Prescribed Title 3: Do good explanations have to be true?
To the extent of our knowledge, the question of right and wrong has been humanity’s
one of the most ancient debates, whether with itself or its surroundings. As it is of human
nature to doubt, instinctively, we seek causes to comprehend the world around us and the
state of our conviction in many phenomena essentially comes from the extent of our
satisfaction in those causes. Considering the previous statements, two important questions
to investigate arise before precisely addressing the title which are that of the criterion for
truth and good explanation. In the modern world, it is important to follow the early theories
of truth to gain an understanding of the role of justification in the formation of a logical
causation, or in other words a ‘good’ explanation. However, one thing is; we seem to
overlook the many other characteristics of human nature when we solely target the
objective perspective which often lacks the ideology we live by. For that reason, we should
necessarily consider the times when truth deceives its significance and the rest depends
on personal contentment with the help of our beliefs and ideas. So, which is more
important in the formation of good explanations, truth or personal satisfaction? In order to
determine this, I will analyse both perspectives through Natural and Human Sciences,
along with the elements of Religion, before I make my own inferences.
For centuries, the notion of truth has gained many different concepts which all led to
the development of several theories, tracing its origins to ancient Greek philosophers.
When Aristotle and Plato described the definition of truth in the Correspondence Theory of
Truth, we all initially agree to a large extent that truth is dependent on the facts that
‘correspond’ to the reality (Cline). In the area of Natural Sciences, which we often perceive
as the closest to the absolute truth, this theory is highly accepted by almost everyone.
Because the knowledge that is built on the natural world corresponds to the real entities
and relationships, this makes factual knowledge good explanations for us as we do not
doubt justified true affirmations any further. From simple knowledge such as plants being
1
To the extent of our knowledge, the question of right and wrong has been humanity’s
one of the most ancient debates, whether with itself or its surroundings. As it is of human
nature to doubt, instinctively, we seek causes to comprehend the world around us and the
state of our conviction in many phenomena essentially comes from the extent of our
satisfaction in those causes. Considering the previous statements, two important questions
to investigate arise before precisely addressing the title which are that of the criterion for
truth and good explanation. In the modern world, it is important to follow the early theories
of truth to gain an understanding of the role of justification in the formation of a logical
causation, or in other words a ‘good’ explanation. However, one thing is; we seem to
overlook the many other characteristics of human nature when we solely target the
objective perspective which often lacks the ideology we live by. For that reason, we should
necessarily consider the times when truth deceives its significance and the rest depends
on personal contentment with the help of our beliefs and ideas. So, which is more
important in the formation of good explanations, truth or personal satisfaction? In order to
determine this, I will analyse both perspectives through Natural and Human Sciences,
along with the elements of Religion, before I make my own inferences.
For centuries, the notion of truth has gained many different concepts which all led to
the development of several theories, tracing its origins to ancient Greek philosophers.
When Aristotle and Plato described the definition of truth in the Correspondence Theory of
Truth, we all initially agree to a large extent that truth is dependent on the facts that
‘correspond’ to the reality (Cline). In the area of Natural Sciences, which we often perceive
as the closest to the absolute truth, this theory is highly accepted by almost everyone.
Because the knowledge that is built on the natural world corresponds to the real entities
and relationships, this makes factual knowledge good explanations for us as we do not
doubt justified true affirmations any further. From simple knowledge such as plants being
1
