| Home | Ask Dr Matt | Call Dr Matt | Meet Dr Matt | Quotes | The Book | Answer Archive |

Excerpts from
Changing Your Stripes

Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor

Talk to Dr Matt!
 Complimentary Consultation
When you buy Changing Your Stripes 

 
Five 5 Approaches for Making Truth-Claims:
I REPAIR My Thinking about TRUTH 
by Dr Matt Moody 

In the history of science and philosophy, five approaches for making claims to knowing truth have weathered the test of time. Whenever people attempt to make a point, the methods used to support such persuasions will inevitably pass through any of five avenues of epistemology. These five methods for making Truth Claims are easily remembered by a phrase coined by Dr Matt:

"I REPAIR my thinking about Truth"

From the preceding phrase comes the acronym "REPAIR" which
corresponds to the following epistemological methods, or ways of knowing truth:

                          R = Rationalism
                          E = Empiricism
                          P = Pragmatism
                           A = Authority
                           I   = I shouldn't expect my opinions to be worth much if they aren't substantiated
                          R = Revelation

When you think you're right about an idea, the case for your contention becomes more convincing as these Epistemologies are properly applied.

Epistemology is a philosophical field that explores the question: "What does it mean to know?" The Latin word "Episteme" means Knowledge or Knowing; thus, Epistemology is Knowledge-ology or the study of Knowing. The ultimate aim of all "knowing" has always been . . . to know Truth.

Breaking down the component parts of the acronym R. E. P. A. I. R., we start with the letter "I". Of course, "I" does not represent an epistemological method; instead, the letter "I" helps you remember that making convincing knowledge claims is NOT adequately done through unsubstantiated opinions coming from Me, Myself, and . . . "I."

I = I shouldn't expect my opinions to be worth much
if they aren't substantiated.

Everyone has a "right" to their opinion, but not everyone's opinion will be . . . "right" — or adequate or persuasive. When opinions are buttressed by these approaches for advancing evidence, then assertions carry weight — and are more readily received by intelligent observers.

In courts of law, cases are made upon the merits of evidence! So the burning question is this: What evidence exists that lends credence to a claim of knowledge — a claim to truth?

In a nutshell, I REPAIR My Thinking about TRUTH is described this way:

 1.  R = Rationalism:    This method of making claims to truth relies heavily upon the "head." This approach assumes: That which is logical and consistent is true.

 2.  E = Empiricism:    This Epistemological avenue uses the "head-logic" of rationalism and adds evidence that can be systematically verified via sensory input. This approach maintains: That which I can prove to my senses is true.

 3.  P = Pragmatism: This approach relies upon results, typically time tested results. While the scientific method bases its claims in controlled experiments, pragmatic conclusions are derived via practical life experience. The pragmatist maintains: That which "bears fruit" & "works" is true.

 4.  A = Authority:    Appeal to authority is an oft used method to support claims of "knowing," to prove points: What experts say is true — observations of wise men and women establish truth.

      I  =   I shouldn't expect my opinions to be worth much if they aren't substantiated.

 5.  R = Revelation:   Whether one believes in the existence of a Higher Power, Creator, or God, the epistemology of Revelation is one that is used in every corner and culture of the world. This method maintains: That which God reveals is True; Revelations from God establish Truth.

Here are five avenues of epistemology, ways of knowing truth, described in detail:

 1.  R = Rationalism:    This method of making claims to truth relies heavily upon the "head." This approach assumes: That which is logical and consistent is true.

Logic led the famous philosopher, Descartes, to a compelling conclusion about human existence: Cogito Ergo Sum = "I think, therefore, . . . I am." To the average observer, the question of human existence is apparent and obvious; most human beings don't doubt their existence, they simply accept it. But what if someone said to you: "I don’t think you exist . . . prove it to me."

Cartesian meditations are a classic example of rationalism used as a method for establishing claims of knowing. Descartes began his renowned reasoning with a systematic doubting of everything: doubting the world that surrounded him and even doubting the existence of his own body. He wanted to arrive at a conclusion that would not rest upon an unproven premise. As he doubted, . . . especially the existence of the physical world around him, he concluded:

While I may doubt the existence of the world that surrounds me, and even doubt the existence of my own body, still I cannot doubt, . . . that I am doubting! Therefore, since I am doubting, I must exist to be engaged in the activity of questioning my existence. For how could I doubt . . . unless "I Am!"

The Epistemology of Rationalism looks for logical consistency. Clearly, using logic and reason for making claims to truth is a "head" dominant activity. As one accepts Rationalism as an adequate epistemology to establish evidence of truth, then by implication, the "nature of truth" assumed to be an Essence or Idea existing in a metaphysical realm and captured by the mind. It makes sense that Rationalism is the primary approach of a branch of philosophy called "Metaphysics."

But Rationalism is only one possible avenue for advancing claims to truth, and the associated implication of "truth" as Accurate Ideas is only one possible answer to the question, "What is truth?" and more specifically, "What is the nature of truth?" The acronym REPAIR helps us remember 5 ways of making truth claims, with each epistemological avenue having an associated implication of the "nature of truth."

 2.  E = Empiricism:    This Epistemological avenue uses the "head-logic" of rationalism and adds evidence that can be systematically verified via sensory input. This approach maintains: That which I can prove to my senses is true.

The word "empirical" is commonly used interchangeably with the word "observable." However the original meaning of empiricism included proofs establish through any of the senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling.

After empirical experiments are administered and data is systematically gathered, the scientist must then "interpret" the data, . . . for data cannot speak for itself. This means Empiricism cannot function without inevitably invoking Rationalism — consistency in the logical interpretation of empirical data.

Of the Empirical approach, Descartes might ask this question, "How do you know that your senses are not fooling you?" Empiricism mostly bypasses this question and accepts the tangible world that humans empirically perceive as . . . BEING THERE. Further, Empiricists assume that the senses can adequately access tangible reality in a consistent fashion. This is called the "empirical assumption."

By accepting the "empirical assumption," science excuses itself from philosophical inquiry and proceeds to examine the tangible world using systematic methods that verify to the senses patterns of consistency within the physical world — patterns that are sometimes assumed to have universal application.

But to make sure the senses are not being fooled, contemporary Empiricism establishes truth claims via controlled conditions, where factors and influences are narrowed down to specific causes and/or correlations. If this sounds like the scientific method . . . it is! Still, this is only one of five avenues for advancing proofs in support of claims to knowing.

Because the scientific method uses sensory evidence that either proves or disproves a given hypothesis, this method also implies a particular nature of truth. Within Empiricism, truth typically becomes a property of accurately stated words, a function of empirically-supported hypotheses; and the accuracy and adequacy of these word-propositions is substantiated by systematically observed sensory evidence.

Notice my use of the word "substantiated," the root of which is "substance." Again the Empirical Approach skipped the philosophical questions as to whether the physical world is really THERE, and simply accepts the assumption that it IS THERE. As scientists unquestioningly accept the "empirical assumption," curiously, this is equivalent to the scientist proceeding with "faith" — faith that the physical world IS what the senses suggest it IS.

From an empirical perspective, the nature of truth is embedded in accurately stated hypotheses — empirically supported word-propositions. This version of truth is called "propositional truth," with the proposition being the hypothesis. Because hypotheses are always expressed in words, the "nature of truth" becomes inseparably embedded within language; Truth is assumed to be a function accurately stated words, and these words, in turn, correlate with accurate ideas about world realities. Ultimately, the Epistemology of Empiricism puts "truth" into a metaphysical realm of accurate ideas.

 3.  P = Pragmatism: This approach relies upon results, typically time tested results. While the scientific method bases its claims in controlled experiments, pragmatic conclusions are derived via practical life experience. The pragmatist maintains: That which "bears fruit" & "works" is true.

Such pragmatic proofs are paraded daily on TV infomercials that pitch products via testimonials of how they . . . work! The problem with most "testimonials" is with the experience of a product that supposedly worked: an experience that lacks controls sufficient to isolate the definitive source of fruitful results. Generally "testimonials" establish a loose correlation to the effectiveness of the snake oil being sold. A scientist might correctly call for double-blind testing to verify the claims of a testimonial.

Sometimes, what "works" is the mere suggestion that a product should work: even a salt pill can cure a headache if the pill-taker believes that the pill will work. This is called the "placebo effect" — where essentially "nothing" but positive hope is supplied. This is precisely why well-designed research will compare results from an "experimental group" (that is given a product assumed to have an effect) to a "control group" who are given a placebo that has no effect (other than hope-raising).

In politics, this approach is intentionally applied, and is called "mud slinging." Negative political campaign ads often yield pragmatic results. Pragmatically speaking, negative ads stick in the minds of the public better than the positive ads. So tactics can "work" but the pragmatic fruits are NOT necessarily evidence of truthful ends . . . or truthful means.

Pragmatic experience may lead to "knowledge" of both good and evil. The saying "live and learn" is a pragmatic proverb — "trial and error" is a pragmatic process.

 4.  A = Authority:    Appeal to authority is an oft used method to support claims of "knowing," to prove points: What experts say is true — observations of wise men and women establish truth.

Appeal to authority is commonly used to break logjams of controversy. In courts of law, authority is invoked via "expert witnesses," establishing greater credibility to certain claims in the mind of a judge and jury. Citing authoritative sources is equivalent to calling in the heavyweights to pummel opponents!

Thus into the fray of conceptual controversy enters Aristotle and Einstein as their views support ours. As we find authorities that agree with our views, we can stick out a tongue and taunt: "My authority is smarter than yours." This epistemological avenue basically boils down to the elementary playground scoff: "My dad is bigger than your dad!"

Citing authority is often effective, but when others don’t respect the sources you cite, you will not be able to sell your assertions for a very high price. So the search to get the best, the biggest, and the brightest on our bandwagon begins: To find high profile experts that will agree with our viewpoint.

But better than simply seeking to support one's viewpoints, is seeking for Truth — knowledge of things as they are now, as they have been in the past, and as they will be in the future. Those who love wisdom, will allow Truth to inform and change present opinions.

 5.  R = Revelation:   Whether one believes in the existence of a Higher Power, Creator, or God, the epistemology of Revelation is one that is used in every corner and culture of the world. This method maintains: That which God reveals is True; Revelations from God establish Truth.

God IS the ultimate "heavy hitter" in terms of an appeal to Authority; still this approach does not end all arguments or prove all points. Because thousands of certified crazy people make claims of divine "revelation," within this epistemology, much controversy surrounds associated assertions of "knowing."

Because people believe in different prophets and different gods, invoking "revelation" for making claims to truth is sometimes reduced to rude exchanges of "My god is bigger than your god." If there is a Creator, there is only one; and this one God has an opinion and viewpoint! So it is essential that we let the Creator speak, establishing His Truth according to His infinite wisdom and ways; instead of finite beings trying to wrap God's Omniscience around their narrow views — the tail should never wag the Dog.

Because people do not agree upon the same Sources of Revelation, proving points must necessarily look to the other epistemological approaches: Rationalism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and appeal to mortal Authority can buttress the validity of "Revelation" claims.

The agnostic/secularist tendency is to disregard scripture-based propositions in one dismissive stroke: "Oh, that just religion!" But even if a book is not deemed "Revelation from God," that book is still at very least a book written by someone, if not God. And the ideas therein can be evaluated upon their own merits, using the standards of the other four epistemologies. If statements coming from any source are wise and insightful then . . . let them be wise and insightful — regardless of who allegedly authored them.

Any book of so-called "Scripture" can be listened to and learned from, as Literature at least. Any assertion originating from any book, to include the Bible, may have value based upon the weight of its Empirical, Rational, or Pragmatic merits! If an idea or action works and bears fruit . . . it is of value; If an idea or action is logical and reasonable . . . it may be of value; and if anything can be verified to the senses . . . that reality may have value.

So when citing "Revelation" as a method for making truth claims, such assertions are strengthened through appeals to logic (Rationalism), orderly observation and experiment (Empiricism), fruitful experience (Pragmatism), and the words of wise men and women (Authority).

Triangulating: Using a Combination of Epistemologies.    The scientific method uses a combination of Rationalism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and Authority. Scientific publications are backed by references (Authority) at the end of each research study to buttress research claims. The Scientific method also includes a logical discussion (Rationalism) of what empirical data most likely "means" — for data do not speak for themselves.

Pragmatism plays a part in scientific approaches. The "it-works" standard becomes more reliable as scientists establish the causal source from which pragmatic fruits grow—within the controlled conditions of an "experiment." Triangulating multiple methods is more powerful than mere testimonial — the most common pragmatic persuasion. Because the scientific method uses more than one epistemological approach, it is able make more convincing claims to "knowing."
(Changing Your Stripes Manual, p. 8-5)

What is Truth? Most likely, it's not what you think:
Read about the Nature of Truth 

Are you a lover of Truth? . . .
Or an unwitting Propaganda Peddler? 
Five 5 Rules for the Gullible Email Forwarder? 

Sold Exclusively
through this website

Changing Your Stripes is a
unique reference book that will help
you understand, . . . and solve all of
Life's ever-appearing problems.
Here are more reasons to buy
Changing Your Stripes

Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor