text:
User:JimKillock/Migrating ebook features

Proposal

 * optional narrow single column formats;
 * optional serif fonts for body text
 * Differing styles for headings and so on (not always underlines)
 * easy navigation bars (last page, next page)
 * optional export links to common ebook formats

 * s:Template:Default_layout » allows differing page layouts to be displayed by default;
 * s:Help:Layout » explains the layout system, which I don't understand behind the scenes however
 * s:Template:Larger » allows non-underlined headings of varying sizes
 * s:Template:Smaller » allows text of smaller sizes than body text
 * s:Template:Header » creates title display area with key info, plus navigation back / forward
 * s:la:Formula:Titulus » Creates a title area for a front page, also used by ebook exports for front page material AFAICT;
 * s:la:Formula:WSExport » Presents a series of export formats for a given book

Method from proposal page

 * We certainly can copy templates: they are all freely licensed. It's usually better to have someone with the appropriate user rights to do this via Special:Import. I brought up Wikisource only because you may be able to identify existing solutions to some of these problems you raise. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Justin, that is very helpful. JimKillock (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some differences between the provisions for css on different projects, which probably should be kept in mind when contemplating introducing advanced formatting from another project. This may both complicate things and allow some interesting new techniques.  (Alas, I have some awareness of the Wikibooks infrastructure, and more about the Wikinews infrastructure, but no past experience with the Wikisource infrastructure.)
 * Different projects may have very different approaches to their customized css. Wikisource appears to have a very small, simple common.css; either there must be some additional css, perhaps induced somewhere by javascript, or perhaps it's all done using javascript instead of css.  Wikibooks does a lot more in its common.css, a lot of it arranged modularly in subpages.  (For contrast, the Wikinews common.css is all on the one page, which makes it considerably harder to read.)
 * Wikibooks has book-specific css pages: our common.js checks for the existence of a subpage for the book, and imports it if found. (Then again, Wikinews has page-specific css pages, also checked for and imported by its common.js.)
 * The javascript infrastructures are also different between projects. Wikibooks common.js provides for both book-specific and page-specific javascript pages, and its common.js is largely modular.  The page-specific javascript, btw, is key to the dialog tools, and was adapted from Wikinews — changing the naming-convention for the page-specific javascript pages, because the Wikinews convention conflicted with the modularity naming-convention of Wikibooks.  (Yes, the Wikinews common.js is all on one page, yes that makes it very hard to read, and yes I have considered modularizing it.)
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting post Pi zero, but some comments on it:
 * I believe that the bulk of the Wikisource site-css is at MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. For some reason some mediawiki wikis use this file rather than the common.css used by others; see mw:Manual:CSS.
 * Custom CSS is now rather easy due to TemplateStyles: see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles. The chief advantage over perbook css is that you don't need admin access to edit, making it easier for most users; also it can be added to any page without the need for it to correspond to a particular book. Despite the name, TemplateStyles can be applied to non-template namespaces, and I have created Template:TemplateStyles/Oberon/styles.css to do so.
 * But if custom JS is needed it still needs to be done through perbook JS. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to hear where the css might be hiding in the Wikisource infrastructure. (Yes, I'm familiar with this sort of use of gadgets.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it does actually hide in MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css; despite its name it actually contains the bulk of the site-wide CSS. A similar situation is with the www.mediawiki.org site; if you look at mw:MediaWiki:Common.css its empty, and its site-wide CSS is actually held at mw:MediaWiki:Gadget-site.css. The reason given for this is that "MediaWiki.org controls site CSS with the Gadgets extension, so MediaWiki:Gadget-site.css is used in place of MediaWiki:Common.css. This results in a slightly different load URL." -- Jules (Mrjulesd)


text:
User talk:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 2/Truth

General
Ideas for the order of the whole page? --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Have put my section on statistical truths after the section on truth in mathematics as I think it leads on nicely and will lead into more humanities based sections as I speak about politics in my discussion. Hope this is ok with everyoneApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in mathematics
@Driedmangoes I started researching this before I saw that you had done it already, it might be interesting to add the theory of Plato's world of forms as a counter point to the pragmatic view of mathematics. Mathematics unreasonable effectiveness at predicting the outcomes of physical events does imply that it is more than a human construct. It's also interesting that the search for the neurological structures assosiated with numbers has, so far, been unsuccessful. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.0119 this is a paper on that. Also to bring a bit of anthropology and biology into it you might want to look into the tribes that cannot count above 5 or 10 and the attempts to teach animals to count in reference to weather numbers are fundimental or a human construct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027708001042 This is a paper on a amazonian tribe that has no words for numbers but still can still equalize large numbers of objects into two groups, this may be an interesting point to add to the debate of weather an understanding of numbers is apriory or not, as they were able to identify difference in large numbers, implying an ability to subtract, but they were unable to complete tasks involving memory, implying that number language is key for remembering quantities but not identifying them. --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Sex and Gender
I found a of source that you might find interesting in highlighting the essentialist view.

http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/BirdR_1999_EvolAnthropol.pdf

It implies that women fulfilled the gatherer role and men the hunter and proposes some interesting evolutionary reasons for this, I added a little bit of information to the third sentance. You might find the article an interesting read and source for a more in depth breakdown of possible evolutionary reasons for gender roles in ancient times. --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Mythology
Hi! Your topic is really interesting. I corrected some mistakes and picked up some little things you could maybe improve! First of all, as your topic is quite hard to support with truth, you could give clear examples for the three types of truth you present so that we better understand your point. Moreover, maybe try to do three paragraphs for your three types of truth. I think it will really make your article way clearer! --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thankyou, what's there is a very rough version to 'stake my claim to the topic as I wrote half of a piece on truth in mathematics only to find it had already been written. That's a good idea about the paragraphs I will look at structuring it that way thankyou!
 * --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the idea about structuring it by types of truth, it makes a lot more sense that way --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in International Relations
You could add confronting bias or US dominance bias and argue that the truth can be easily manipulated. It will make your argument stronger.

Useful links:
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44218184?seq=1
 * https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article-abstract/4/3/402/5521931?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Moreover, you could mention objectivity and subjectivity within International Relations.

--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Law
As the famous pledge «tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth» shows, justice seeks at all costs to find the truth. In the case of a truth brought by a witness, its validity and objectivity may be questioned. As you have written, some rules can be obstacles to finding the truth, for example in his book "Discipline and Punish", Michel Foucault speaks of “bureaucratic concealment”. This refers to the fact that finding the truth today requires a long process that sometimes ends up by losing the very subject of the problem. He also speaks of the fact that the entry of psychology into the law, the consideration of the past and the profile of the condemned, makes the search for a truth difficult. When proof are made only of facts, a truth is more attainable. In terms of someone’s psychology and understanding what prompted them to do something, it’s much more complicated.

The Robert Hare Psychopathy Test is a reference to detect the degree of psychopathy in prisoners. Even at the psychological level, the law tries to find objective evidence on which to rely.

By leaving an opening to several interpretations and to several condemnations according to the condemned, justice leaves a part of freedom in the search for truth.

--Write&Leave (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thought your section would benefit from a couple of headings to make it more structured and easier to follow, really interesting topic. Also think you might want to look into your referencing as they're not particularly formatted

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


text:
User:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 3/Truth

Science Scepticism
Scientists often have a positivist approach to truth and see it as an understanding of the world, something that is based on clear observations of reality or experiments using the scientific method. Results of experiments are verified through replication studies by other scientists that attempt to prove if the original results can be replicated under similar experimental conditions. Though scientists will never be able to verify if their scientific findings are truly ‘true’, the rigorous application of the scientific method and replication reduce uncertainty and increase the credibility of the findings.

In post-truth politics
The problem of science scepticism highlights the interdisciplinary issues of science, public policy and politics, especially in the era of post-truth politics. Post-truth politics is a political culture where public opinion is largely shaped by a politician’s ability to appeal to emotion and personal belief, rather than scientifically proven facts.

Recently in the United States, this has also meant that facts backed up by scientific evidence are open to contestation by politicians when they do not support their political arguments. Science scepticism is attributed mainly to the rising prevalence of misinformation on social media and politicians questioning the legitimacy of mainstream media outlets that disagree with their political views. This spread of misinformation and consequently, the issue of science denial, is evidently a problem in the digital age and it causes a dichotomy between what’s seen as truth from the scientific viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the general public. An example is how 45% of self-identified Republican voters in the U.S. deny the existence of man-made climate change, despite 97% of scientists agreeing that climate exists and humans are causing it. As climate change is more likely to be viewed as a threat to commercial industry and capitalism by conservatives, right wing politicians are more likely to deny the existence of man-made climate change or downplay its effects. Notable examples are Donald Trump's tweets about climate change, such as "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" which he tweeted on 22 November 2018 during a polar vortex.

The grounds for this conservative denial of man-made climate change has been explored in the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. This thesis is explored in depth by Sociology Professor Aaron McCright in his 2016 journal article ‘Anti-Reflexivity and Climate Change Skepticism in the US General Public’. It examines the specificities and patterns which emerge within climate scepticism and the organised push by conservative groups to undermine climate science.

However, science scepticism is not exclusive to conservatives. Scepticism around the safety of genetically modified crops and vaccinations has been associated with liberals. In the case of genetically modified crops, the denial of scientific truth has considerable implications both for continued development of this field. In the case of the anti-vaccination movement, evidence has emerged to suggest that individuals who hold stronger political views (both liberal and conservative) are more likely to believe vaccinations are unsafe than more their more moderate counterparts.

Role of science communication
Science communication is a sub-discipline (usually considered within the broader discipline of sociology and politics of science). which aims to inform the public and raise general awareness around key scientific topics and issues. Science communicators, as well as considering how to make scientific information more accessible and learning around science more engaging, have the challenge of ensuring the information relayed to the public regarding key scientific issues is true.

Scientist communicators have identified different types of science scepticism. For example, within the broader area of climate scepticism, the following subsections have been recognised: trend scepticism, impact scepticism, attribution scepticism and consensus scepticism. They have also recognised the need to ‘debunk’ and ‘prebunk’ false claims and conspiracy theories, with the latter pre-emptive approach being proven to be more successful.

The need to ‘prebunk’ false reports and illegitimate studies is even more pertinent in the current social media climate in the face of ever-increasing conformation bias within the public. Conformation bias leads people to seek out sources which support their own point of view and dismiss contrary information.

Truth in Journalism
Journalism is the activity of collecting and gathering information to relay them in the media, such as in newspapers, magazines, and the radio.

Journalism became a real profession in the 20th century, that required academic training, making it truly become a discipline. The essence of journalism is to deliver news objectively, that are verified and true. Truth is thereby an important component of journalism.

The Verification of Information
A core principle in journalism is the verification of information. Journalists will achieve this by combining different sources, preferably of primary evidence, such as videos, photos and records. They must also place news in their context. It is said that journalists use two important concepts to verify news: correspondence and coherence. Correspondence means that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact; coherence looks at if this statement makes sense in a certain system.

A journalist's utlimate goal is objectiveness, he endeavours to provide impartial news. When covering a story, they try to give different point of views. Journalists must be independent, and not be influenced by unreliable, powerful sources. They are expected to be transparent, one should always be able to know their source.

Issues in Journalistic Truth
However, truth in journalism may encounter issues. Firstly, because journalists must select information: giving everything would often be too long. Their main goal is for the public to understand what is going on in the world, and they will sometimes deliver the truth in a certain way to reach this goal. Secondly, because journalists are subjective human beings, with their own opinion, who can also be unconsciously influenced by biased sources. Furthermore, they must meet professional requirements, such as deadlines that will sometimes cause them to rush the verification process. Hence, total objectiveness in journalism does not truly exist. This is why some claim that the accuracy of facts is more important than truth in journalism.

Therefore, journalistic truth depends not only on journalists but also on citizens and their ability to think critically. They should gather and weight information from several journalists, especially today in a context of the rise of social media, that amplify the phenomenon of “fake news”.

The notion of Truth in History
The notion of truth in history (and in any discipline in general) is quite complicated as it has various definitions and approaches. Is there one single truth meaning that any divergence in opinion regarding some event includes a “correct” approach and a wrong one? Or can they be multiple truths meaning that none of these different approaches are wrong despite the fact that they contradict one another?

Truth for most philosophers is a statement that corresponds to the facts you can observe. So truth is linked to facts; to evidence. But how can one be sure that a statement actually corresponds to the evidence? This step in the seeking for truth is where the bias of the human eye comes into account. Humans looking for evidence, in order to access truth, are biased. They see what they want to see. A historian when looking for evidence has something in mind already. He/she is looking for some proof that a certain event happened or some possible explanation as to why it happened. He/she cannot observe these facts without some intention, some subjectivity, some estimate of its value; some bias. In addition to simply looking for evidence in a biased way, historians also have to analyse this evidence, which reinforces this subjectivity as they see it, once again, through their own eyes and with their own prejudices, influenced by their implicit theories. For instance, there is an important clash when analysing the french soldiers during the First World War. On one side there are historians saying that the majority of soldiers were willing to fight in this war and defend their nation. On the other hand some historians say that te vast majority was pressured and compelled into this war. Antoine Prost, professor at Paris-I university affirms that today, to study the Great War, you first have to pick a side between these two versions of WWI's truth. Different things have to be taken into account to avoid subjectivity, in order to access an objective truth. The evidence itself can be/is biased, especially if it comes from one single source. The variety of sources is therefore also very important to limit that bias.

In social sciences, the Ulysses Principle consists in avoiding as much as possible this “siren call bias” when using historical sources as primary evidence, taking into account conceptual consistency, the already existing subjectivity of these sources and updated evidence (asking ourselves for instance if we actually have enough data to have an adequate representation of the event, allowing us to draw “true” conclusions).

The need for bias to access historical truth
Although this bias can be seen as something one would want to avoid, J. Harry Cotton suggests bias is actually essential to be a historian and to recover historical events, and that without it the historian is useless. Indeed, he says that an objective historian cannot be a historian at all as he wouldn’t be able to choose where to look for evidence. Whereas a biased historian, on the other hand, has a thesis to prove or disprove and therefore knows what to look for and where to look for evidence, to access historical truth. In addition, J. Harry Cotton says that this bias isn’t an obstacle to truth as long as the historian is able to change his assumptions, provided with evidence that contradicts his original thesis.

Therefore, all this bias and subjectivity that historians come across when gathering and analysing evidence questions the actual truth of History. Once again, asking the same questions; is there one single truth (and if so can it ever be reached by a human being)? or can the divergent theories of a historical event be different truths?

Truth in Film
Many would agree that art, in particular Cinema, is a reflection of the never ending human search for truth. Jean-Luc Godard wrote in Le Petit Soldat, « La photographie c’est la vérité, et le cinéma c’est vingt-quatre fois la vérité par seconde », ( « Photography is truth, and cinema is truth twenty-four times per second »). Does this mean we should consider what is presented to us on screen as the truth? Can film be compared to a distorted, magnified mirror of our reality? Tying it to the issue of Evidence, could we even use films as evidence or at least as an influence on rational thinking?

Catharsis is a concept introduced by Aristotle, most often associated with theatrical tragedies. It is defined as « The purification or purgation of the emotions aroused in a tragic performance ». In that case, catharsis can be considered as a form of knowledge in regards to our deepest weaknesses and desires. Through a reflection of ourselves, we are able to understand (and then purge) our own subconscious. As a result, catharsis applied to film, allows us to confront reality and a certain truth about human nature, as a form of abreaction.

In the 1960s emerged Cinéma Vérité, « Truth Cinema », a documentary-filmmaking movement which aimed to show truth in what surrounds us. It is a direct way of presenting reality in an attempt to « eliminate the barriers between subject and audience ». In that sense, Cinema Vérité enables film to not only be a mirror of reality but to annihilate the distinction. As a result can film influence our judgement and override rational thinking? Films allow us to live a certain experience through someone else, therefore knowing of the outcome of an action without facing its consequences. Accordingly, many would argue that they are valid contributions, but not evidently true.

Finally, an alternative view could be summarized as « What art does is reveal the truth about the illusion of truth. As a deception, art has a ‘good conscience’ in that it names the illusion as illusion. » This implies that art, in this case Film, does not serve the purpose to enlighten what each envisions as Truth, but to have us reconsider our given presumptions.

Truth in Criminology
Criminology is a discipline that emerged during the 18th century. It is the result of combining several existing disciplines, like psychology, sociology, law, and study of forensics, for the purpose of understanding crime and resolving cases. It was defined by Dr Keatley as ''« the study of crime, criminals, and the legal system - from crime detection and prevention, through to courts and justice system, and prison and rehabilitation services. »'' According to his description of the discipline, criminology applies a variety of different skills and cooperation to dismantle a crime and bring justice. The fundamental goal of criminology is to find the truth by which we learn all faces of crime and is, therefore, a knowledge very useful to improve security in our societies. This discipline is directly related to human daily life and has major impacts on them (for victims as much as for criminals). It is then imperative to find the real truth.

Theories
As complex as the human brain and psychology are, so is the study of abnormal behaviour which criminology is. The idea of the search for justice and punishment has always existed. It is such a rich subject that students in criminology have to develop many skills during college as well as study many cases to forge their brain ability to take a step back and think. This is why there are many different thoughts and theories in criminology. There is a compilation of different approaches to finding the truth but it always has a sense of construction. The recognized different thoughts include Classical, Positivist, Italian, Sociological positivist and Chicago school. These thoughts all seek to bring a piece of a way to think about crime and find ideas to connect elements. Two of the main scholars that contributed to classical criminology are Beccaria and Bentham. Their ideas were founding for criminology. The truth in criminology is then a combination of positivism (getting evidence), realism (hypothesis), as well as an interpretive process (the investigator own imagination) and constructivism. It is also distributed between objective (investigation based on empirical positive evidence, facts) and subjective (ranking of crimes seriousness) truth.

Evolution
The idea of punishment as the extent of criminology is also an idea that has been developed over the years, with the way of handling crimes, justice, truth and punishments revealing different societies traits. Many scholars like Michel Foucault have thought about the evolution of punishments and violence regarding the response to severe truth. This is a reason why criminology is very complex because it evolves in relation to the evolution of societies and the change of attitude. There are rules and ethical banners to find the truth even in crimes.

Mathematics: A Single or Multiple Truth?
Mathematics is often portrayed as a single universal truth and as a discipline handling incontestable facts. However, evidence has been found against this widespread claim. Indeed, an example of this would be the discovery, or perhaps the development, of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th Century. These new geometries were groundbreaking in the world of Mathematics, disproving that there was only one “true” geometry, which Euclidean geometry was previously thought to be. Indeed, the Greek mathematician Euclid founded the principles of this geometry which is now most commonly taught in schools, having been of great importance in Ancient Greece and still being pertinent today. It may thus be argued that there is a certain “pluralism” to be explored within this discipline, as explained by Peter Koellner in “Truth in Mathematics: the Question of Pluralism”, supporting the possibility of multiple truths within this discipline.

A Human Creation
The thought of mathematics as a universal truth often led to it being portrayed as something above man, linked to God, that has always existed but was discovered through time. This idea has been contested by mathematicians and philosophers, notably through the study of neuroscience and cognitive science, research suggesting that our ability to conceive numbers and mathematical concepts is in fact deeply wired in our brains. This would mean that arithmetic concepts are in fact a product of our own biology and evolution rather than a universal truth created by God or the world around us. Experiments have shown that this is also the case with most animals that we would otherwise consider intellectually inferior to ourselves. Indeed, it would seem that animals such as birds, chimpanzees and even rats have a more or less developed understanding of quantities and basic arithmetic principles of addition and subtraction, six month old human babies also having similar intuitions. This supports the idea that mathematics are a creation of our own minds, helping us understand the world around us.

Empiricism in Mathematics
Empiricism is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses". That empiricism is or should be applied to mathematics is a matter of debate among mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics. Indeed, in “What Is Mathematical Truth?”, philosopher Hilary Putman suggests that mathematics would benefit from an increased use of empiricism in the acquisition of truth, alongside deduction and more traditional mathematical reasonings. He goes so far as to argue that quasi-empirical methods have in fact always been used within this discipline. While the argument of empiricism playing a significant role in mathematics has also been strongly supported by others, such as mathematical logician László Kalmár, it has nevertheless been subject to criticism. Indeed, in his article “Empiricism in Mathematics”, Goodstein opposes this view by explaining that the mathematician is in certain ways an “inventor”, pointing out, for instance, that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries cannot be simultaneously observed in the natural world.

Positivism in Stem Cell Research
Stem cells are unspecialised cells having the capacity of differentiation and self-renewal. Stem cell research is a sub-field in life science concerning the properties of different stem cells and their applications in medicine. As a field in natural science, truth in stem cell research is often positivist and objective. To study the properties of stem cells, researchers conduct experiments to measure the activities of the cultured cells. For example, to document the self-renewal ability of stem cells, lineage-tracing assays are done by tagging the studied stem cell with a genetic marker and monitoring its in vivo activity in a long term. The measurement of the strength of the marker overtime is therefore an objective indicator of cellular activity.

Constructivism in Stem Cell Research
However, stem cell research is still a new field of study and scientists only started to research on this field systematically from the first successful isolation of embryonic stem cells in 1981. Thus, the research methods used are not matured yet and are still under development. Subjectivity raises when the experiment results are not indicative enough. For instance, current lineage-tracking techniques usually cannot provide images with a clear resolution, and the interpretation of the result is subjective to researchers themselves. Depending on the differences in past experience, individual labs sometimes give different analysis to the result, resulting in the constructive side of truth in stem cell research. Moreover, when applying to the medical world, the therapy methods as the truth are constructed by researchers. Genetic engineering is frequently used to increase the survival rate of stem cells during transplantation. Though the selection of genetic elements in the regulatory system is based on previous research, researchers tend to emphasise different aspects of the system and choose different genes for the construction based on their own standards. Therefore, apart from the positivism in studying stem cells properties, constructivism is also reflected by the engineering nature of stem cell research.

Constructivism can be dangerous when researchers are pushed by personal interests of pursuing fame and success instead of being motivated by pure academic interest. The field of stem cell research is highly competitive due to its promising future in medical treatments, and the publication of successful results is often given with more rewards. Thus, researchers may avoid publishing negative experimental results, leading to a biased construction of truth. As a former lab director at Harvard Medical School and a leading researcher in cardiology, Dr. Pier Anversa was found out to use falsified and fabricated results in 31 publications related to cardiac stem cells in 2018. Due to his action, the whole field of cardiac stem cell research collapsed and many other articles were retracted from medical journals.

Introduction
To understand how truth plays a role in Economics, we first need to know what is the subject itself. As Alfred Marshall, a famous economist puts it, economics is “a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man”. As a result, we understand that most of the things surrounding us can be studied through economics. From our financial system to world trade, but even the smaller things like everyday decisions when an individual chooses between two types of meat or hesitates if taking the metro is worth it or walking is better.

How do we find truth in economics?
Economics tries to study human conduct and preferences although we know how complex the human mind can be : changing behavior in a split second. Because of that, it can be difficult for economists and researchers to establish lasting truths. Especially if we try to predict the choice of one individual, it is impossible to take into consideration all the facts (personal experience, background, personality) that might influence his decisions. As a result economics focuses more on the population as a whole rather than on particular individuals. It has been shown that when studying large groups of people we can distinguish certain traits and behaviors in common between the majority that enables economists to make statistically probable predictions. An example of that can be seen in the Prisoner’s dilemma. Prisoner’s dilemma is an experiment which puts two individual in a position of jeopardy to see if they will stay loyal or turn on each other. By conducting large experiments on a large number of people, economists have been able to say with some certainty that the large majority will turn on each other in positions of stress even if it is not the allocation that will give them the most benefits. This can be transposed on a larger economic scale showing how most people are self-interested when talking about economic or social gains.

Truth in Ethics
When considering the issue of truth in the context of Ethics, it is natural to question whether Ethics is even capable of producing truths given the highly subjective nature of the discipline. While it has been argued that truth cannot exist in an ethical context, a commonly accepted counter-argument embraces truth-aptness, the notion that a statement may be simultaneously true and false, and thus allows certain moral judgements to be defined as true propositions. .

Are moral judgements truth-apt?
A statement may be defined as truth-apt if it does not have a truth value (i.e. it could equally assume values of true or false in the same context). There is a considerable case to be made for moral judgments (for example, the statement "it is wrong to kill a baby") being truth-apt.

Firstly, since the truth-value of moral judgements are almost objectively accepted as possessing a degree of transience, it follows that an individual's judgement of a moral statement at any one time does not necessarily define the truth value of that statement. For example, an individual may change their perspective on an ethical issue such as abortion as they are influenced by different experiences, perhaps shifting their judgement of the statement "abortion is wrong" as true to false over a period of time. We cannot definitively say whether either judgement is correct, implying that moral judgements such as these are truth-apt, capable of assuming truth values of true and false at once.

Furthermore, as Michael P. Lynch puts in, moral judgements are "subjected to the norms of epistemic appraisal". It is a convention within the discipline of Ethics that moral judgements should be sufficiently supported by reason and evidence. If a statement fails to stand up to challenge due to insufficient evidence or a weak argument, then that statement loses its authority and there is an expectation that the the truth-value originally assigned to that statement should be reconsidered. This point is highlighted by the distinction between judgements of morality and judgements of taste; when judgements of taste (for example "running is fun") are contested, there is not an obligation for the individual to reconsider the truth-value of that judgement in the same way as there is for judgements of morality, which are held to a different standard of academic discourse. . This relates back to the transience of the apparently arbitrary truth-values we assign to moral judgements, and strengthens the argument for truth-aptness.

Correspondence theory of truth
Beyond the issue of truth-aptness, we encounter the question of whether moral judgements can ever be justifiably interpreted as true. Working on the assumption that moral assertions assume the same definition of truth as other types of propositions, the correspondence theory of truth can be applied to moral judgements in order to address the issue of truth in Ethics.

The correspondence theory of truth defines truth as correspondence with facts, so for a moral statement to be true, it must correspond with facts. This means that the concepts that the statement deals with must have a direct grounding in the real-world.

Moral Realists interpret the correspondence theory of truth with the claim that moral statements describe moral objects and properties that exist in the real world. Thus, when we state a moral judgement, according to the Moral Realist, we are presenting a proposition which corresponds to moral facts and can therefore assume a truth value of true or false. This relies on the semantic assumption that the language used in Ethics is capable of expressing a certain moral reality.

Expressivists reject this interpretation, claiming that moral statements cannot possibly have truth values because they do not describe facts grounded in reality. The Expressivist makes the semantic argument that moral statements merely describe attitudes towards real-world objects and properties, rather than those objects and properties themselves. According to correspondence theory, the expressivist must therefore deny the existence of true statements in Ethics. This implies that statements such as "abortion is wrong" or "donating to charity is right" cannot be reliably assigned truth values of either true or false because they deal with attitudes, not concrete facts.

Determining truth within Ethics
If we assume that true propositions can exist within ethics, we encounter the question of how the truth value of a moral statement can be determined. A common methodology used to determine truth within Ethics typically relies on treating moral statements as hypotheses that we can test against our intuitions by examining our responses to thought experiments. This process lends itself to an analogy of the scientific method; the hypothesis is the moral statement, the experimental procedure consists of working through an abstract thought experiment, and rather than relying on empirical observations, our intuitive reaction to the imaginary scenario is treated as evidence that may point to the truth value of the moral statement. A familiar example of this is the trolley problem, a thought experiment used to help determine the truth value of utilitarian statements such as "an action is right if it maximises the sum-total of well-being in the universe" by treating our intuitive reactions to the hypothetical scenario described in the thought experiment as data.

Empiricism according to John Locke
Empiricism considers that it is experience that constructs our knowledge. According to this theory, we can only access the truth through our senses. John Locke believes that the human mind is born with no knowledge at all, before any type of experiences, the spirit is a “blank sheet” with nothing written on it, all of it said in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1968). Empiricists say that you first need to do “tabula rasa”, a clean slate of all our preconceived ideas in order to conceive the truth through our senses and our experiences. All truths told to us or the education we are given on the world could be false, making our senses the only reliable source. This theory was greatly criticized by the rationalists who argued that when you had a hallucination, it was our senses deceiving us and that we had to focus on our understandability.

Idealism according to René Descartes
René Descartes states that you don’t only need a clean slate on all preconceived ideas but you need doubt of everything, including doubt of doubt – “époché”. According to him, the ‘Cartesian Doubt’ is the only way to find truth; having to doubt preconceived ideas, the different senses, and eventually attain the hyperbolic doubt, where one would doubt about every object and the entire world surrounding them, accepting only laws of math and physics. Through this process, one is able to prove his own existence. If one is able to doubt his own existence it means they think and therefore exist: "cogito ergo sum” (I think thus I am). After describing this elaborate process, Descartes establishes 4 rules in order to guide one's spirit towards truth. 1.	Never accept anything as true without knowing it from experience. 2.	Divide every difficulty that we examine into different steps to avoid misconceptions 3.	Keep order in your thoughts, starting with the simplest objects then turning to the most complex ones 4.	Do for every truth a general review to leave nothing aside.

Human Interpretation at the Core of Scientific Truth
Truth in Science is based on empirical evidence and it aims to mirror the reality that exists in the world. In other words, it aims to present an objective truth. A subjective truth, on the other hand, is a truth based on a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Science aims to arrive at truth that is free of human subjectivity. However, to what extent is that possible?

Human interpretation in scientific context
Scientists aim to obtain evidence in a way that is free of the scientist’s subjectivity (meaning, free of their biases arising from personal preferences and experiences). Individual subjectivity tends to be gradually filtered out and replaced by agreed-upon evidence. For example, if two people are observing a building from different distances, they will perceive the height of the building in different ways (because of how the building appears to them from their standing point). To eliminate this subjective interpretation, measurement standards and measurement tools are used. But in order for those to be widely recognized as true and to be used, there first needs to be an agreement on their definition and function. An example would be the universal agreement on the definition of a meter. This process of agreeing involves interpreting the object or phenomenon being measured and the possible tools and ways it can be measured.

Human interpretation in temperature measurements
One type of measurement that relies heavily on interpretation is the one of temperature. Thermometers are tools used to measure temperature by relating an unobservable quantity (to humans) to an observable quantity. Humans cannot directly observe temperature, so to measure it, thermometers relate it to the expansion (or length) of a gas or fluid in a glass tube. In essence, thermometers measure temperature by assuming that length is a function of temperature. The keyword in the sentence above is “assumption”, which relates directly to interpretation. In reality, the truthfulness of the function of length = f (temperature) cannot be tested as it requires a measurement tool that directly measures temperature without relating it to any other standard (which does not currently exist within the discipline of Science). Furthermore, in 1724, the German physicist Daniel Fahrenheit introduced the first-ever temperature scale that divided the freezing and boiling points of water into 180 degrees. However, the development of this scale also heavily relied on interpretation as it is not entirely clear why the divisor was chosen to be specifically 180 and not another value. This is not to say that the scientific way of measuring temperature is inherently wrong, in fact, it is especially pragmatic in our lives. The aim is to point out that although temperature measurements are seen as purely objective, human interpretation stands at the core of the measurement process. It could also be argued that because a level of interpretation was involved in arriving at that scientific truth adds a level of subjectivity to it.

Truth in Translation
Literature can give many forms of truth. It has the ability to teach the reader about different reactions and social scenarios and in multiple universes, dimensions, from different perspectives and narratives and in different time periods. Through this it allows individuals to understand and feel an experience they may have never felt before or in a new way. In this sense literature can act as an interpretive truth, but also as a realist truth, where it can have the potential to mirror reality. When these works of literature are translated, translation being a sub-discipline of literature and language, aspects of these truths have the potential to be lost, gained or manipulated.

When considering the great works of English Literature, many would lean towards the canonical playwright, poet and actor, William Shakespeare. His writing is filled with layered metaphors, rhyme and meter, and of course emphatic phrases that have made their way into the english language, and still provoke discussion in the modern day. For example, the famous line from Hamlet, “to be or not to be”. Different languages have very different approaches to this infinitive. English language, only has one infinitive to describe a state of ‘being’ has led to great ambiguity over what “to be, or not to be” truly means, which is perhaps why this quote is so famous. The ambiguity allows space for discussion and multiple truths to be drawn from it. In Spanish however, we have two infinitives for the verb ‘to be’: estar and ser. Ser is the more official of the two, used to describe vocation, nationality and so on. Estar is used to describe feelings, actions and temporary states of being. So how does a translator decide which should be used in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? There are truths that are lost from either choice.

Another example is in the Mandarin translation of Plato’s Republic. This book follows Socrates over the course of an evening attempting to find a definition of justice. He uses the Socratic Method and thinks through many different definitions demonstrating the great complexities that can be found in abstract terms such as justice, but also a method for philosophical thought. In Mandarin, the title is translated as 理想國, meaning ‘ideal state’, which brings new truths, or perhaps manipulates the truth, of The Republic. This gives the book an aim, taking the emphasis off the philosophical teachings found along the way, and rather, onto the definition of justice which perhaps changes the nature of the text and its desired truths. It is important to note that there is a word for ‘republic’ in Mandarin, and so this choice was deliberate of the translators.

The word ‘utopia’ was coined by Sir Thomas More, deliberately because of its ambiguous meaning allowing perhaps for greater truths to be drawn from it, like with Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be”. If you trace ‘utopia’ back to its Greek roots, it could mean either ‘good place’ (eutopia) or ‘no place’ (utopia). It seems that More took a deliberate play on the words in English as they are homophones. This leads to a number of potential interpretations, perhaps the good place is no place and doesn’t exist, or perhaps the good place is not a place and cannot not be thought of in mundane terms.

In this way, translations can lead to a greater or lesser number of interpretations which can manifest themselves to be as truths in terms of relaying reality back to the consumer of the literature, and so, the role of translator holds great power in how an entire nation may draw truths from literature.

Truth in Poetry
Historically poetry and truth have not often thought to be associated with each other. Often in writing poems, poets have not been wholly concerned with facts and logic, rather presenting subject matter in a beautiful and abstract way. Kant argues that this deliberate antecedence of the depiction of a subject over logic or factual basis makes poetry a far more important form of art, and separates it from prose by characterising prose as being concerned with linear narratives and logical explanation. ‘Negative capability’, a term coined by Keats in 1817 which later developed into a poetic school of thought, revolves around abandoning the search for essential truths about man or nature, rather creating a vision of artistic beauty even when it created philosophical uncertainties. Keats goes on to argue that rather than detaching poetry from truth, this theory brings poetry closer to the true nature of the world which itself refuses to be defined by a rigid set of philosophical or scientific truths, and allows us to observe a holistic picture of the world and not be forced down a narrow passageway of thought in order for the thesis of a poem to make sense

Heidegger proposes a constructivist relationship between poetry and truth, namely that poetry is a way of building truth through revelation. By looking at the world through a poetic lens we are able to endow the things around us with new meaning and value. Roger Scruton suggests in an analysis of Heidegger’s theory that there is an inherent or essential truth in every object that it is the pursuit of poetry to access or reveal. This truth exists not as a universal standard but rather a product of the relationships and associations we have with the world around us which form the fabric of our daily lives.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/July 8

 1. Make each program do one thing well. ... 2. Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, ... Today in 1978 Doug McIlroy first published a version of the Unix philosophy in The Bell System Technical Journal. Following these principles facilitates the chaotic remote collaboration that is vital for the success of open source development, since even complex systems are preferably built in manageable parts.

title: Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/July 8


text:
User talk:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 1/Truth

Truth in Art
You concluded that truth can never been obtained in art, but if you consider art to be a reflection of reality then surely it would always be true?

Add-on: Perhaps you can derive personal truths from Art. Truths do not always need to be on a scientific basis. If you're looking for truths on more scientific basis you can look at William Utermohlen and the effects of dementia on the mind. You can see how his brain is deteriorating from his self portraits. Each year his recognition of himself worsens.

You say that in art, critics are the main method of determining the value of an artwork. This can be an issue because esteemed critics are not readily available and often critics disagree so it would benefit to get the opinion of multiple. Would there be value in automating this process? For example, an AI could be trained on a dataset of artworks with ratings from multiple esteemed critics. This would aim to be able to predict the average consensus that these critics would have on any artwork. Would this be useful? Would this be feasible or are the criteria for artistic value too nuanced to be picked up in a statistical model? Could this help us better understand the nature of truth in art? Turtle down (discuss • contribs) 05:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: When Truth Fails in Science
To add on, scientists only write/research about what they care about. This leads to implicit bias in the conducting of the experiment which might lead to a flaw in experimental design. Furthermore, as you mentioned, these scientists would hence have an agenda in the success of the hypothesis. There is also theory-laden observation in science, where the results and experiments pre-supposes existing scientific theories which might not be true. Scientists should seek to falsify existing scientific theories, which would lead us closer to the truth. However, scientists have a tendency not to do this.

Truth in Deontological Ethics
In your contribution you contrast deontological approaches to moral truths with relativist approaches. Perhaps it might be useful to note that not all non-deontological approaches are relativistic?


text:
User talk:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday2-3/Truth

Truth in Consciousness: Neuroscience and Philosophy
I have added a small contribution regarding a set of laboratory experiments that were essential in providing evidence for the lateralization of brain function, as you had mentioned this in the introductory paragraph. I also agree with the idea that monism, regarding to the way neuroscience defines consciousness, is a reductionist approach to the truth and that an interdisciplinary approach of both neuroscience and philosophy can help us better understand the consciousness as a whole. MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 02 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very useful and detailed account of split-brain experiments showing how perception and interpretation is affected by the alteration of brain structure. I've turned this into a sub-sub-section as it is still under neuroscience and monism, I also added a sentence at the end of your contribution to link what you have said back to theories on consciousness. Alpacamaka (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 04 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I have added my initial contribution of split-brain studies in your contribution section, and instead added a small conclusion sentence at the end, as I feel this is better structurally to have both the experiments under this section. Alpacamaka (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 04 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with that structural change, thank you for taking the time to make it. MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Social Anthropology and Biology: Constructivism versus Positivism
I added a sub-section on Biological Anthropology as an example of how these two disciplines are integrated, in the context of race, and the issues which have been encountered as a result of the different approaches of constructivism in social anthropology and positivism in biology as you described previously. Alpacamaka (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 02 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I fully agree with all the points you outlined in this paragraph as this extra piece of information helps outline the need for interdisciplinarity in these fields. MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 04 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in beauty: Beauty from different approaches
I added a sub-section on beauty from a social constructivist perspective, using examples of historical and cross-cultural cases to demonstrate the ideas that this view is based upon. I thought that it would be useful to see how beauty is approached differently by social constructivists compared to positivists. Alpacamaka (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contribution. I tried to look for information about beauty from a constructivist point of view and I couldn't find anything, so this has been of great help. I am also working on beauty from a perspectivist point of view, so if anyone has any ideas or contributions feel free to add them to the sandbox. Cannedtomatoes (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Intelligence
I have taken the liberty to edit some of the sentences in this contribution, to improve structure and therefore understanding. I also changed the layout a tiny bit, as there were gaps between sentences that seemed to impact the flow of your argument and looked a bit out of place. Overall I think this is a really interesting subject to discuss, therefore I hope my contributions helped clarify your points a bit. I would however suggest having another look over the text, as there are still some sentences that I struggled understanding and I did not want to change the meaning - so I left them as they were. (Bienchen4338 (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC))

Truth in Videography: the Future of Fake News
I added a small paragraph regarding the Interdisciplinarity of this issue. I believe the paragraphs you wrote were extremely insightful as they offered an explanation of a current world issue that is sometimes not talked about enough. In order to emphasise the point of the impact this issue has, I added some examples of ways in which disciplines may need to change to adapt to this new technology. MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
Solutions To Mathematics Textbooks/Basic Mathematics/Chapter 13

=Chapter 13=

1
$$f(x) = \frac{1}{x} \,$$

$$f\left(\frac{3}{4}\right) = \,$$ $$\frac {1}{\frac{3}{4}}    =  \,$$ $$1 * \left(\frac {3}{4}\right)^{-1}= \frac{4}{3}      \,$$

$$f\left(-\frac{2}{3}\right) = \,$$ $$\frac {1}{-\frac{2}{3}} = \,$$ $$1 * \left( \frac{-2}{3} \right)^{-1} = \,$$ $$ \frac{3}{-2} \,$$

2
$$f(x) = \frac{1}{x^2 - 2} \,$$ $$(x \neq \pm \sqrt{2}) \,$$

$$f(5) = \frac{1}{5^2 - 2} = \frac{1}{25 - 2} = \frac{1}{23}\,$$

3
$$f(x) = \sqrt[3]{x} \,$$ is defined for all real numbers.

$$f(27) = \sqrt[3]{27} = 3 \,$$ because $$3^3 = 27. \,$$

4
$$ a) f(1) = 1 \,$$

$$ b) f(-3) = 3 \,$$

$$ c) f\left(-\frac{4}{3}\right) = \frac{4}{3} \,$$

5
$$ a) f\left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = 1/2 + |1/2| = 1 \,$$

$$ b) f(2) = 2 + |2| = 4 \,$$

$$ c) f(-4) = -4 + |-4| = -4 + 4 = 0\,$$

$$ d)f(-5) = -5 + |-5| = -5 + 5 = 0 \,$$

6
$$ f(x) = 2x + x^2 - 5 \,$$

$$a) f(1) = 2(1) + (1)^2 - 5 = -2 \,$$

$$b) f(-1) = 2(-1) + (-1)^2 - 5 = -6 \,$$

7
$$ f(x) = \sqrt[4]{x} \,$$

$$ x \geq 0 \,$$

$$ f(16) = 2, \,$$ because $$ 2^4 = 16 \,$$

8
$$ f(x) = -f(x) \,$$ is said to be an even function for all numbers x.

$$ f(x) = -f(-x) \,$$ is said to be an odd function for all x.

$$a)f(x) = x \,$$ is odd.

$$b)f(x) = x^2 \,$$ is even.

$$c)f(x) = x^3 \,$$ is odd.

$$d)f(x) = \frac{1}{x} \,$$ if $$x \neq 0 \,$$ and $$f(0) = 0 \,$$ is odd.

9
Let $$f_e(x) = \frac {f(x) + f(-x)}{2} \,$$ and $$f_o(x) = \frac {f(x) -f(-x)}{2}  \,$$ be the even and odd functions respectively.

Then $$f_e(x) + f_o(x) = \frac {f(x) + f(-x) + f(x) - f(-x)}{2} = f_e(x) \,$$

10
a) Odd

b) Even

c) Odd

d) Odd

e) Even

f) Even

g) Even

11
$$a)\,$$ $$f_a(x) = \frac{f(x) - f(-x)}{2} \,$$ $$ f_b(x) = \frac{f(x) - f(-x)}{2} \,$$

$$ f_a(x) + f_b(x) = \frac {f(x) - f(-x) + f(x) - f(-x)}{2} \,$$

It follows that $$ f_a(x) + f_b(x) = f(x) - f(-x) \,$$ (The odd function)

$$b)\,$$ $$f_a(x) = \frac{f(x) + f(-x)}{2} \,$$ $$ f_b(x) = \frac{f(x) + f(-x)}{2} \,$$

$$ f_a(x) + f_b(x) = \frac {f(x) + f(-x) + f(x) + f(-x)}{2} \,$$

It follows that $$ f_a(x) + f_b(x) = f(x) + f(-x) \,$$ (The even function)


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth/Truth in psychology

Truth in Psychology
Although psychologists aim to remain objective, possibilities of bias must always be analysed and mentioned in psychology. There are five psychological biases but the most common one is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias happens when the psychologist looks at the data available but interprets it with his or her existing beliefs. Often this may lead to people rejecting data if it goes against what they believe in. Confirmation bias often affects the way people look at statistics. However, it can be avoided by having a variety of people look at the information and making sure that the group has a variety of different views and beliefs.

Bias may also play a role when sampling. This occurs when the sample that is participating in the study is not representative enough of the general population (eg. only teenage females are surveyed). However, it does not only have to be affected by age or gender, but also by location, political beliefs, etc. When considering data, one must also ask if the data is reliable. This might mean that results of one study have to be compared to the results of other findings or that different trials have to be run within one experiment.


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth

Hi, this might seem a little early for formatting since not everyone's created a page so far, but due to the wide range of topics for this week, which do not necessarily correspond to specific disciplines, I was unsure how to organise the main page layout. Does anyone have any suggestions? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 13/ Truth

Good day all, I was wondering about the use of headings in this section. I put the anthropology section under ‘Truth in Sciences’ for now, although I can move it if people feel it is more appropriate. Furthermore, some of the headings only have one entry under each, is there any way to remedy this? Perhaps wait for all entries to be completed before adding main headings? Please let me know what you think. Edgeofdawn (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think we should at least wait until tomorrow morning before writing headings, introductions and conclusions - as we need to see all the contributions. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone ahead and written an introduction as the deadline is approaching, although I invite those who have yet to upload their entry to modify my introduction if it no longer fits the content. Also, would anyone be willing to write a conclusion to tie everything together ? Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I have now added a short conclusion as this week’s deadline approaches. I am definitely open to anyone developing or adding more to it as they see fit, but I hope it will suffice for now. Edgeofdawn (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that! Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for writting the introduction and also I have added definitions to the different types of truth that are statend in the introduction as I felt like without the reader doesn't knwo what each one means and it becomes quite confusing once you start reading the entire article page. Ethan.dawson101 (discuss • Special:Contributions/Ethan.dawson101contribs) 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! just underlying that there are major differences in 'Medias' between traditional Medias and Social Medias that really translate in the notion of Truth. Maybe it would be interesting to distinguish them (especially when thinking of Truth within a discipline)Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

 * Hi! I was wondering what you guys think about having anthropology and psychology under the sciences? I feel like it's a bit misleading as people generally attribute the sciences to the natural sciences. I've changed it to social sciences but let me know what you think. Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I've just added a Truth in Humanities section, might be suitable for philosophy ? let me know what you think.Lmbs2506 11:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who wrote about truth in media, but I was thinking maybe you could consider expanding on why it is important for the media to present factual information. Also, you've argued that it's the readers job to find trustworthy sources, maybe you could consider explaining why it is the readers job to find factual information rather than the job of the media to present the truth? Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! Thank you for your feedback, I will look into that. The reason why I didn't develop more those points was because of the word count... but thanks a lot for your suggestions! And for the fact that reader needs to find good sources, I don't know if I should add on to that because I think it is more about the liberty of speech and the liberty of the press than anything else. But also I think it will be a long topic to discuss, as there are many things to say about that.AmelieZ (discuss • contribs)17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello ! I read the article on Truth in History and I found interesting how you said that it is constructed through many complex individual factors. However, I thought that the part about primary and secondary sources might have been more appropriated to the Evidence issue than the Truth one. I hope this helps !

Hello ! I loved the article on Censorship and Queer Erasure. However I feel the link to Truth could a bit more explicit for the article not to fall under the notion of Power Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)
 * Hi, I also really enjoyed this section. I agree with what you have said and I have added some more ties and links to the issue of truth in order to clarify the concept that is being examined, as I also found that it could easily have been mistaken with the issue of power. Another idea I also think that would be interesting to explore and that relates very Cleary to the idea of "straightwashing" would be the idea of objective truth in the form of the existence a separation between gender expression, sexuality and gender identity, and how in many cases this very clearly universal truth is understood subjectively as a social construction that is formed independently in every culture. I feel as if this argument could really help to show the diversity in different types of truth and could even allow for the introduction of other disciplines such as biology and psychology, allowing for a truly interdisciplinary discussion of truth. Ethan.dawson101 (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Jacobiscool2010 9

dog simalator

title: User:Jacobiscool2010 9


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 12/Truth

Hey, Basc0024!

Great text! I did a little further reading on your topic as the problems that you are addressing in your article are really quite shocking to me. I came across this other article that I thought you might be interested in reading, it’s about the issue with face recognition algorithms that you also talked about! Here’s the link: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/ I also added just a little information from it to your text, just to specify a bit more what the problem with these algorithms is. Hope you don’t mind! Undercoveraustrian (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Undercoveraustrian

Hi undercoveraustrian ! Thanks for adding some interesting details to an example I only mentioned rapidly ! I also went through your text and axioms really interested me. I didn't know which facts where considered as axiom/are assumed to be true without any proof, so I did some research and here is a quick list of axioms that I found in case it interests anybody else ! - “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect” - "If two sets have the same elements, then they are equal." - "A line can extend to infinity" It strikes me that those basis of mathematics that we constantly use might in fact be false.

Basc0024 (discuss • contribs)

Truth in Mathematics
Hi Undercoveraustrian! I've just read your text about truth in mathematics and it was really interesting. Honestly, I had never heard about some of the things you analyzed. Consequently, I needed to do some research and I've stumbled across an article that you might find helpful and fascinating. Here is the link towards it: http://settheory.net/sets/truth I think it covers exactly what you are talking about! xx

Uclqrdi (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqrdi

Hi Uclqrdi! I read through the link that you sent, and it was really interesting especially since I had not really covered this specific area of the subject in my text! So thanks a lot for the addition!

Undercoveraustrian (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Undercoveraustrian

Truth in Social Media
To the person that wrote the part on social media, I though your subject was very interesting so I added a little paragraph about truth in social media in China as I found this very interesting article that talked about 'rumours' that could be true about the Chinese government but were still censored because it wasn't what the government wants to see. Here is the reference if you want. Zeng, J., Chan, C.‐h. and Fu, K.‐w. (2017). "How Social Media Construct "Truth" Around Crisis Events: Weibo's Rumor Management Strategies After the 2015 Tianjin Blasts". Policy and Internet: 297–320. --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Uclqesm

Hi Uclqesm! I read your paragraph and really loved it! Thank you for contributing to it, it really adds to the article. I found this example as much fascinating as it is disturbing. Thanks again! Uclqrdi (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqrdi

Truth within Religion
Hello, I really liked the topic choice for Truth Within Religion, and I think you had great points about it being a type of internal truth, even if it isn't based on quantitative evidence. I just wanted to add a little bit about some of the studied effects of truth within religion for an individual:

Finding personal truth within religion can occur in multiple ways. Aside from being born into a religion and learning about it from family or community, revelatory truth can also be a factor. Sometimes in instances of deep thought or meditation, differing brain signals and networks can be observed, especially in the frontal lobe, which plays a part in various high-level brain processes. Because religion can activate these functions, it suggests that full belief of a truth within a religion can create a better experience for those you partake in it.

7. Blows M, Blows J, Haruki Y, Bankart P, DelMonte M, Srinivasan S. The Relevance of the Wisdom Traditions in Contemporary Society [Internet]. Google Books. 2020 [cited 7 November 2020]. Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1YnP0Jx-QvIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA195&dq=enlightenment+brain&ots=tBctBgV0RU&sig=ZP2OrEm0_fLv-WAa2N2wqdqtLSk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=enlightenment%20brain&f=false Dyinghouseplant (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just read the article and it was indeed very interesting, do you want to add it or should I do it? --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqesm

I just added it. Thanks! Dyinghouseplant (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in History and Historiography
This contribution brought up a really interesting perspective of truth in history however, I feel you could accentuate your point by writing a conclusive paragraph where you explain how the different theories on the emergence of the industrial revolution tie into the concept of truth in hisotry as a discipline. You could perhaps explain how all these theories are arguably true when looking at different aspects of the situation and also perhaps connect back to your point about coexistence, correlation and causation in order to clarify your point to the reader.

Is mathematics invented or discovered
Hi! Looks like we chose pretty similar topics for our contributions, but it was interesting for me to see how we both weighed certain points differently within them! It was nice to read trough a different take on things!

Undercoveraustrian (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Undercoveraustrian


text:
Algebra/Graphing Systems of Inequalities For Polynomials

To graph a system of inequalities, the first step is to graph each inequality as a dotted line. Then, one must shade in the area that is below the line, given that the inequality has y as the value that is less than. If y is the value that is greater than, one must shade above the line. To shade, one should draw lines roughly perpendicular to the dotted lines at regular intervals close enough together to make it prominent, but not too frequent to take too long.


text:
User:Kyoshiwarrior

HI! I would love to have discussions on this space and answer any questions.

title: User:Kyoshiwarrior


text:
User talk:Kyoshiwarrior

Discuss w me!

title: User talk:Kyoshiwarrior


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth/Truth in physics

Truth in Physics
Truths in physics are fundamentals that most experts in a specific time period agree on. Nowadays, basic truths of physics are proven using experiments and mathematical calculations; it is a rigorous, empirical process and the goal is to find an objective truth. However, in physics, truths are dynamic and truths that are not entirely compatible can coexist.

The Heliocentric Model
An example of a radical paradigm shift in astronomy, a branch of physics, is the acceptance of the heliocentric model, which asserted that the sun is at the center of our solar system. The emergence of this theory, which was developed by Nicolaus Copernicus, marked the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, a time in which science became a separate discipline. During the Scientific Revolution, new ways of scientific thinking were developed, such as a quantitative perspective on the world and experimental, scientific methods. Thus, it could be argued that the adoption of the heliocentric model was a consequence of a paradigm shift in society rather than physics itself, which shows how society plays an important role in the development of truths in physics.

The Theory of Relativity
Another such revolution in physics was the theory of relativity, which disproved classical Newtonian physics and explained phenomena like the orbit of Mercury, which classical physics failed to explain. This new way of seeing the world showed that gravity, space, and time are dependent on each other. However, it did not completely replace Newtonian physics because Newtonian physics is still accurate in most applications concerning objects that are larger than quantum objects and do not travel close to the speed of light; it was accurate enough to make the moon landing possible. Additionally, Newtonian physics is taught in schools because it is more in line with common sense: mass is constant and gravity and space are independent. Thus, it can be said that it is still a truth in physics since it is still widely used, accurate in many situations and accepted as fundamental by most people, only it has been complemented by relativistic physics and quantum physics.

Quantum Physics and Relativity
Relativistic physics and quantum physics are both fundamental parts of physics but they contradict each other to a certain extent: relativistic physics assumes that things are deterministic, meaning that a specific cause yields one specific outcome, while quantum physics is probabilistic ; when an electron is shot through a double slit behind which there is a screen, it is a matter of probability where the electron hits the screen. Due to this fundamental distinction between the two theories, it is not possible to interpret relativistic laws in terms of quantum mechanical laws. Many physicists believe that quantum physics is a more fundamental set of laws than the theory of relativity, which fails to explain how gravity works inside a black hole. The string theory, which is yet to be proven, is supposed to provide a framework for a quantum theory that explains gravity and also works at the most extremes of gravity (e.g. inside black holes) and thus reconciles the theory of relativity with quantum physics. Truths, at least current truths like Newtonian physics, the theory of relativity, and quantum theory, in physics are thus not necessarily true for all of physics but rather apply to certain realms within physics and are proven to work within these realms. This means that truths are not absolute in physics but they certainly are based on objective evidence.

Power and Truth in Physics
The emergence of new truths in physics can have a strong influence on technological developments and society. Eintein's theory of relativity paved the way for the theory of the Big Bang, black holes and the atomic bomb. Quantum mechanics played a role in the development of solar cells, modern microelectronics, and quantum computers, which can solve some problems much faster than normal computers. For example, they can decrypt today's encryption techniques, thus putting private data at risk. Hence, physics is not only influenced by society but it also has a significant influence on society. With this power made available through physics, it is vital that physicists are conscious of the developments they are making and how they could be used.


text:
User talk:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 16/ Truth

=Introduction=

To the person who began our Introduction, thank you for contributing a great preface to our Truth sandbox! I think it was a really interesting choice to introduce the topic through the use of poetry. It was particularly thought provoking for me as I thought back to how truth within the humanities is typically seen as relative and constructivist in thinking, something that I think was highlighted. I think it also gave our contributors a wide tent to answer the ambiguous and daunting question of what is, or more so how we come to, truth? I added the theories of knowledge touched upon in our lectures on truth to help put in perspective where some disciplines may fall or overlap in their approaches to finding truth. --Caprithai (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Really thank the writer who came up with the creative idea of using the poem “Tell all the truth but tell it slant” by Emily Dickinson to start our “Truth” sandbox page. I really like this poem. It is like pun intended and ingeniously reveals the ambiguous nature of the concept “truth” itself. Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the nice comments and the great additions. I'm glad you liked it.

=Truth in Music=

This contribution is great and interesting. I am curious how you managed to put the same reference twice as you did with reference [24]. I have tried to do it on wikimedia, but i cannot seem to make it work. I would love to get your help with that. OwlUwl (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I am also curious about that! How can we put the same reference twice when adding the references? It would be great if you can help with that. Thank you in advance! Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! Basically, you give your reference a "name" the first time you cite it, and then when you refer back to it, you just call it by its "name." Here is the article I used to help me on this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to type the templates so that they show up in the 'Read' view, but you can find the templates in the article below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (go to 4.1.5, repeated citations)

Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thank you for providing this link. I believe it would be more of use when we start working on the Wikibooks Chapter. Lily0212 (discuss • contribs)

Thank you so much! I now managed to do this in my Power-sandbox and it works great! OwlUwl (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

=Truth in Musicology=

To the author who wrote this section, I found the discipline and the topic you chose about Musicology very interesting. It lets me learn about the deep rational nature that music possesses despite that it is usually perceived by people as emotional works. It is really amazing that the perception of truth in Musicology varies in different times and cultures. Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading about the relationship between Mathematics and Music, as well as the effect of music on brain activity -- I think you displayed a very unique way of presenting interdisciplinarity. Although one comment I'd note is perhaps use a more formal syntax, for example changing "gonna" to "will". Beans2002 (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have really enjoyed your contribution on truth within the discipline of musicology. We've all heard or read about the science and mathematics embedded in music to certain extents. However, you explored that relationship in a very unique way. Using it as an explanation of what accounts for the different experiences people have when listening to the music of different cultures was both really interesting and informative.

=Truth in Art and Literature=

I did enjoy your chosen topic and your approach, however, I feel like the two questions you posed in the beginning, while relevant, structure the contribution more as an essay, as your opinion, rather than you writing objectively about a topic, which would be the structure of a usual Wikipedia page. Maybe next time try to structure it more objectively? Other than that, great contribution! (I liked the way you structured your paragraphs) :)

JupiterJoyner (discuss • contribs)

Thanks a lot, happy to hear you liked it. I think you're right that they might make it sound more like an essay, but I only started with the questions to introduce the topic and not with any intentions to put forward any opinions. They're not my questions, but questions that are really central to the exploration of the topic. I feel that as long as there are no answers to them, they don't make the contribution subjective. Do you still think I should maybe erase the questions?

Perhaps not; they help the contribution in credibility! :) Maybe rephrase. JupiterJoyner (discuss • contribs)

=Truth in Film and TV studies=

You've touched on really important points that are often overlooked by everyone who watches movies and TV series. With the increasing availability of works of film and TV, the saying "You are what you eat" might as well become "You are what you watch." Each generation is spending more time watching movies, series, or videos than the one before them. The points you've mentioned also made me think of this week's issue of power. Who makes the movies, who writes the screenplay, who directs them, who rates them, who plays in them, who watches what kinds of movies, which movies win prizes, which actors, actresses, directors, screenwriters win awards? Do the lists of 100 greatest movies of all time or of a certain year really contain the greatest movies, or only the greatest movies when one looks through certain lenses? Although awareness on inclusion in the film industry is constantly increasing and many positive changes are being made, there are still a lot of questions around the issue of power. I've included a link to a research review I found called "Barriers to Diversity in Film," if you ever want to have a look.

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/uk-film-council-barriers-to-diversity-in-film-2007-08-20.pdf


text:
Lentis/Amazon and the Ecommerce Evolution

= Introduction =

The way we shop or surf the web will never be the same. In the period of just two decades, Jeff Bezos' fledgling online bookstore grew into one of the most powerful corporations in the world, driving the evolution of e-commerce, but not without controversy.

= History of Amazon = On July 16, 1995, Amazon.com delivered its first book through an online transaction. However, there was far more to Amazon than just a book delivery service. Its founder, Jeff Bezos, had a vision from the very start: he would revolutionize the use of the internet to do business. He registered “Amazon.com” in 1994, named after the south American river. The massive river not only reflected to his plans for Amazon's growth, but also prevented Bezos from being constrained to any one market through his brand.

In 1995, Bezos chose to provide online purchase and delivery of books. A year later, the company had already generated $15.7 million in revenue. However, Amazon would not be profitable until 2001, following with Bezos’s motto: “get big fast”. Amazon spent its first 6 years heavily investing in its growth. In 1998, Amazon started distributing music CDs, and in 1999 the company had expanded to toys, electronics, and tools. By then, Amazon had distributed over 200 million items to over 150 different countries.

The company first saw profit in 2001. It’s share price at the time had risen to $34 from its original price of $18 in 1997. But most importantly, Amazon Web services was released. This demonstrated Bezos’s original vision for the company to be more than an online retailer, but also a tech company that would change the way we use the internet. Over the next decade, Amazon would continue to grow and expand its reach, developing hardware like the Kindle and Echo, and introducing new services like Amazon prime, prime video, and prime music

Amazon celebrated its 25-year anniversary in 2019. Its share price was above $1900, a 100x increase from when the company first went public. However, the company has faced significant controversy over the course of its growth. Amazon has been frequently called out for its poor workplace conditions for Amazon warehouse employees, such as concerns about overworking and exhaustion as well poor safety precautions during the coronavirus pandemic. At one such warehouse in Staffordshire, 115 ambulances were called to the facility within two years on account of dangerous work conditions needed to meet impossible targets. Despite these growing concerns over worker safety and ethics, Amazon continues to expand its reign over commerce and cloud resources.

= Keys to Amazon's Success = Amazon has a had a remarkable ability to retain its growth mindset and pioneering success. In a recent interview at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX, Jeff Bezos shared what he believes to be the four pillars of Amazon's ethos.

"Customer Obsession, not Competitor Obsession"
In Bezos' opinion, a company can either be focused on outperforming the competition, or outperforming customer expectations. He believes that the customer is never satisfied, and requires constant innovation to appease.

"Eagerness to Invent"
Amazon's second pillar is an eagerness to invent. Bezos believes that in order for a company to be successful, it must be willing to take risks and be a leader. In his own words, “every time we’ve done something in a ‘me too’ fashion, we have failed.”

"Long-Term Thinking"
For these ideas, Bezos follows a “Long Term Thinking” approach. Instead of looking at 1-3 year project durations, he believes in a 5-7 year timeline from idea to implementation.

"Operational Excellence"
Bezos’ fourth and final principal is “Operation Excellence.” He describes this as holding himself and his employees to the highest standards from the initial idea creation, all the way through the final implementation.

However, Amazon's critics would claim that these business principles are really just attractive pretexts that excuse brutal, extremely stressful work environments for its employees, from the shippers in its warehouse to the software developers in its offices. Additionally, critics say these facets are also used to justify Amazon's notorious hardball negotiating tactics with its suppliers to lower prices and force suppliers take on more of freight costs between warehouses.

Amazon Customer Reviews
One of Amazon's earliest and very impactful innovations was the use of customer reviews. When Bezos first built the capability for all customers to publish their opinions, both good and bad, he received significant backlash. Publishers called him and complained that poor book reviews would hurt their sales. Despite this, Bezos kept the customer reviews on his website because, in his words, "Our business wasn't the sale of a book. Our business was helping in the decision." In doing so, Bezos ushered in the popularity of customer reviews, which can now be found on nearly every retail site.

= Impact on Other Businesses =

Audio/Visual Media
Amazon first introduced video streaming through its Amazon Unbox service in 2006. This provided users with video-on-demand, where they could pay to download videos. In 2011, the service was shifted to focus on the expansion of amazon prime, with prime users allowed access free shows and movies. As of 2018, Amazon prime trails Netflix and Hulu as the third most popular video streaming service by subscriptions. Amazon Video’s impact is mostly through competition against other subscription services. Amazon stands out for its popular original content, as well as its ease of renting and purchasing on top of included content. While the service is limited in its availability for third party shows, its integration with Amazon Prime makes it highly accessible to users who make use of other Amazon benefits through Prime. Amazon Music is less prevalent than Amazon prime video due to its highly successful competitors, namely Spotify and Apple music.

Global Standards of Shipping
Amazon Prime, which now encompasses fields such as music and video streaming, was launched in 2005 as an improvement on shipping times. For $79/year, members would receive 2-day shipping for free on eligible items. This began a change in consumer expectations, as 2-day became more and more the norm. In an effort to meet this new consumer demand, Walmart introduced a deal where eligible items shipped 2-day for free, if the total was above $35. Similarly, in 2018, Target introduced free 2-day shipping when either buying more than $35 of eligible items, or using your Target RedCard.

On April 25, 2020, Amazon again pushed the boundaries of shipping potential. They announced that $600 million would be invested into their processing facilities to now make 1-day shipping standard for Prime members. This yet again affected their competitors. The next day, in light of this news, Target shares fell 6% and Walmart shares fell 2%, while Amazon shares rose 2.5% .

The latest development in Amazon's shipping capabilities is Amazon Prime Air. This is Amazon's drone delivery system, which has not been fully unveiled yet but has been successfully tested since 2013. Through Prime Air, customers in qualifying areas will receive their packages, up to 5 lb in weight, within 30 minutes of ordering. In August 2020, Amazon received FAA approval for their drone fleet, which is a significant step forward. They are joining UPS and Wing, the other two companies with licensed drone operations.

Cloud Computing

Amazon Web Services has its roots in the early 2000s, back when Amazon was a struggling e-commerce company with a frenzy of growth trying to figure out how to scale their computing infrastructure to their business needs. In order to speed up application development, Amazon sought out to create a set of reusable common infrastructure services its developers could utilize to avoid having to reinvent the wheel everyday. Pretty soon, the company had a eureka when it realized that it could profit by offering this to other businesses, "cloud computing", as it would come to be known. Today, Amazon Web Services earns 33% of the cloud market, and its biggest copycat competitors, Microsoft and Google, garner just 18% and 9% of the market respectively. Cloud computing is a multi-billion dollar industry and about 45% of the world's population has accessed some form of cloud computing over the past year. Cloud data centers are projected to process 94% of business workloads by 2021, from 45% of workloads in 2018. COVID-19 has only accelerated customer-demand for cloud-based offerings, with the increase in remote work and need for easy-to-access virtual tools.

Cloud computing has allowed companies of every industry to innovate faster and cheaper than ever before. By making computing power more accessible and lowering the barriers to entry for businesses, it can be thought of as the great equalizer. Tech giants, government agencies, non-profits, and scrappy startups alike utilize cloud computing to avoid having to set up their own on-premise IT infrastructure, thereby saving the up-front capital costs of equipment. Other benefits of moving to/developing in the cloud include high speeds, always-on availability, flexible scaling of resources, unlimited storage capacity, and high security.

= Conclusion = There is little doubt that the rise of Amazon has had far-reaching impacts; people all around the world interact with Amazon's products in one way or another everyday, perhaps without even realizing it. To extend our chapter, one area that can be explored is the antitrust suits. The various sections in our chapter touching on Amazon's extremely diverse business ventures leads one to ponder the question, should Amazon be broken up? What are the agendas of the various parties in the Amazon antitrust lawsuits? How would this affect consumers and businesses if the lawsuits were to succeed?


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth/Truth in geopolitics

= Truth in Geopolitics = Geopolitics is the study of how geographical factors and power relations interact in international politics. As a methodology, geopolitics is commonly used in the study of international political events.

Truth and geopolitical events
The discussion of truth can be traced back to classical ancient Greece. It was originally stated in philosopher Aristotle’s work Metaphysics that the truth is determined in relation to the reality of the world. Thus, without the context of the world, or the “geo” aspect, the truth could not be determined. In modern international politics, the truth is seen as a tool for proving and disproving legitimacy, by both state actors and individual actors in domestic and international levels, and can have swinging effects on geopolitical events. For example, the leak of the Pentagon papers in 1971 proved the original objectives for the US and the eventual, actual scope of the Vietnam War differed from what the Johnson and Nixon administration repeatedly inform American citizens, and caused public controversy, anti-war movements and protests, and domestic lawsuits, which resulted in the eventual withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. Illustrated by this example, the truth, or the distortion of truth, as many political philosopher notes, has the potential to invalidate or change the events and discourse of foreign policies, and destabilize political institutions.

Post-truth era geopolitics
It is widely recognized by political sociologists that the world that we currently live in is in the “post-truth era”, which points to the decline and lack of truth in global politics, and the prevalence of “alternative facts” and deception. Most attributes it to the rise of social media and how it gives unprecedented power to the “careless speech”, which is ideas and opinions spawned from a ‘free from care’ position that is not concerned with the common world and indifferent to truth, with creating confusion being its main objective. Its effects can be seen in domestic political events and discourse in both democratic or authoritative states, across the global south-north divide, and has resulted in counter efforts of ‘fact checks’ and specific education in schools on digital literacy in regard to ‘fake news’. This propagation of fake news has increased scepticism in democratic institutions in many nations. The environment of disinformation can thus destabilize democracies through empowering anti-democratic forces and lowering the public's confidence in democracy. The geopolitical implications of informational intransparency are illustrated by, for example, the collapse of Nepal's democracy in 2002, which was partly due to low transparency offered by the government.

Fictional geopolitics
However, political scholars such as Hannah Arendt has long emphasised the lack of truth, or the dominance of deception and fiction, in modern politics. They suggest that the factual truth is always in war with politics and geopolitical power play, and political propaganda, from all positions of the political spectrum, seeks to destroy individual’s oriental sense of the world and make a trade-off on truth for political gain. This represents a more pessimistic and critical view on the role of fiction in geopolitics. An alternative view establishes that fiction, or political fantasies, of geopolitics makes the political reality more tangible by evoking emotional mechanisms that produce geopolitical knowledge for individuals. Going back to current geopolitical development with this school of thought, it is suggested that the rejection of objectivity and rationality in the new mode of global politics is in line with the social constructivist view that lies and fiction becomes incorporated into the political structure, and that explains why efforts on ‘fact-checking’ often end in vain in trying to separate truth from fiction. Instead, this school of thought suggests treating fantastical fiction as a structural part of geopolitics and deconstructing its ‘impossibilities and contradictions’.