With the meteoric rise of populism in the last 20 years, we often faced with dealing with information that are inherently not true, yet believed by many. This puzzling observation has prompted me to ask the question: What is truth? Is it something physical that we can posess any quantity of? Or is it a concept that is inherently subjective?

DISCLAIMER: I usually don’t write these kind of things and attempt to stay away from these kind of topics; I attempt to research what I write about and back-up claims. However, I feel that this is an important topic to discuss and I hope that you will find this interesting, even if you don’t agree with me. Furhtermore, my views may change over time. The goal of this post is to spark some debate and to get you thinking about what truth is and how we can deal with it in a world where misinformation is rampant.

Cover photo: The Thinker statue, originally by Auguste Rodin. Image source: Wayfair. Modified by Casper van Elteren for stylistic purposes.

Decomposing Truth

To explore the concept of truth, we must first understand several interconnected terms: truth, fact, knowledge, belief, opinion, and reality. Let’s establish clear definitions:

Information consists of quantities that describe events or properties. Facts are pieces of information that are objectively true, meaning they remain valid regardless of perspective or reference frame. Knowledge represents the understanding of facts, forming a comprehensive web of interconnected information about topics or events.

In contrast, beliefs are subjective interpretations that may or may not align with objective facts. A belief can be true from an individual’s perspective while failing to meet objective criteria, or it can align with facts while still remaining personal. Beliefs represent potential knowledge that might be beyond an individual’s current reference frame, collectively forming one’s perspective on reality.

Reality itself is the actual state of things as they exist, rather than as they appear or might be imagined. It represents ultimate truth, yet remains largely inaccessible to organisms that perceive it only through their limited senses. This limitation has led philosophers to question: What is truth, and how can we access it?

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave elegantly addresses these questions. In this philosophical parable, prisoners are chained in a cave since childhood, facing a wall. Behind them burns a fire, casting shadows from passing objects onto the wall. Having never seen anything else, the prisoners believe these shadows constitute reality.

When one prisoner is freed and leaves the cave, he’s initially blinded by sunlight and confused by the real world. Upon understanding that his previous “reality” consisted merely of shadows, he returns to share this revelation with his fellow prisoners. They reject his account, preferring their familiar shadow-reality.

This allegory illustrates how people often live in ignorance, accepting their limited perceptions as complete reality. The freed prisoner represents the philosopher or truth-seeker who discovers a deeper reality and faces resistance when sharing this knowledge. The shadows symbolize our potentially false or incomplete understanding of reality.

However, the allegory has its limitations, particularly in suggesting the existence of “pure ideas” that perfectly represent universal truth. Modern interpretations acknowledge that our understanding of reality might always be incomplete or filtered through our perceptions, even as we strive to move beyond the shadows of our own caves.

Now the allegory of the cave is not perfect, as it depicts a sens of “idea” that is pure and represents the true state of the universe. In reality, our understanding of the universe is always incomplete and filtered through our perceptions. We strive to move beyond the shadows of our caves, but we must acknowledge that our understanding of reality might always be incomplete.

This complexity can lead to seemingly paradoxical situations where competing truths may coexist. In the absence of objective facts that transcend reference frames, we encounter scenarios where information holds true within one frame of reference while being false in another, and vice versa. For instance, the relative motion of objects in different reference frames in physics. Similarly, cultural practices that are considered appropriate in one society but inappropriate in another. Historical events interpreted differently based on varying cultural or national perspectives to name a few.

This phenomenon demonstrates the importance of context and perspective in our understanding of what truth is and whether we are talking about objective truths or not.

Different Forms of Truth

We could say there are different kinds of truth, of which objective truths are one. Coarsely, we could say that have

1. Empirical truths: truths that are observable and verifiable through experimentation or observation. They can be replicated under control conditions.
2. Logical truths: truths that are derived from logical reasoning, e.g. mathematical proofs.
3. Subjective truths: personal experiences and perspectives that hold within the reference frame of the individual or group of individuals that share the same perspective.
4. Moral and or ethical truths: truths that are based on moral or ethical principles, e.g. “It is wrong to kill an innocent person.

These different forms of truth can coexist and sometimes conflict with each other. For example, a scientific fact might conflict with a religious belief, or a moral principle might contradict a logical conclusion. In such cases, we must carefully consider the context and implications of each truth to determine their validity and relevance.

The importance is that truth is not a singular concept. We could potentially slice the cake up in different but equally meaningful ways — yes even the definition on what truth is may be open to different interpretations. This property proofs itself difficult when faced with dealing with information that has an intention of harming or deceiving. Instead of debating what truth is, we focus now on the equally interesting question: When is something not true?

When is Something Not True, and Why Does It Matter?

As a scientist, I consider myself a pursuer of truth rather than its gatekeeper. My role involves providing evidence and constructing arguments that support specific claims—not declaring absolute truths.

When confronted with the common rebuttal that “Science does not know everything,” I find this observation mischaracterizes the scientific enterprise. No credible scientist would claim complete knowledge. In fact, quite the opposite occurs: each scientific experiment typically generates more questions than answers, expanding our realm of wonder rather than closing it.

The scientific method inherently acknowledges its limitations while continuously pushing boundaries. What makes science powerful isn’t claims of omniscience, but rather its self-correcting nature and commitment to following evidence wherever it leads. Each discovery opens new pathways of inquiry, making science an endless journey of exploration rather than a fixed destination of complete knowledge.

To give insights into this mentality, it would be helpful to outline what scientists do. Scientists use the empirical cycle to produce a system in which truth is generated through a series of steps. When faced with something that is yet to be understood, scientists will: observe the phenomenon, formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, collect data, analyze the data, and draw conclusions. These conclusions are then shared with the scientific community for peer review and further testing. Together this creates a system that is self-correcting and self-improving.

A Scientist’s Journey Through the Empirical Cycle: The Case of Light Dispersion

Observation

Dr. Chen notices something intriguing while working in her laboratory on a sunny day. A glass prism on her desk catches sunlight streaming through the window, projecting a band of colors on the opposite wall. She observes that what enters the prism as white light consistently emerges as a spectrum of colors—violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red—always in the same order. This pattern captures her attention as a phenomenon worthy of systematic study.

Induction (Hypothesis Formation)

Reflecting on her observation, Dr. Chen formulates a preliminary hypothesis: “White light is not homogeneous but composed of different colors, each with different properties that cause them to separate when passing through the prism.” She further speculates that each color might travel at slightly different speeds through the glass medium, causing them to bend at different angles—a process she believes might explain the consistent ordering of colors.

Deduction (Prediction)

From her hypothesis, Dr. Chen derives testable predictions:

1. If white light consists of component colors with different properties, then other transparent materials should also produce similar dispersion effects
2. If the separation is due to different bending angles, then altering the angle of the incident light should predictably change the projection pattern
3. If colors separate due to intrinsic properties, she should be able to isolate individual colors and demonstrate they cannot be further separated by additional prisms

Investigation/Experiments

Dr. Chen designs a series of experiments:

• She tests various transparent materials (different types of glass, quartz, water) to see if they all disperse light into the same spectrum
• She measures the precise angle of deviation for each color using a spectrometer
• She isolates individual colors from the spectrum using screens with slits and passes these isolated colors through a second prism
• She recombines the separated colors using a lens to see if white light can be reconstituted
• She tests light sources of different intensities and temperatures to examine any variations in the resulting spectra

Evaluation

After analyzing her experimental results, Dr. Chen finds that:

• All transparent materials disperse light, though to varying degrees, supporting her hypothesis
• Each color consistently refracts at a specific angle in a given medium, with violet light bending most and red light least
• Individual colors, once isolated, cannot be further decomposed by additional prisms
• The separated colors can indeed be recombined to form white light
• The mathematical relationship between refractive index and wavelength follows a predictable pattern

These findings strongly support her hypothesis that white light comprises a spectrum of component colors, each with distinct properties. She refines her initial hypothesis into a more comprehensive theory about light dispersion that accounts for the wavelength-dependent nature of refraction. Dr. Chen publishes her findings, contributing to the understanding of light’s properties, while noting remaining questions about why different wavelengths travel at different speeds through materials—questions that will inspire further cycles of scientific inquiry.

The empirical cycle (or scientific method) is not focused on pursuing a singular truth, a particular goal, or a specific outcome. Instead, it is a process of discovery and exploration that aims to uncover new knowledge and refine existing understanding. This process is iterative, meaning that new discoveries can lead to new questions and further exploration, create correction of a previously held belief, or even a complete overhaul of an idea or theory.

Now I am not an expert in all types of belief systems, but this system of self-correction and self-improvement is not something that is present in all belief systems. In fact, some belief systems are based on the idea that they have the ultimate truth and that there is no need for further exploration or questioning. This can lead to stagnation, dogmatism, and the suppression of new ideas or information that might challenge the existing belief system.

Case Study: Truth in Controversy, a 5G example.

To take, as an example, the introduction of 5G technology. The introduction was promoted with faster speeds to better connect or interconnected world. Activists in the Netherlands however, claimed that the technology was harmful to human health and the environment. They argued that the technology was not properly tested and that the government was ignoring the potential risks. It went so far that some of the newly built 5G towers were destroyed.

On a factual level, the activists are being truthful that the real-world effects of 5G technology is not fully understood for both the effects on humans as well as the effects of flora and fauna. A vast body of literature, exists, however that states that the effect of >100MHz RF radiation in biological tissue results in heating of the tissue (thermal effects) which cannot cause effects such as cancers since the energy of the used frequencies is too low to break chemical bonds (ionizing effects).

We are therefore at a standoff where on the one hand the activists seem to have a solid claim and on the other hand there is no evidence that the technology could be harmful unless you are exposed to high levels of radiation (which would imply that the RMF is ionizing).

From a physics perspective, the energy a photon can carry is proportional to its frequency. Formally

whereis the Planck constant andis the frequency in Hertz. The energy of a singular photo may be too low for ionizing occur, but there is a second effect. The amount or intensity of radiation is also proportional to the amplitude of the wave

whereis the amplitude in Volts per meter for electrical waves or Tesla for magnetic waves. For complete energy we must therefore consider both the frequency (energy of individual photons) and the amplitude (number of photons).

For radio towers, the amplitude and frequency are outside the range that are harmful to humans — in any sense. But for smaller organisms there may be an effect. For example birds flying by or insects/flora that are close to the tower. The effect of the radiation on these organisms is not well understood and is a topic of ongoing research.

Thus, we can see that by decomposing a phenomenon into different kinds of truths that a complicated image emerges. On the one hand, activists, hold the claim that because the technology is poorly understood in terms of its immediate or longterm effects, the development of these technologies should be halted. From a physics perspective, the effect on biological organisms would be thermal in nature — the tissue heats and wit high enough energy may cause damage through the formation of free radicals. The current scientific understanding is that the radiation from radio towers is not harmful to humans as the energy delivered to humans is too low to be harmful, but could be harmful to smaller organisms.

The census would be to weigh the added benefit of introducing the technology from the potential dangers that exist. This would fall outside the discussion of what truth is, but is another interesting avenue to pursuit for policy makers, scientists, and activists alike.

In the 5G debate, we see multiple types of truth operating simultaneously. The activists operate from precautionary ethical truths (“we shouldn’t implement technology before fully understanding its impacts”) and cite empirical uncertainties. Scientists apply logical and empirical truths about physics and biology, acknowledging both what is known and what remains uncertain. Policy-makers must weigh subjective truths about societal values alongside empirical evidence of risks and benefits.

This case illustrates why a nuanced view of truth matters in our complex world. When we recognize that truth isn’t monolithic but multi-faceted, we can engage more productively with seemingly opposing viewpoints. The debate isn’t simply about who possesses “the truth,” but rather which types of truth should take precedence in specific contexts, and how we weigh different forms of evidence and reasoning.

Towards a More Sophisticated Approach to Truth

Our exploration suggests that pursuing truth requires intellectual humility and methodological flexibility. The scientific approach exemplifies this through its commitment to provisional knowledge and systematic self-correction. However, even science must acknowledge its limitations and the importance of other truth frameworks in human understanding.

In our era of information abundance and competing claims, perhaps the most truthful position is one that remains open to revision while still being guided by evidence and reason. This doesn’t mean embracing relativism where all claims are equally valid, but rather developing sophisticated frameworks for evaluating different types of truth claims in their appropriate contexts.

The question becomes not just “What is truth?” but “How should we navigate multiple truths?” In a world where misinformation spreads rapidly, cultivating this nuanced relationship with truth may be our most important intellectual project. It requires systems of knowledge that allow for self-correction, self-improvement, and self-reflection—qualities that transcend any single discipline or perspective.

Furthermore, it is also important to know when to disregard information that is not relevant or hampers development. Some perspectives on truth can be reliably debunked or dismissed based on existing evidence. Not all truth claims deserve equal consideration—some are demonstrably more reliable than others, and we must develop skills to discern which ones merit serious pursuit. A rhetorically problematic claim I often encounter is ‘nobody ever talks about X,’ which serves as justification for increased attention to topic ‘X’ despite X having been thoroughly refuted by evidence or being demonstrably false. Such claims generate additional noise in the decision-making process, where misguided inclusivity of every perspective—regardless of evidence—slows down and hampers effective assessment of what is genuinely true. The pursuit of truth requires not just openness, but also discernment and sometimes, decisive rejection of claims that fail to meet reasonable standards of evidence.

As individuals and societies, we must ask ourselves: Are our current ways of seeking truth sufficient for the challenges we face? And how might we better integrate different forms of truth-seeking to address our most pressing questions?