jsq884

To what extent do you agree with the claim that "there’s a world of difference between truth

and facts". (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

To a great extent, I agree with Maya Angelou's claim, “There is a world of difference between

truth and facts.” Angelou uses the metaphor, ‘world of difference’ to show the disparity between

‘truth’ and ‘facts.’ The relationship between truth and facts is that truth must correspond to facts,

where facts can exist by themselves but the truth is dependent on the facts. Truth is a subjective

conclusion or interpretation; facts are pieces of evidence or explicit information. We can say, “The cat

is on the mat,” where we have two objects ‘cat’ and ‘mat’, and a relationship between the objects,

‘on’. This statement is true if and only if the fact that the cat is certainly on the mat. However, we

could also say, “The mat is under the cat,” where our objects stay the same but the relationship

between the objects changes to, ‘under’. Interestingly, the relationships are antonyms, ‘under’ and

‘on,’ because they are looked at by different perspectives, where the latter is also true, the mat is

certainly under the cat. Therefore, it is only a matter of perspective where we generate two truths from

the same fact. In this essay, I will present my agreement with Angelou's claim by using the areas of

knowledge: history and arts. I will explore the relationship between history and its knower by

discussing the role of evidence in history. Furthermore, I will explore the relationship between artists

and their audience by discussing the role of interpretation in art.

Testimony is a way of knowing the area of knowledge history, and it is common practice for historians

to use evidence to reach historical conclusions. Historical knowledge can be divided into 3 elements:

the real past, the preservation, and the production(Coxon). Here the ‘real past’ is a detailed description

of the historical past, preservation is how evidence is preserved, and production is the process of

concluding. The ‘real past’ is a fact, the produced historical conclusion is a truth. There is a big

difference between the truth and facts because it is illogical to pursue historical knowledge, on the

basis of evidence, as evidence must show credibility to be taken seriously. Take the following

example. The allies ‘saved’ the world in world war two is a truth that a majority of the world view

resonates with. However, a fact is that in the Bengal Famine, 1944, 2 million people died because of
jsq884

the allies. The man who ‘saved’ the world with his decisions, Winston Churchill, instructed to destroy

all evidence of the famine in this British Colony (Tharoor). In historical knowledge, evidence with

time is fragmentary, whereas the past is distant and fractured; because the ‘real past’ never survives in

its full form, or we have small bits of it, therefore we are unable to reach a real truth. This is the case

because, evidence that might point towards some truth may not be preserved, or destroyed, hence

never be considered in historical conclusion. It could also be the case when dealing with memory in

the production of historical knowledge, as primary sources such as interviews are prone to

biases(Walsh). Another aspect to this is that history is very dependent on location, someone in Britain

may consider their truth that the allies ‘saved’ the world whereas someone in India may disagree.

Additionally, historians may come up with multiple truths and then allocate facts that fit into these

worldviews, they do this by ‘justifying a true belief’ that is precarious to biases, relativism, and

skepticism. Regardless, using evidence and testimony as a way of knowing is flawed because facts

may be misrepresented by their credibility as historians research the past with evidence available in

the present, causing a big disparity between the truth and facts.

Reasoning is a way of knowing and researching history, and the product needs to be presented without

prejudice, so historians are obliged to form historical conclusions from the evidence. Therefore it can

be argued that historical facts must correspond to historical truths, as they are our best bet in

understanding historical events. For example, in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew

manuscripts that were found in 1946 correspond to information available in other Bibles and scrolls

(Walsh). Due to this correspondence, historians are able to trust the manuscripts and include them in

historical knowledge, despite their torn conditions. As historical conclusions are being formed using

this evidence, a better and agreed version of historical knowledge in this sector will be generated.

However, we should ask the question, why are torn pieces of paper able considered to be credible as

evidence? The answer to this is that they are credible because they correspond to the worldview. The

Correspondence Theory of Truth suggests that something is true if it fits with the worldview or

previous knowledge (Bonevac). Therefore, as the scriptures agree with the Bible, which is accepted

by the world view, it is valid to consider the facts present in the discovered Scrolls as the truth.
jsq884

Therefore, the only valid practice of discovering historical knowledge, is when discovered facts

correspond with the accepted truth. Another way of looking at this is its implication in the future. Let

us say our historical conclusion was based on lossy evidence. If so, our knowledge will be divided

upon by emotions and not facts, however, we can say that the context of history may be lost.

Therefore, truth and facts are similar, where evidence must have high credibility to be pursuable in the

long run, however it is limited because historical context is lost.

Imagination is a way of knowing visual art, where an artist and the audience use imagination to create

and interpret artworks respectively. The explicit details of artworks are facts, as they are irrefutable

and cannot change, and the truth is interpretations of the artwork. In Art, there is a large disparity

between truth and facts because the audience is entitled to their own interpretations of the skills the

artist presents through their own imagination, and the artist's intention is really just another

interpretation of the artwork. In Louise Bourgeois's artwork, Maman, the artist showcases a large

black spider representing both intimidation and maternity. For the artist, her work represents her

mother who was kind, clean, and very organized, just like a spider (Wood). Whereas many of her

audience were scared of the intimidating size of the presentation. If a fraction of the audience's

interpretation does not resonate with the artist's intention, does this mean that the interpretation is

wrong? Or that the artist is unskilled? We can mimic this situation as eating a dessert in a restaurant,

where my enjoyment of a pudding is independent of the intentionality of the chef. For some customers

that pudding might work, whereas for others it may not. We can say that the intention of the artist

itself is an equal interpretation, of their own artwork amongst that of the audience. Therefore both the

artist's interpretation and the audience's interpretation are separate truths from the same facts. This is

the case because the explicit details of the artwork stay constant, however, the truths may vary, and the

artist's intention is not a fact, but just another truth. Therefore there is a large disparity between truth

and facts.

In visual art, artists communicate the meaning behind their artworks, where the explicit information is

the facts presented and the intended meaning is the truth. It can be argued that the artist's intended
jsq884

meaning is the only possible truth, therefore there is no difference between truth and facts. Let's take

our previous example. Lousie Bourgeoius’s meaning behind her artwork was to show protectionism

and maternity through a spider. However, the explicit details are misinterpreted because of the

stereotype spiders have of being intimidating and frightening. Observation is another way of knowing

art, where stereotypes have an important role in the meaning of an artwork. However, if the stereotype

is used in the formation of the truth, the intended message behind the artwork would simply lose

meaning. Therefore the only method of understanding the message behind an artwork is to resonate

your interpretation with that of the artist's intention. This is because art is a form of communication,

where the artist attempts to share their message to an intended audience. An intended audience is one

who is expecting to receive a message, likewise normal communication, where one understands the

intention of the communicator and acts so forth. Therefore it can be argued that there is no difference

between truth and facts as the artist's intended meaning, of their explicit work, is the only possible

meaning.

In essence, Maya Angleous's claim, “There is a world of difference between truth and facts” is a claim

that I resonate with. In this essay, I discussed the great extent of difference between truth and facts in

the areas of knowledge history, and arts. In history the use of evidence can obscure the truth, however,

it is the best method we have. In visual art, this difference exists because of various interpretations of

the same artwork, however, the message may be lost. Facts being historical evidence and explicit

information stay constant throughout the multiple variations of historical conclusions and artistic

interpretations, leaving a large disparity between truth and facts. In psychology, the fundamental

question is, “How do people claim to know what they know?”(Walsh) Angelou's quote perhaps has a

great standing in answering this question, especially in the case of fake news, where we can

differentiate between the ground behind an assertion, the description behind its referent, and, lastly,

the facts behind a truth.

Word Count: 1597

jsq884

Works Cited

Bastian, Sue. Theory of Knowledge. Edinburgh Gate, Pearson, 2009.

Bonevac, Daniel, performer. The Correspondence Theory of Truth. 2020.

Coxon, Darren, performer. Theory of Knowledge Art: what is art? Youtube.com, 2012. Youtube,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_fGuZmFCs. Accessed 10 Feb. 2022.

Tharoor, Shashi. Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India. Minneapolis, Scribe Publications,

2019.

Walsh, William Henery. TRUTH AND FACT IN HISTORY RECONSIDERED. Narod, 1977. Vol. 16 of

The Constitution of the Historical Past. 4 vols.

Wood, Gabe. "Louise Bourgeois's iconic spider Maman – Everything you need to know."

Sevencut.com, 11 Oct. 2016, publicdelivery.org/louise-bourgeois-spider-maman/.