The ultimate conundrum:  Is It the Total Truth?  or  Is It The Current Version of the Truth?  

or  Is It Partially True?  or  Is It Mostly False  or  Is It Totally False?

….  What is the Whole Truth?

As a scientist, I am trained to consider all aspects of current information, not just the information that fits my current hypothesis (aka bias), to get to the Truth.  However, when do I know that I have all the pertinent information, and how do I know that my cultural bias has not facilitated the exclusion of some relevant information in order to get to the Truth, the Whole Truth?  I have also been trained to consider, when confronted with confounding new information that is not consistent with my current hypothesis, to change my hypothesis, in other words, change my point of view.  A true scientist will do that.  Unfortunately, the public does not understand such actions; the public expects science to be constant, never changing.  Reality suggests otherwise.

The public frequently becomes frustrated with the current state of science because scientists keep changing their view to adapt to new information. For example, through the period of the Covid pandemic, scientists continuously discovered new information about the virus, what caused the virus to spread, what caused the virus to be more or less infectious, how the virus responded to various therapies, and what was the most efficacious treatment at that moment.  As a result, medical guidance about Covid kept changing.  The public became disenchanted by that ever-changing guidance and eventually came to distrust it.  This became a problem because trust in the Truth is critical to the wellbeing of society.

So, What Is The Truth?  And what causes the general public to become disinclined to believe in what others present as “The Truth”?  Let’s explore a few recent examples.

Today’s issue of Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper points out two examples of the plurality in truth perpetrated by national representatives.  In one, President Biden today (1/11/2024) says 215,000 new jobs were created in December, but he fails to incorporate a correction for data included with the most recent jobs summary that included a 71,000 reduction in October jobs.  So, in fact, net job growth was really 145,000.  The Presidents numbers were a misrepresentation of the truth.  We did not grow by 215,000 jobs, we grew by a net of 145,000 jobs.  Did the President intentionally misrepresent the truth as presented to the public on job growth?  Some of the public has learned to disregard information provided by President Biden because sometimes he misstates the Truth.  (Job numbers, Star Tribune 1/11/24)

In the second example (originally reported by Bloomberg News), the IRS reports that they answer 85% of their phone calls.  However, it was pointed out that the IRS does not count callers who have dropped off line after waiting in the call queue.  Having recent personal experience with this process (i.e. waiting in the IRS phone queue), some of those call queues can extend well over 45 minutes.  Thus, the IRS report of 85% calls answered is a misrepresentation of the truth.  Is it an intentional lie?  My own personal employment experience based on oversight of a call answering service (MMC) suggests that unless you set a reasonable target for time to call response, (i.e. 30 seconds, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, but not 45 minutes), the data can be misleading.  The truth is, the IRS answers 35% of their calls within a reasonable time. (IRS Needs Help, Bloomberg New reprinted in Star Tribune 1/11/24)

Another recent example, debate on the significance of the role of slavery in the cause of the Civil War has brought forth an interesting dichotomy of truth.   While it is clear that there were multiple complex factors that caused the Civil War, current dogma v/v the woke culture requires some to consider slavery as the most important cause of the War.  If, during a public debate, one does not present slavery in the first line of such a discussion, one might be considered a racist or a white supremacist.  In fact, when President Lincoln was considering whether war was inevitable, the issue of state secession, which was caused by multiple factors that included slavery, was the paramount issue for Lincoln. While slavery was an issue, it was not the paramount issue.  But if one is aligned with the woke culture, slavery is always the paramount issue, irregardless if that was not the case in the 1860’s.  So, what is the Truth?  It depends upon your current cultural bias.  (Tice, StarTribune 1/10/24)

And, another interesting variation on Truth.  On January 6, 2024, President Biden, in a public speech, stated that Donald Trump “is a threat to democracy”.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump publicly derided Mr. Biden, stating he had stuttered through the entire speech.  On site witnesses say that Mr. Biden never stuttered during that speech.  Which is the Truth?  Yes, Mr. Biden did stutter as a youth, but he did not do so in this speech.  Considering Mr. Trump’s frequent distortion of the truth, the majority of the public knows that Mr. Trump rarely speaks the Truth.  Unfortunately, some of the public believe anything he says.  

Therein lies my concern about the Plurality of Truth.  Some people will believe lies no matter how ridiculous they are.  Others say that spoken often enough, lies become truth.  God forbid!

….  What is the Whole Truth?  And, how much does one’s cultural bias change the Truth?

Such thoughts drive a whole series of additional questions:

1. Plurality of truth spans a large spectrum: the whole truth, the truth as we know it now, partial truth, all the way to outright lies.  How does one know what to believe?

2. Where does personal bias factor into what is the whole truth?  When can one dismiss information that differs from one’s current bias?  Restated, when can one dismiss information that differs from our current perspective, but is still not an outright lie?

3. What about spin doctors - the extreme edge of  truth plurality, or outright liars?

4. Lawyers are rewarded to distort the truth if it in the interest of their client.  It is therefore no wonder that current members of Congress, who are mostly lawyers, feel they can distort the truth as they see fit.  How can such people come to represent us?

5.  The same is true for members of police forces that have been informed that it is OK to lie in order get the truth out of someone they suspect has committed a crime.  But, the person suspected of committing the crime is not allowed to lie to the police.  How can such people come to protect us?

7.  This is possibly the best description of the plurality of truth.  When one becomes accustomed to lying to gain the truth, it becomes integral to one’s personality; one losses perspective on when one is no longer being truthful.  God forbid!

I assume academic psychologists must make an entire living out of debating such questions.