The human race tried to establish universal guidelines as to what merits fact, and what, simple conjecture. By this mode, we, as a group, may interact with one another within a relative organized system of what is generally considered real. The product of this effort was the general scientific method. It would be easy to think that looking to this method in a search for the nature of truth would prove wise. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The general scientific view of this issue shows itself to be quite a disappointment however. The funny thing about truth in science is that it is the most inaccurate of them all. One would think for a method which is religiously dedicated to accuracy in everything that certainly it would also be spot on when it comes to truth. The problem is that science seeks to define the systems of that same indefinable thing I was referring to above using language, and just as words are empty of true definition, so are all these formulas. With how accurate science aims to be, it would be impossible to use it to come to any sort of theory, equation, or conclusion of any merit if it functioned within the idea of universal truth. Instead, scientific truth is little more than the recognized consensus of a group to make up a new truth and stick to it. Therefore, when speaking in terms of truth, science offers little more than relations to be used elsewhere. This same relationship can be gleaned, much more clearly might I add, through Philosophical thought, and so we will move quickly in that direction.
There are a number of Philosophical schools when it comes to the matter of truth. All of them can be cooked up by the reason of any average thinker, but someone who got there first gave each a name, and so now we must refer to each thusly. Three of these theories of truth strike me as most sensible, and together cover most every base. The basic Correspondence Theory is cool drink of water in the over complicated Philosophical world. Had we stuck with this one as a whole, it would have saved endless headaches, and indeed, it is this theory's definition of truth and lies that we are taught at an early age. In this way of looking at it there are different levels of truth, but at least, unlike some theories, there is only one truth. The Coherence Theory has merit in its claim that truth follows a geometrical type relationship, with something's truth defined as by how well it fits into the whole of the world. This works out very cleanly, with few loose ends, but can appear somewhat overwhelming to the casual observer (as if one must already know everything else to gauge one thing's truth). The last school of thought I give credit to is Pragmatism, but primarily because it provides an aspect of truth which the first two theories do not. Accounting for the lacking of humans at any point, by this method anything can attain the status of truth should it prove its value as such. Answering the key question of this analysis within each of these three schools of thought, we get quite different answers. For the Correspondence Theorists, the question itself negates the edicts of the theory, for if one person has the truth, another person cannot have the same truth differently - one of these two people (either me and my truth or you and yours) are incorrect. For a follower of the Correspondence theory, this statement is possible only if each of us is part of a separate system. However, if you live on Mars and I live on Jupiter it might be possible that each of us can have our own unique truth without paradox. In the Pragmatist view, there is no problem with two different realities being classified as the same truth, as long as each somehow can be proven as so within an almost irrefutable measure. All of these answers are perfectly good ones, but not one of them is really good enough. All three pale in comparison to the mind stripped of clarifying titles and let run its course. When this route is taken, one will see that each of the above three theories fall into the scope of what standard logic presents.
Now over the course of this paper, one might notice that I addressed an issue or two which seem to span in directions other than directly to my proposed point. The reason for this is that to understand why I think on this issue the way that I do, some other precursory information had to be reviewed. I began by discussing the vapid nature of language. It is important to remember this fact because truths are compiled using words, and so when truths collide often some of the credit can be given to inadequacies of definition. If the truths I believe in exist right alongside the truths you believe in, and they are completely alike, then there is no issue. The tricky part of this question of truth is when two truths disagree, and as explored above, this is often the case. When this happens then, language has a great deal to do with it, as we only know of this disagreement through conveyance to each other with words. If the definitions have no intrinsic value, then it is difficult to be sure of exactly what part of truths conflict, or even if they conflict at all and we are not simply poorly expressing ourselves to one another. This was where the brief mention of Scientific Method came in. It is popularly believed that the systems which science employs are the equations which dictate the world, but this is not correct. Instead, these formulas simply define the world as best they can. All the scientific laws we invented to understand the earth might mislead one into thinking that it is impossible for two different things to occupy the same space in the same time. Now I don't know much about matter or space, but I do know something about thoughts and beliefs, and if there is one thing for certain, everyone has different ones. As we project these out into the masses, different ones are on top of different ones on top of different ones all the time. When it comes to expression, the “rules” which science lays down for us can simply be thrown out the window - they are bound to just confuse everyone. Instead, the truth of the matter of truth can be found easiest by simply rationalizing with an open mind. Compiling all of these side-steps into logic, and firing on all cylinders, my conclusion is as follows.
