What is Truth?
- 8 minutes ago
- 5 min read
dixit itaque ei Pilatus ergo rex es tu respondit Iesus tu dicis quia rex sum ego ego in hoc natus sum et ad hoc veni in mundum ut testimonium perhibeam veritati omnis qui est ex veritate audit meam vocem
dicit ei Pilatus quid est veritas et cum hoc dixisset iterum exivit ad Iudaeos et dicit eis ego nullam invenio in eo causam
Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews and saith to them: I find no cause in him.
What is truth?
It sounds like a simple question, but seems to get harder to answer every time you ask it. The irony of quoting Pontius Pilate asking the question is that he most likely did not.
But how can I say that? The accounts of the trial of Jesus are fairly consistent among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, aren’t they?
Yes, but that is not as strong a statement as some would like us to believe. First, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are believed to be interdependent, with the consensus view being that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and both Matthew and Luke drew from an additional (hypothetical) source, called ‘Q’, though some now believe that Luke was drawn from Matthew, or vice versa.
Which leaves us with two accounts, rather than four.
With regard to those, however, I am persuaded by the points made by Biblical scholar Dan McClellan, who notes that the actions of Jesus would most likely be interpreted by the Romans as an attempt to foment insurrection, which was punishable by death by crucifixion.
A Roman governor would have been entirely uninterested in hearing from the Jewish leadership in such a matter, let alone allow himself to be overruled by them. Anyone familiar with the way the Romans handled even the perception of rebellion or insurrection in the early Imperial period would find the idea laughable. Similarly, while the reported ‘custom’ of pardoning someone is suspect in and of itself, the idea that someone charged with fomenting insurrection might be so pardoned is highly implausible, and the story about Barabbas seems very likely to be a purely literary creation.
While there is insufficient evidence to definitively ‘prove’ the point one way or the other, the plausibility of the idea that the Gospel accounts were a literary creation is further supported by the fact that early Christians would benefit from making the execution of Jesus the ‘fault’ of the non-Christian Jews, and from having the Roman governor reluctantly participating, particularly since Christianity was rapidly spreading through the Empire during the second and third centuries CE.
Still, as we try to survive this ‘post-truth’ world, we need better ways to answer that old question.
One approach is described on a recent episode of You Are Not So Smart (YANSS), where David McRaney interviews economist Alex Edmans, and they discuss the “Ladder of Misinference”, as an approach to more effectively evaluate information. Edmans also describes the approach in an excellent TED talk from 2018.
The Ladder can be broken down into four ‘rungs’:
A story is not fact – it may not be true
A fact is not data – it may not be representative
Data is not evidence – it may not be supportive
Evidence may not be proof – it may not be universal
As might be expected of an economist, this approach is an application of Bayesian reasoning, which I have discussed previously. I found the talk and the approach very interesting, as it provides a framework for approaching almost any question. Also, the ‘ladder’ metaphor appeals to me, because it not only serves as a filter, but also allows you to play Snakes and ladders.
Consider someone saying ‘they’re eating the dogs’ to support a policy of mass kidnapping of citizens. If you start climbing the Ladder, you will immediately find that the story is pure fiction, and so you slide back down without needing to spend valuable time on further analysis.
In an age where we are inundated with misinformation and disinformation, heuristics such as the Ladder of Misinference can help us push back, and can help us reduce the chance of misleading ourselves.
When someone makes a claim that conflicts with the consensus opinion, like many of the conspiracy theories that abound in the world today, the Ladder can help us dismiss many out of hand. Ask the person making the claim to provide the evidence they think is the strongest, in order to avoid wasting time when someone attempts to ‘prove’ a point by providing a number of anecdotes. These are not proof, or evidence, or data, or even fact – it’s a bunch of stories, which often lead nowhere.
I would note here that saying that these stories are not facts does not mean that the person is being dishonest. While that is possible, they are often simply mistaken, or misled, or misinterpreting what they saw.
Say that Bob comes to Alice and tries to demonstrate the existence of Bigfoot. Alice has just learned about the Ladder, explains it to Bob, and suggests that they both use it to evaluate the evidence.
Bob agrees, then begins making his case by describing dozens of accounts of people claiming to have seen a creature they believed was Bigfoot. These are stories, so can’t be used as evidence unless there is something to support them.
But, says Bob, some of the accounts include additional evidence, including footprints, fur and other tissue, and even sound and video recordings! The footprints are interesting, but are easily misinterpreted or faked, and some have been demonstrated to be hoaxes. What about the fur and tissue? Well, the samples provided so far have been hoaxes, indeterminate, or confirmed to be of some other creature, such as deer.
Sound recordings are also hoaxes or indeterminate, but that brings us to the famous Patterson-Gimlin film. This may be the most analyzed film footage in existence, with the possible exception of the Zapruder film, but what does it prove?
Ultimately, nothing. It shows a few seconds of a figure walking at a distance, and that’s about it. The original is short and shaky, but there is a version which has been ‘cleaned up’ and stabilized. I find neither of them convincing, especially since there have been allegations that the film was a hoax for decades – interestingly, there is a documentary which was released recently, and which apparently confirms that the original film was a hoax.
So, we have a bunch of stories, most of which have minimal corroboration, and a few bits of inconclusive evidence. In other words, not much. Alice is not convinced, and Bob eventually concludes that he should rethink his belief in the existence of Bigfoot.
While it’s unlikely that even so useful a tool as the Ladder will be that effective in most cases, I think it’s another tool which may help. And, in this current world, we need all the help we can get.
Cheers!