation to both political stability and the human condition. .There is a psychological pleasure in recognising patterns and rhythms within our environment. The Scientific American Mind magazine went so far to say that humanity has an “information addiction”, the pleasure of knowing the truth and avoidance of feeling uncertain. .However, the more disciplines through which one investigates the same topic, the more obscure the discourse surrounding truth becomes.

The whole concept of truth within disciplines is in question, some conspiracies state that the truth is being utilised and distorted as a malicious fear mongering tool. .Thus, there is a heated issue of factoids at present, pieces of information which are repeated so regularly that it becomes widely known as fact. Factoids originate from the illusory truth effect, a term often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, in relation to Nazi propaganda and Machiavellian control. Political leaders have undermined each other resulting in heightened confusion, frustration and melancholia. . The general public are vulnerable to conspiracy surrounding the pandemic because they may not have the specialised knowledge to decipher it themselves. They rely on specific, high-profile individuals to garner their information. However, whether subconsciously and consciously leaders can direct people towards a certain agenda. .

Kant’s 'Critique of Pure Reason' theories two types of truth ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’. . Therefore, during a virus of such large scale, it is difficult for a person or a political leader to maintain updated knowledge at all times. Consequently, there will be fundamental issues with the distortion, emotional exploitation and personal evaluation of the truth.

Construction of Truth in Memory
Human recall is open to interpretation and highly susceptible to exogenous distortion. The study of this phenomenon has been situated mostly within philosophy, generating the theories of truth in memory, which are then explored, tested and evaluated within psychology, especially experimental psychology. It was first tested in psychological experiments in the 1970s, most notably by the works of Elizabeth Loftus, who, in an experiment, successfully planted many false memories into subjects’ minds.

Memory evolved as a reconstructive, rather than an accurate, process due to its purpose of survival – to find food, shelter and engage socially. The human species 'seems best adapted for accumulating knowledge – for inference, approximation, concept formation and classification – not for the literal retention of the individual exemplars.’

This finding that people's memory is malleable or reconstructive opens myriad questions about truth in memories – if they do present a truth, what it is produced by, and how it is determined. The fallibility of memory does not implicate that all that people think is true can be denied. Rather, it not only provides a new lens of critical thinking through which to view the past but also demands consideration of the unique capacity of humans to perceive and imagine the future. Research in this field also has significant implications for how memory is interpreted in social contexts such as courts (in the worth of testimonial evidence,) education and the media.

One way of thinking critically about truth in memory is to recognise that memory plays out a social function for groups and individuals. For example, in cases of interpersonal traumas, the risks of awareness are costly, for example, because a child’s survival is dependent on their attachment to the perpetrator. Thus, memory repression or reconstruction would adopt the social utility of protecting the subject from potential harm. In this way, ‘social motivations influence attention and information processing’ – therefore also the truth found in memories.

Memory has long been considered as one-dimensional and bivalent – either true or false. More recently, however, it has been found that the existence of false negative and false positives in memory are not mutually exclusive.

According to Locke, memory plays a primary role in the constitution of personal identity: 'as far as ... consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person.' This philosophical theory has developed into psychological continuity theories (which claim that psychological continuity, maintained through memory connections, is a prerequisite for the existence of personal identity.) However, such theories tend to reduce memory to a simple, linear link between a present moment and a discrete, defined past experience. Memories’ relation to the past is ‘much more complicated that simple reproduction.’ Firstly, as well as remembering specific events, humans are able to summarise information about the past, and to varying degrees of detail. A single memory can be the outcome of several disconnected periods of time: key details of a series of real events are condensed into a single fictitious event/memory. There are also many memories not processed at all.

A further way in which truth is altered by memory is the act of rehearsing a memory. Rehearsal can alter the memory itself through the process of ‘retrieval-enhanced suggestibility.’ This process is amplified when rehearsed to an audience, as, due to social pressures, people tend to describe memories differently according to their environment and expectations.

In order for autobiographical memory to provide the individual with a reliable truth of their past and identity, they must reconstruct the vast amounts of information we receive into a coherent narrative depicting significant factors and long-term patterns. A study by Michael Ross suggests that biases in memory can be explained by the fact that individuals have theories of personal development, and their memory moulds and revises the past to become congruent with those expectations. In this way, self-conception is a strong determinant of the truth given by memory.

Moreover, a 1991 study by D. Poole and L. White showed that, given a set of incomplete information, individuals will most often use memories of our own experiences to construct the missing details. In this way, humans use memory to impose upon and imagine truth of other things.

Through the interaction between philosophical theory and psychological evaluation, it can be concluded that memory is constructive, rather than reproductive, of truth - it is distorted at every stage of its actuality, in the processes of perception, retention and retrieval. This can be through construction, summary, condensation or rehearsal, driven by forces of social utility, self-conception and the necessity of coherence. This holds important implications for how individuals understand their own personal identity, history, as well as how the future is imagined.

Truth in Climatology
Climatology is the scientific study of climate which investigates how the average weather and atmosphere "behave" over relatively long periods of time. Recently, the discipline gained a lot of attention as a result of the increasing interest in the subject of climate change that has revealed to be a global threat to political stability and human existence overall.

Due to the high social significance of the studies, its complexity, and political character, the discipline raised decade-lasting disputes which display a truth dissonance between the scientists and the public.

Approach of the Scientific Community
There is a strong scientific consensus among experts that the rapid increase in temperatures on the globe in recent decades is caused by human-related activities. To reach such a unanimous conclusion climatologists had to adapt the correspondence approach to the truth which is common in other positive sciences. They have developed an interdisciplinary methodology that focuses on creating physical models based on analysis of trends in meteorological data, use of numeric methods, stochastic processes, differential equations, etc. . Moreover, the discipline maintains systematic rigor by keeping the scientific dialogue within the frames of peer-reviewed journals. Thanks to that, the collaborative effort of the scientists made it possible to create internationally recognised reports published by IPCC, which provide guidelines for an appropriate response to the human-induced climate change.

Approach of the Public
While not many people dispute that humans are responsible for the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the warnings from the scientific community about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change have proved to be more polarising. The emergence of a large climate change denialist movement may suggest that the knowledge and truth produced in climatological research somehow differ from scientific research produced in other positive sciences such as physics. The analysis of the social trends may however suggest otherwise. The dissonance is rather attributed to misinformation caused by vague and confusing media coverage as well as the misleading portrayal in popular culture. There is also some evidence of fossil-fuel companies and conservative think tanks purposefully manufacturing doubt about scientific data and results that provoked a more phenomenological approach to the truth which on the individual level does not always explain large-scale concepts accurately.

According to many non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Extinction Rebellion, this difference in approaches to the truth as well as disproportions of knowledge and power between public and experts which have caused fierce disputes, are substantially prolonging the implementation of the necessary measures of fighting climate change.

Truth in Science
Some may argue that science is a discovery of truth, yet the very conception of truth in science varies from its humanistic counterparts. Therefore, scientists’ understanding of philosophy and history of science, plays a crucial role in the scientific process. In science, the truths found to date must be considered conditional. One can strive for truth but never quite discover it or reject the validity of the concept of truth in science in its entirety.

The truth in science is salient mainly for the technological and conceptual contribution it brings to society. The scientific method, rooted in empiricism and logic, may cause us to believe in the superiority of the scientific approach. The facts, however, cannot be perceived as absolute entities and must be handled as constant doubts, especially within the scientific fields themselves. It is the scientist that chooses a method (which in turn impacts the type of the result), discerns relationships between multiple observations from experimental tasks and tries to order them into a consistent system of knowledge. The quest for “truth” while dealing with the physical world requires the scientist to maintain self-consistency as well as consistency with empirical observations. The scientific diaspora is more concerned with validity rather than truth, and the results being self-consistent rather than truthful. These concepts usually serve as a basis for acceptance of a scientific concept. Additionally, it is interesting to mention that Michael Klapper suggested that theories of science find ready acceptance because of their aesthetic appeal.

More recently, Peter Schreiner has shown reasonable concern with the decision-makers’ deleterious approach to science and social media "marginalizing the detailed work and effort put into scientific discovery".

Truth in Economics
Truth in economics is a broad discipline. Whilst truth is often defined as the ‘state of being the case’, economics is about applying mathematics to sets of data and real-world facts in order to both better understand how economic systems function and to additionally develop theories that explain these facts.

The truth concept of a mirror, which means truth is true when it mirrors the fact, directly applies in economics. Furthermore, truth in economics is considered as positivism because it regards data brought up without anything nor anyone intervening as an intermediate.

Knowledge in Economy
According to Franck H. Knight, there are three discrete domains of knowledge in economics. These are the knowledge of the outer world, knowledge of mathematics and logical thought, and lastly knowledge of peoples behaviour. Whilst it is easy to agree on the knowledge of the outer world and on that of mathematics, analysing and predicting human behaviour is a more complex task. For instance, in certain Bayesian games, the dominant strategy (known as equilibrium) if players agree beforehand is opposite to that of when players do not get to meet beforehand.

Economic Theory and Facts
When it comes to facts in economics, there is often only one truth. This is particularly significant when numbers, graphs and tables are used as these can be difficult to dispute since they picture reality. There are, however, numerous theories behind facts in economics. These theories explain data in different ways, and as economists’ opinions deviate so do the explanations of economical phenomena and human behaviour.

The example of monetary theories
The facts and data around the functioning of the banking system and money creation are commonly admitted truths. However, to explain these truths, economists have been developing different theories. From the theory of fractional reserves which states that the central bank absolutely controls the amount of money available on the market, to the theory of ex nihilo monetary creation according to which deposit banks have a huge power of money creation, it is clear there is more than one truth.

Walking the line between Truth and Fiction – Sacha Baron-Cohen’s “Who is America?”
“Who is America?” is a seven-episode mini-series released in 2018 in which Sacha Baron-Cohen portrays six different fictional characters, each an exaggeration of a particular stereotype, and meets real people, mostly politicians and celebrities, without revealing his real identity. The series was written and produced as a response to Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016 and the rise of misinformation and xenophobia in the United States.

The most famous and controversial of the characters in “Who is America?” is Erran Morad, a terrorist fighting expert in the Israeli military. In episode 1, he meets gun rights advocates Philip Van Cleave and Larry Pratt, US Representative Matt Gaetz and US Senate majority leader Trent Lott to talk about gun rights. He convinces them (except for Matt Gaetz) and congressmen such as Dana Rohrabacher, Joe Wilson, and Joe Walsh to back his “Kinderguardians” project, which aims to put guns in the hands of children age 3 to 16 to avoid school shootings. With Van Cleave, he creates an instructional video for children on how to use guns, and then he makes a video to promote Kinderguardians to Congress. Larry Pratt reads from a script in the video, and says “Children under five also have elevated levels of the pheromone Blink-182, produced by the part of the liver known as the Rita Ora”, implying that it is scientific proof for the program’s effectiveness. Baron-Cohen uses obvious references to popular culture in this way to show how naïve politicians can be and how easy it is to spread misinformation. In episode 2, Erran Morad meets with US representative Jason Spencer to teach him how to fight against terrorists, and convinces him to remove his trousers and charge posterior-first to turn the “islamic terrorists” into homosexuals. For Sacha-Baron Cohen, this shows how far islamophobia can go, and what elected politicians allow themselves to do on camera since the Trump presidency started. Jason Spencer resigned shortly after the series aired.

A week before the premiere of the series, the “Kinderguardians” segment was revealed on YouTube. After this event, many of the politicians and personalities Baron-Cohen had “duped” revealed themselves and called the public to boycott his series, Dana Rohrbacher stating : "I love good satire, but good satire must reveal some basis in truth. This was fraud, a sick fraud at that, and its intention was to deceive the American people for political purposes." Others were equally critical of his methods, Joe Walsh calling them “disgusting”. The main issue interviewees, or rather “addressees” as Lewis MacLeod calls them, seemed to have with Baron-Cohen’s work was his dishonesty regarding the fictionality of his characters. But it is debatable whether that disqualifies the series in the eyes of “truth”.

The series can be seen as either representing a “perceiver” or “constructor” image of truth. While watching the series, one can laugh at Sacha baron-Cohen’s exaggerated acting and reflect upon the similarities of his encounters to real-world situations, taking the experience of watching the series as a form of truth in itself. One can also take his interviews as truth, setting the fictionality of his characters aside since his addressees are not playing roles, and taking them as a sample of American politicians to “construct” a certain truth. But Sacha Baron-Cohen’s satirical genre can also be completely disregarded, in an era of “post-truth” journalism, where satire almost doesn’t have a place and exaggerated depictions like the ones Baron-Cohen proposes are ever-more questioned.

Sacha Baron-Cohen does not offer a clear answer as to which “type” of truth we should assign to his work, or whether we should take it as truth at all. He does not even offer a concise answer to the question "Who is America?". It seems that it is up to the viewer to decide what the answer to those questions are and whether or not to give them the authority that comes with the word "truth".


text:
User:Dpawson/sandbox

10 minute workshop videos, quick reference

This wiki provides deeper indexing to Peter Millards 10minuteworkshop videos on youtube.

 * MFT videos
 * Tracksaw videos

etc. All links to a video. time offset from start should be added as video title: offset e.g. MFT:1'28"

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Dpawson/sandbox


text:
User talk:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday11-12/Truth

Whatsapp Group Chat
This group has been coordinating work on sandbox assignment in a Whatsapp group chat. The main points were duplicated on the discussion pages, but the majority of communication behind this research was happening in the chat.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Things to be sorted out (follow up from meeting on MS Teams (3rd Nov)
Hi everyone this is a summary of what we have discussed during the Teams meeting!

 * 1. Completion of sections: Approaches to Truth, Truth in Sociology, Truth in Neuroesthetics
 * 2. Adding subheadings for Truth in Neuroesthetics
 * 3. Formatting: changing the title to Truth in historic paintings into Truth in Historic Paintings for formality
 * 4. Referencing: make sure things are properly referenced instead of links

I hope this is helpful for everyone! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a section on truth theories?
Hi guys! I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to add an overview of the different truth theories we intend to discuss on the top of the page? I this would be helpful for the person reading our page to follow with the different theories and also to avoid us from explaining the theories every time we mention them? If this sounds good, maybe we could each write what theories we plan to use and then each take on one of the theories and create a collaborative section? I am planning to use 1. Correspondence Theory of Truth 2. Phenomenological Theory and 3. Constructionist. -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs)

 * Hi this is a great idea! As of now I will be using Essentialist and Constructionist theories. I have added the section at the top called "Approaches to Truth". Feel free to add! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! I am a bit confused. Should I add my research on the essential vs constructionist ontologies in sociology under the sociology section or the approaches to truth section? I feel like it will be relevant in both the places. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that a general idea of the theories could be in the approaches to truth section, so later in the sociology section there is no need for defining the terms and we can just refer to them or re-define them in the context of the subject discussed so there is less overlap! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I see that you've added the essentialist and constructionist approaches to truths and adjusted my section to draw upon these concepts directly and removed general discussions of these theories unless contextualised in my topic of gender! Additionally, in my research I have found some things I think would be meaningful contributions to the constructionist part you have written! Feel free to reorganise what I've added! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! Thanks for that, I'll make sure to have a read. Moreover, I too have found some information that would be a meaningful contribution to your section on gender, more specifically, examining gender from the two perspectives I discussed. I'll add it soon and you are reorganise it as you see fit. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's great!! Our areas of research overlap a lot so let's keep collaborating on these sections! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Would Usernamee anoymous and Shaunice34 mind if I place your sections about historical paintings and photography under a new section called "Truth in Art"? Because quite obviously both of what you guys discuss falls under the category of art and so I think it would look quite neat to have both of your entries under a new section to tie in your two fields in some way! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey this sounds good to me and I think that would make it more organised! Thank you for suggesting this! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for that. Sorry, I missed this message.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sociology
Hi! I'm planning on doing a section on truth in sociology, particularly focusing on the truth of gender. If anyone would like to collaborate on this or other parts of sociology that would be great! Please let me know! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey I saw you added a part on idealism vs realism and I think it's a pretty interesting comparison so I had read some stuff about it (mainly in a philosophical point of view) and added it to the approaches to truth section, feel free to change it or delete it if there's anything that you thing might be problematic or if it overlaps with what you intend to write! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! Currently, I'm writing about truth in beauty, primarily focusing on the neurobiological, positivist approach in the pursuit of it. But I do want to try perhaps writing a bit on the sociological aspect of beauty, and the constructivist as well as the phenomenological aspect towards its truth. I think I'd talk quite a bit about beauty standards, and explore how such an inherently phenomenological concept such as beauty ties in with social constructivism to form what each society has — 'beauty standards'. And maybe a little about how the truth in beauty has never really existed (because of how experientially dependent it is), but thanks to social constructivism, the illusion of its 'truth' is propelled so much that the beauty standards are considered the generally-accepted truth of beauty, and I'll maybe mention about how it is also capitalised off of by large corporations which further propels the notion. Hope that made sense! Let me know what you think about it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Wow! think that would be a great section! Exploring beauty and beauty standards from the perspective of social constructivism is incredibly interesting and I agree with everything you say. However I am a bit unsure about how we should go about that in terms of organisation. Are you planning to add it under the sociology section or the beauty section? Or perhaps a new "section" of it's own under both to tie them together? --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! The truth about beauty seems to be a very interesting topic to investigate. Do you plan to look at golden ratio and theories that are trying to explain why people tend to find certain features beautiful? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I was actually also questioning the organisation of the section myself too, especially as you have mentioned the really interesting thing about golden ratio of facial attractiveness (which I was not planning on going into, but would love to collaborate with you on it potentially)! As it seems the beauty section may well expand further than what I have initially expected it to be, perhaps we could make a big section called "Truth in Abstract Concepts". The sections about "Truth in Beauty" and "Truth in Love/Ethnocentrism" (written by Citrus48) could go under that together, and even the gender one (if you could call it an 'abstract concept')! And then we could make separate subsections under the "Truth in Beauty": one for neuroesthetics and one for mathematics (golden ratio). How's that sound? But honestly what I've suggested would actually require re-organisation of the whole page. So we may need input from everyone else on this. Here's what my proposal of the page and section reformatting would look like:

 * Content List
 * 1. Approaches to Truth
 * 2. Truth in Abstract Concepts
 * 2.1 Truth in Beauty
 * 2.1.1 Neuroesthetics
 * 2.1.2 Golden Ratio / Mathematics
 * 2.2 Truth in Gender
 * 2.3 Truth in Love / Ethnocentrism

 * Hope this makes sense! What does everyone think about this? -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey Kerocringe09! Sounds like a great idea truly, but assuming gender is an abstract concept in the first place is subscribing to an essentialist or constructivist ontology. So, apologies, but I may have to disagree with your proposed structure of the page. I think gender should stay under the sociology section, because I am very blind is dissecting the truth in gender from a sociological lens rather than a general one. Secondly, I would love to collaborate with I am very blind on this one! I think I will provide the initial explanation of truth in sociology, diving into the specifics of essentialist and constructionist ontologies and how those shape dichotomous views of the world. Also, I will provide information for the sub-heading "the divergent truths of gender in different cultures". Whatever I am very blind is comfortable with dividing, of course! Let me know. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * For the divergent truths of gender in different cultures, I already have some researched some exmaples but feel free to add yours! We can definitely collaborate on that part! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * No worries! I think I'd also agree with you now that I have a better insight on what the sociology section will entail. Thanks! Anyways, I think we could come back to the structure of any sections later perhaps once the major parts of page is just about completed. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I do like your proposition but I have to agree with Feminist06. Though it appear to be more organised as compared to what we have now, it would not be fair to list gender under abstract concepts if we approach gender from a sociological perspective, which in itself explores different perspectives on the nature of truth. --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey I am very blind! Turns out I got confused with the content that went in "truth of gender from different perspectives" and in "the divergent truths of gender in different cultures." I ended up researching extensively on the ontological approaches to gender and sex and later found out that it fit well in the first section rather than the one I proposed earlier. Sorry for the confusion! I have just added 3 new paragraphs to "truth in gender from different perspectives" and made some grammatical edits to yours, if you don't mind. Have a look and let me know if there are any problems. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey there! No worries at all for the confusion. I have read your contributions and they are extremely interesting! Your specific approach to writing and research adds a lot of professionalism (and great content)! However currently the section is a bit long so I am looking at ways to possibly organise it! Thank you again for your additions!- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I noticed the sectioning off of paragraphs and the new sub-headings. They are great and precise, amazing job! I just made one small contribution and added another sub-heading to increase coherence. Hope you don't mind! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi I am very blind! As I was reading through the section, I felt that adding a bit on the biological aspect in terms of hormonal and evolutionary explanations would enhance emphasis on a positivist approach to the truth of gender. I hope I could include this information to the section. Please do read through it and feel free to edit or morph it accordingly! I will add it after a little more research into the topic. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey there! Thank you so much for your contributions! Your in depth exploration of the positive approach to gender adds a lot of substance to the section and is a great display of one of the perspectives. However as I've responded to Feminist06, the section is quite long now and I am seeing if there's a way to better coordinate or organise everything! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I would like to recommend reading through the case study of David Reimer (1965-2004), if it is applicable, it could be referred in the truth in gender section as the implications of the case study highlight an alternative to the theory of how the environment and a cognitive influence may affect gender identity. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I have read up on this case from a few sources and - thought quite disturbing - is also very intriguing. Thank you for your recommendation and I will be sure to incorporate it into the section! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I have added a section about the David case study, do read through it and feel free to make changes so that it fits the context. Thank you! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I've added my entry for beauty under the sociology section. Please feel free to make any necessary changes to it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi there! I think it is really interesting! However I believe it may fit better as a subsection to gender! (Which I see you have moved already) -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I have read through everything and made some changes to the structure as I felt that both essentialist and constructivist perspectives and categories of practice and analysis were muddled into an order that didn't quite make sense. I apologise if you had reasoning behind it and please do share! I'm not completely sure of my current structure either, so please feel free to suggest or just edit any alternative methods of organisation you feel is better! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! In regards to the overall structure to the section, I was thinking that we could change the section from 'truth in sociology' to 'truth in gender' as we are using tools of different epistemological theories of truth to understand the concept of gender, and sociology is a part of those tools. What are your thoughts on this? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstract Concepts
Hello! I am preparing content for a section on the truth of abstract feelings such as love and ethnocentrism. I was thinking of writing in the perspective of how neurotransmitters influence behaviour as a result of instigating feelings. Does anyone have any more ideas on what could be included? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I am currently writing a section about the "Truth in Beauty", but I wanted to focus more on the neurobiological standpoint which relates to the studies in Neuroesthetics, and question how much closer to the truth we can be if we take a more positivist approach to investigating the truth of subjective concepts and mental states (particularly beauty in my case), or how doing so can deflect us from the real truth (if there is any) and then maybe evaluate the use of other epistemological approaches that can be taken. (I've added some notes in my section so you can see roughly what I'll be talking about.) I believe Neuroesthetics also includes other abstract feelings such as the ones you have mentioned! So I think it would be great to group our research under a section called 'Truth in Neuroesthetics'. It's already up at the moment but I'd like to know your thoughts on it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I looked through your notes and I really like the concept of structuring the information through three theories of truth! I think specifically in the context of beauty, we could mention the formation of stereotypes in society as an aspect of perceived truth. As the concepts can integrate with each other, I agree that we should group our information, it will really help a reader with a wholesome understanding. As I add the information, do feel free to edit and morph it, whether it be in the structure and order of the paragraphs, or the content itself. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, we could definitely mention the formation of stereotypes to speak through a constructivist lens on beauty! I was actually thinking of writing a small section on that under sociology perhaps since it's a lot to do with social cultures, patterns and changes and it doesn't exactly go under Neuroesthetics per se. What are your thoughts on this?

 * Also I've added most of my part on beauty onto the page. Please also feel free to make any changes or edits to it you deem necessary. I'll make sure to have a read of yours on love since it is such an interesting thing to be looking at through an epistemological perspective! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! For those of writing about truth of true love and other abstract concepts, I found a reference that might be useful. During my research on sociological ontologies, I stumbled across a discipline called Sociometry, which is a quantitative method of measuring interpersonal relationships. After further digging, I found this: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-ZmyDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=moreno+the+science+of+society&ots=3Hp_w8K4wH&sig=Eux3gI1Q8qFWeHFHXYX6ApYJGvU#v=onepage&q=sociometry&f=false. This is a book that details the concept. I personally think this concept could be applicable in the truth of true love. But feel free to not use it, just a suggestion! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 09:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! Thank you for the resource! I was going through it, and I am really interested by the way sociometry measures the inner structures of social groups through mathematical analysis. I was wondering if this involves statistical tests such as the t-test, chi square test, Mann Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon test, and so on. The source explains about a sociometric test, and it says that it is 'not a test at all' and is instead an 'opportunity' for the subject, for researchers to attain an observation of the subject's 'action response'. I would really appreciate it if you could perhaps further explain the concept. Thank you in advance! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in historic paintings
Hello! I've added the section about the truth in historic paintings. I've got some doubts about 2 sources. First looks like a good quality article written by professor in art history, with multiple references, it's from American Antiquarian Society but I can't find any journal/book it was published in and it exists only on one website as a pdf, so I cited the web address. The other one is published on a popular websiht about art materials by a commercial company that produces paints, but the information I took from this article about oils yellowing is common knowledge among artists. Do you think it is OK to use these sources? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! The first reference you mentioned is almost definitely fine in my opinion, because if the author of the source is a professor specialising in art history, I think it's quite safe to assume that he has expertise in that area and is therefore credible. But if you want to be sure, you could scan through some of its references and do a quick quality-check on them before double-confirming the credibility of the source. And I think this is applicable to the second source too: as it is a commercial company that specialises in producing paint, I'd assume that they would know what they are talking about when it comes to paints which would make them a credible source; and if the information you sourced is common knowledge, then that makes it easier to confirm the information. So all in all, they both seem fine to me! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I've checked some of the references in that paper and they are of good quality. I'll keep these sources then.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in photography
Hello, I've added my section on photography! Let me know if any of you think I could add anything more or change anything! I have a question though - the photo that i uploaded is somehow really enlarged on the sandbox, was wondering if anyone knows why that has happened or could help me with that? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I have changed the image size to 100px, and the code used will be visible in the edit page. Please do change the size to your preference and to a size that will best help with the presentation of the page. I hope this helps! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for your help! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I've also reformatted your image into a thumbnail on the left of the page so it looks neater. Hope that's okay with you! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi thank you so much for that, it looks really neat now!! I really like it! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello! I added a caption for referencing the image directly on the page. If you look through the code structure, it might help with doing the same with any more media we might include. Hope this helps! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for doing that and the caption is perfect!! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth of Life and Death
Hi! I added a section on the truth of life and death. I was wondering if this should be under the section where we talk about abstract concepts. While the concept of life and death itself is abstract, the content does not focus on a neuropsychological approach, and is more of a literature and philosophical understanding of life and death. I look forward to your suggestion on this, and as you read through it, if you feel like there is more content to be added to make better sense of it, please do add information, or tell me and I will look further into your suggestion in this aspect. Thank you in advance! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I had a read on this section and it's an interesting way of dissecting into the truth of life and death! I added some hyperlinks to keywords such as John Keats and the name of his poems (also italicised them), let me know if any of that is inaccurate. For the sub-sections for the positivist and phenomenological approach I added a short sentence in each of them just to make it clear how it links back to the overall idea, I hope it makes sense and feel free to change it. I just thought it would be more clear to emphasise how the different approaches apply different methodologies or yield different outcomes. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi Shaunice34! Thank you for the hyperlinks! It is a really good idea as it lets a reader go to a page specifically about the poems, especially helpful if they have not read the text before. After reading the sentences you added for emphasis, I was inspired to add a bit more in the context of the explanations outlined! Thank you! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Proyectos JORVE Reformas Guadalajara

Reformas Guadalajara.Proyectos JORVE Reformas de cocinas,baños,reformas de pisos,casas y locales. Cambiar bañera por ducha y pintores Ventanas de aluminio y trabajos en hierro


text:
User:Malifex

i usually edit on wikipedia, so yes.

title: User:Malifex