Is the concept of “truth” ultimately just a reflection of majority agreement/acceptance?

Question

What I mean by this is, does what we consider to be “true” really just come from what the majority has agreed upon? Now I am speaking here in the sense of things that ARE NOT just (what I call) “common sense” truths such as the truth that people cannot fly on their own accord. I am speaking of things that we HAVE MADE truths. For example, take the math problem 1 + 1 = 2, this is “true” because we say it is – and as a result we have composed a validating method of proving this within mathematics.

However, had we said it was something else like 1 + 1 = 6, and compiled a mathematical validation to this occurance, then wouldn’t this be “true” also? Consider also the Pluto incident in which for the longest time it was true that Pluto was a planet because we agreed/accepted it was - but now this is not true because we say so. Therefore, as I was saying, is the concept of “truth” ultimately just a reflection of majority agreement/acceptance or am I flawed in my thinking of this somewhere?

Answer 1

No, it's not. The truth is an absolute and has nothing to do with what we perceive it to be or what we agree on. We may generally recognize something as the "truth" where history proves that it was not the truth. In your example of Pluto, the definition is subjective conjecture. The "truth" can be stated that Pluto is CONSIDERED to not be a planet, but to say Pluto is not a planet is not necessarily truth. Truth, again, is an absolute, something we are constantly pursuing, but rarely, if ever, attaining.

Answer 2

In other words: Subvert the dominent paradigm?

I think perhaps it is the names of the numbers that are agreed upon.

For instance, we look at 1 + 1 and say it is 2. We have made up the names for the amounts. But if you put one Hershey's Kiss on the table and then put another Hershey's Kiss on the table, you do have one more Hershey's Kiss than you did when you put the first one on the table.

I guess the math numbers are simply an agreed-upon way of describing the "more" to others.

So you could described the Hershey's Kiss experience as 1 + 1 = 2.

You could also choose to describe it as a doubling of the original amount: 1 x 2 = 2.

I'm sure you math and physics wizards can offer many more examples.

Some truths may be agreed upon. Some truths may be immutable. I guess it's up to us to know the difference.

Answer 3

There are so many levels of "truths" in what you just said.

The basic are just facts... as you said, they are common sense.

Others are definitions, such as whether pluto is a planet. Definitions are not about "truths" strictly speaking. The properties of pluto remain the same NO MATTER how we define planet. We just change what category we put pluto under. Definitions are internal. I can suddenly decide to define planet as a round bread filled with apples that you bake in an oven. Maybe I get everyone to agree that a planet is a round bread filled with apples baked in an oven. But no matter how many people agree with me, Pluto doesn't turn into apple pie.

As to mathematical truths, 1 + 1 will always equal 2. This will change only if we change the meaning of the symbols, but the abstract idea of mathematics is universal. The greeks did not have to teach math to the chinese. They both learned math independently. What could change perhaps is the symbols used, like maybe we start to write number 2 as a 6.

So truth unlike definitions is NEVER arrived at as consensus. Truth is something objective. And we are compelled to acknowledge it. If I were hungry, I do not feed myself by convincing myself that I am full. If I am sick, I do not get better just because everyone thinks I got better. If there is no God, it would not make a difference if everybody thinks there was one. And I do not cause the existence of God by convincing everyone that "God is now defined as a bottle of coke." True that the change of definition would suddenly cause the statement God exists to be true. But beyond the words of our own language, we have changed nothing.

I thought your question might have also lead to morals. Is it, for example, moral for a man to have more than one wife? Is the question as objective as asking if the sky is blue? Or is morality something defined by culture? Its a good thing you didn't ask that. That would have taken a longer explanation.

Edit: And to prove to you that truth is not arrived at by consensus, I am actually right no matter how many thumbs down I get. Would you be wrong depending on how many thumbs down you get?

Answer 4

'Truth' as a concept is certainly a reflection of majority agreement when it comes to categorizing, language, and definitions. Humans can alter the meaning of words and linguistic tools with a majority judgement. Thus, as in the case of Pluto, a planet can be rendered an asteroid. Similarly, although in a more absurd case, the "United States of America" can cease to be the "United States of America" and assume another identity entirely.
As in your math problem, the concept of "2" can be exchanged with the term "6" and the postulate would become true. All twos are then "6" and what was previously 'six' can become "two". Truth then would indeed change. The mutable 'truth' is certainly then a liquid concept.
But there are truths that do not change. There are also absolute truths, unknown truths, and social truths. Not all types of truth are subject to human linguistic interference and the judgements of the 'majority.' How the majority may relate to these immutable 'truths' is a different matter.
Take for example: Substance Y exists. Humans believe that substance Y does not exist. Or conversely, Substance Y does not exist, but human beings believe that Substance Y does exist. Despite the fact that the existence of Substance Y is not hinged on human belief, the majority of humans may regard it as 'truly' existing or disregard it, they may name it "Suzie" or change its name to "Antimony 37"; they may group it with halogens or may group it with the noble gases. They can classify it however they please and interpret it according to several guidelines. The consequence is a concept of 'truth' that exists in the relativity of human perception and undertstanding. It is not, however, an absolute truth--since it is subject to human perception.
Thus, what you say works soundly and you are not flawed in your reasoning. The human concept of 'truth' is indeed subject to the decisions of the majority or whatever 'experts' are in charge of labeling and defining.

Answer 5

I am no philosopher, but I have heard said that objective truth is a SHARED EXPERIENCE. 1 + 1 = 2 is not just a matter of manipulating the mathematical symbols. It has a basis in objective reality. It has been the universal experience that ONE stone added to ONE more stone will give you a total of TWO stones, not six. Now if the number "6" symbol can be made to stand for "two objects in reality" than yeah sure, 1 + 1 = 6 will stand.

Answer 6

If it is something agreed, it can be wrong but we call it TRUE. It does not seem really true to me...

Aristotle says that if something accepted by majority, this means that it is NATURAL. Natural for Ancient Philosophers meant something true.

I believe that natural thing is true (I know everything is ultimately natural but this natural means exactly true and some kind of necessity for human-being) but I don't believe that majority determines "the truth." We simply deceive ourselves in here, we think that it is true.

My cheap idea is that there are things which is "absolutely true",but reaching them is problematical(like Socrates). I think, process of reaching them has the truth in itself.

If world continues to accept majority's thoughts like TRUE, that means we are going somewhere which does not seem so good to me, a world which is thinking is something stupid and people living with only their desires. Simply, there is no human in such a place like that...

Answer 7

You are correct in thinking that "truth", as you say it, is ultimately just a reflection of majority agreement/acceptance. Scientists once thought that matter and energy were two completely different things. Good old Einstein proved his famous equation E=MC^2 that some matter can be changed into energy, mainly in stars. We are constantly making discoveries, we may learn from these discoveries yet another discovery which lays just around the corner may teach us otherwise.

Answer 8

I like sitting back and watching the masses as a question arises and they diverge in their thinking and find others with whom they share ideals.
Like everything involved in human dynamics, power is the deciding factor in what the majority sees as true. Who holds the most influence amongst those questioning and categorizing reality? Who can follow their beliefs through to the most satisfying conclusions?

Pluto WAS a planet, but it is no more because someone decided it didn't fit suit and enough people sided with that opinion to make it the accepted norm. Someone with enough power in the "scientific community."

Most people don't like to admit to this, nor have they thought about it as deep as they should, but how many things have you gone along with in your life just because everyone else did?

Answer 9

The majority does seem to define what is truth. However, this (in my humble opinion) only applies to logical arguments. Throw in an ethical "truth" and there is no real majority argument... there's no popularity contest since what is right and wrong is clear. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but this is a good question to ask.

Answer 10

In term of history...biological science..psychology..etc etc you are correct. When it comes to math however it is much more concrete..Reality is that 1 + 1 = 2 is just abstract figures on paper. But the reality that when you have @ and you put another @ with it that you will have @@ is concrete...when I have an apple in one hand and another apple in my other hand and I bring them together there will never be six apples...however when it comes to the abstract figures we use to conceptualize math then yes..it could be whatever you want it to be..