Blog #4 in my non-binary series.

As one moves along the continuum from physics to biology to economics to sociology to history, the challenge of separating truth from falsehood or truth from error becomes greater. Truth is not sitting there like an apple waiting to be plucked, but deeply embedded in a web of people, places, customs, circumstances, and other dimensions. Truth must be coaxed, enticed, dragged kicking and screaming from its source.  It is a task which has become far more challenging in the era of social media and artificial intelligence, which makes every event or choice somewhat unique.

One of our currently popular true/false economic statements comes from President Donald Trump, who insists that the foreign producer will always absorb the tariff so that American consumers will not see any rise in prices.  Most of my fellow economists (and I) insist that this belief is wrong. Wrong not in the sense of either or, right or wrong, but rather wrong more often than right. Yes, there can be instances where world markets are very competitive and some part of the tariff will be absorbed by the foreign seller, but in most cases, the tariff is passed on to the buyer.

Scientific truth is a result of observation and statistical evidence that the medicine works, or the ball drops toward the earth, or anything else that combines credible evidence, repeated observation, and hopefully an explanatory theory.  But the scientific method sets the standard of truth very high.  A statistically significant number of observations must fall very close to the mean in order to be reasonably certain that the hypothesis is true.  The higher the standard (or the smaller the acceptable margin of error), the more likely it is that the hypothesis is true.  That high standard means that some true hypotheses will be rejected.  In lay terms, to keep any falsehood out, one must require a very strict criterion for what is let inside the gates. And that means  shutting out a lot of potentially very good and very useful ideas, possibilities or choices

Truth and falsehood are not strictly binary, especially as we move away from scientific methods toward the choices, analyses and decisions that guide our daily lives. Bob is an honest and dependable person–true or false?  Well, most of the time, but sometimes when he has had too much to drink, or is caught in an embarrassing situation, maybe not then.  Bob is mostly true.   Like the tariff, which is mostly passed on to the consumer, but there are exceptions. This medicine works in 95 percent of cases, but you may be in the other five percent, where it may fail to help or even cause harmful side effects.    This health insurance policy will cover all your health needs unless the company can find a good reason to deny your claim.  This house and yard are in excellent condition if you don’t visit it after heavy rain.

Perhaps the question of “What is the truth?” is most dramatic and challenging in a court of law. If you ever wonder why court cases are so complicated and use such arcane language, it’s because both sides are claiming to possess the truth.  A good legal system will recognize that there are few open and shut cases, so they rely on “preponderance of the evidence” in order to make a decision.. Along with physical evidence they must rely on the accounts of witnesses, which involve a mix of unvarnished truth, stretched truth, specious claims and downright lies. Placing the burden of proof on the prosecution and steep penalties for perjury are intended to increase the likelihood that the judge and jury will discern the most likely truth of the matter.

The next time you watch someone put a hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, take it with a grain of salt.  Especially the part about the whole truth, or the possibility that the witness has a faulty or incomplete recollection.  The mind is not a totally reliable instrument. Like science, law sets a high standard for conviction, because it is more just to let ten guilty parties go free than to punish one innocent person.