The Nature of Knowledge and Truth
The facts and information we gain through experience or education are referred to as knowledge (Caso 1309). Yet, the relevance of this knowledge is relative. We may have knowledge about a specific issue, but there is no guarantee that this information is factual or comes from credible sources. As a result, when we analyze knowledge paradoxes, we might claim that knowledge is relative to justification (Caso 1310). Likewise, truth is relative. The availability of trustworthy backing or proof for this knowledge or paradoxes is the challenge in making sense of it. One cannot claim to have sufficient knowledge about something just by the mere fact of knowing it. There must exist support evidence or reasoned thinking which justify that the knowledge one has is actually the truth (Caso 1310). Similarly, when making paradoxes, we have to provide reasonable ground, for example, the element of chance, in critiquing this knowledge.
Confirmation of Knowledge
When a person says "I will finish this article tomorrow", he/she is expected to finish it tomorrow. If I know that you will complete the article tomorrow, then the person will finish it tomorrow because this knowledge is implied truth. However, how do I know that the person will finish it tomorrow? I cannot accurately confirm the completion of the paper in the current status, as this knowledge is relative. I have assumed that the article will be complete when I check in tomorrow, even if the person resorts not to. This knowledge will only be confirmed when the said date reaches. This confirmation provides the substantial evidence for the knowledge I had earlier. Therefore, knowledge is only the truth when there is sufficient basis or support for the claim made.
Paradoxes and Uncertainties
The paradoxes come into play when we assess if the person will actually complete the article. These paradoxes give us a range of possibilities in dealing with uncertainties, just like the completion of the paper is a mere prediction. With this range of possibilities, we evaluate the truth and possible course of action if the knowledge stated is not confirmed. Therefore, in case the person fails to complete the paper tomorrow, I will have to provide alternative measures to have the article completed. Such actions are efficient when we have sufficiently made paradoxes to the initial knowledge we had about the person.
Challenge to the Position
Claim (a challenge to the conclusion of the argument): The truth is constant.
The Constant Nature of Truth
Truth is a well-established fact or information (Ninan 439). It has passed the relative test of time and can be referenced as the absolute knowledge. There are limited probabilities or no paradoxes to this truth. These paradoxes can be perceived as missing information or being wrong for the right reasons.
When a person claims that the earth is flat in the current generation, he/she may be considered as absurd or foolish. It is an already established truth that the earth is round. Scientific evidence has already proven the round stature of the earth, and nothing would seem to change this fact. Paradoxes to this truth are treated as foolish and unwarranted reasoning. Therefore, truth is constant. It has withstood the test of time. When stated or a claim about truth is made, it is expected to be accomplished as stated. In the previous predicate about the completion of the paper, when the person says he/she will complete the paper tomorrow, the paper will be completed by tomorrow. The completion of the paper tomorrow is the absolute truth, and nothing will change this truth. Any paradoxes are inconsequential and are considered as being wrong for the right reason. The right reason, in this case, is the completion of the paper by the said date. Being wrong is considering that the paper may not be completed by the said time. Therefore, truth is constant and there are no uncertainties when such truth claims are stated.
Evaluation
However, I still stand with the truth being relative. Authentic knowledge is relative. Knowledge is gained through experience or teaching. When acquiring such knowledge, sufficient basis is provided to justify it. Consequently, this knowledge is considered the truth (absolute truth). However, the same knowledge can be established as paradoxes at a later time to justify its applicability at that time. This means that knowledge is a variable, unlike the challenging claim which alludes knowledge being constant.
The existing knowledge continues to be claimed as the truth as the supporting evidence or logical reasoning is still relevant in the current times. Even with the application of paradoxes, the same results continue to be yielded. However, this does not mean that such truth is constant (da Costa 263). It only means that the supporting claims or evidence are still coherent with current reasoning. If, by any chance, new methodologies (for a given reasoning) are developed and are different from the previous methodology, and these methodologies yield different results, the previous knowledge will cease remaining as the absolute truth (da Costa 263). This is so as there exists new supportive evidence or reasoned thinking which justify that this new knowledge is actually the truth. Therefore, coherence between the support evidence/reasoned thinking and the stated knowledge is important for justifying this truth. I hereby reiterate that the truth is relative.
Works Cited
Caso, Ramiro. "Assertion and relative truth." Synthese 191.6 (2014): 1309-1325.
da Costa, Newton C.A., Otávio Bueno, and Steven French. "A coherence theory of truth." Manuscrito 28.2 (2016): 263-290.
Ninan, Dilip. Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. 2016: 439-447.
