You are on page 1of 2

Evidential and Non Evidential Truths Sun rises in the East. Is this statement a truth?

Humans have discovered or conjectured the notion of four basic directions. Had they nomenclatured west to east while creating directions, then wouldnt this statement have been Sun rises in the West? Does this mean that Truth is what we create or truth can differ if we change the history of creation behind it? Is truth subject to interpretations? What kind of truth we are talking about above? A person bleed out to death in a hotel room yesterday and had clear signs of stabbing on his stomach, is reported to be a truth happened in the city by the local news channel. This piece of news has evidences to support that its a murder. Police have located the fingerprints on the knife that doesnt belong to the dead and above all, the CCTV camera in the hotel apartment captured the stabbing allegedly done by a second person. This all proves that Murder was the truth behind his death. What kind of truth is this and how is this different from the first one? Consider yourself as the man who actually killed the person. You created the truth of his death and you dont require any evidence to proof that that was an accident. The piece of information that you know is called non evidential truth, a truth that doesnt require an evidence to support it. But the truth that police, media and the world know is evidential truth, a truth that requires evidences to support it. If the man would have died leaving behind no evidence of his death, no prints, no camera, it then could have simply be thought of as a suicide. The truth would have been suicide in that case. If you remove the evidences of a murder, you will likely to create evidences of its being a suicide. A truth for you may not be a truth for me and vice versa. Hence evidential truths are subject to Interpretations while non evidential truths are not. Does this mean that non evidential truths are always superior then evidential ones and are real truths, for they will be same with or without the presence of evidences? Not necessary. For a creator, non evidential truth is the real truth while for a receiver evidential truth may appear to be the real truth. Evidential truth may not be same or differ always as the non evidential truth for example the truth behind all the sacred literature of this world is non evidential as they have been witnessed and written by the people who were involved in the creation of the truth. People have seen the battle of Kurukshetra and have written down its 11 day course of days and nights. We, as receivers or non creators of the truth, believe in the battle because of the text available to us and hence for us its evidential truth. But in this case our evidential truth is same as non evidential truth of the battle because the war had been fought actually. Similarly for the police their evidential truth is similar to the non evidential truth of the murder. Let us another question to see if all non evidential truths are real truths. Who decides whether a particular book is a bestseller and that the other is not? You read a book and you may like it. If the number of people liking a book grows and such that it reaches to an inflationary point, then it becomes a truth that this book is a best seller. This is another example of evidential truth. The evidence is the thousands and millions of people who have liked it and have given brilliant reviews on it and if you read it, you will like it too. What if I dont like the book? For me, the truth of it is a best seller would not hold promising then. I may still believe that this book is not a best seller as opposed to the world. But since I dont have any evidence to disprove it (for e.g. I cant gather an astounding number of supporters who say that the book is not a best seller), the truth I have with me is non evidential truth. In this case, again my truth is non evidential and I am not the creator of it but its far too influential and no one knows about it. This non evidential truth may not be the real truth as opposed to the non evidential truth of murder which is a real truth even in absence of any evidences. This means that not all non evidential truths can be thought of as real truths. Our complete belief system is the result of the vast accumulation of both these types of truths evidential and non evidential. And traditions are a way to practice and celebrate our belief system. Religion is one such a tradition. The cardinal direction system that begins this article is philosophically a belief system, drawn from ages, created by us to simplify our navigational, geographic and exploratory needs and desires. This belief system is based on evidential truth that there are evidences of our creating this sense of direction. Replacing Latin names borealis and australis with north and south direction respectively long back during 400 AD. We using the directions with the same names is us following the tradition of it being used for centuries. Belief formed out of evidential truths may turn different with different interpretations if the supporting evidences change, with one interpretation could be consistent or inconsistent to the other. Your best seller may differ significantly from my best seller and either of them could be in the best seller list at the New York Times or neither of them. And so my non evidential truth would help establish my belief system that not all the books featuring in the New York Times best seller list are really best sellers. This means that there is no guarantee that non evidential truth is always superior then evidential truth and vice versa. If evidential truths are subject to numerous interpretations and non evidential ones are not always necessary true, Than what truths are superior?. Are there any other forms of truth superior to both of them in all conditions or should we satisfy ourselves, as un-interested students of epistemology, that in certain cases one truth is better than the other. You believe in your religion and I believe in mine and lets respect each others philosophy can never be accepted unanimously by each and every section of the society among both educated and non educated ones. So heres the problem. I have proof that my religion is superior and you have proof that your religion and your belief system is superior. For me, your truth is evidential and hence not superior to mine for if I remove its underlying evidences; it would be subjected to interpretations on its foundation. For you, my truth is evidential for the same reason. And neither of us also agrees to admit that our truths are non evidential, for non evidential truths are promising only for its true creators and we both are not the creators of our religious belief system. Then whose religion is superior?

Hint: one thing is for sure. Truth has but one form and shape. If its evidential part is same as its non evidential part, then the truth will definitely be a real truth.