Truth Is Absolute
Or, facts are true regardless of how we interpret them
👋 Hey there! My name is Abhishek. Welcome to a new edition of The Sunday Wisdom! This is the best way to learn new things with the least amount of effort.
The Sunday Wisdom is a collection of weekly essays on a variety of topics, such as psychology, health, science, philosophy, economics, business, and more — all varied enough to turn you into a polymath. 🧠
The latest two editions are always free, the rest are available to paid subscribers. Now… time for the mandatory plug!
Alright! On to this week’s essay.
What if I told you that while “truth” is absolute, you can always poke holes into it by taking it out of context? But, what if I also told you that despite these logical flaws, it does not invalidate its “trueness” in anyway?
It’s about 1,300 words, but it’s not a light read.
Q: Does truth have a perspective?
Have you ever argued with someone and found that when you presented what you believed to be a clear fact, they dismissed it by saying, “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just like… your opinion man,” just like Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski? This type of response is commonly known as post-truth.
Post-truth is a cultural phenomenon where people ignore objective facts and rely more on their personal beliefs and emotions to shape public opinion and discussions. It often occurs in relation to conspiracy theories or when populist leaders use manipulative language. Unfortunately, this irrational way of thinking has also influenced people’s attitudes towards science.
I have previously written about the philosophy of truth, where I argued that truth should be strong enough to withstand criticism and that truth disregards feelings. Consider this essay the third part of that trilogy.
Imagine this scenario: A well-respected climate scientist shares an important message, like how the Earth’s climate is changing rapidly and we must adapt our lifestyles to avoid severe consequences. However, a climate change denier immediately responds by saying, “Well, they would say that… They’re being paid by ‘x’ (which could be an environmental group, green energy company, or perceived liberal academia).”
I mean, sometimes it’s understandable to question someone’s viewpoint when they have a vested interest. We can think of examples where research is funded with profit-driven motives, like Kellogg’s promoting the consumption of breakfast cereal for its health benefits.
But it’s a serious problem when the rejection of science or denial of its findings stems from a misunderstanding of how science works or, in simpler terms, sheer ignorance!
Something you should understand is that unlike people, science doesn’t have beliefs or opinions. For an explanation, hypothesis, or idea to be accepted as a fact, it must withstand the rigorous testing of the scientific method.
For instance, let’s consider Galileo, who developed a formula to calculate the speed at which objects fall when dropped. His formula wasn’t just an idea or an opinion; it has been used for over four centuries because we know it to be true.
If I drop a ball from a height of five meters, it will take a wee little over one second to hit the ground. Not two seconds or half a second, but ~1.01 seconds. This is an established and unchanging truth about the world. It was as true during Galileo’s time as it is true today.
However, when it comes to the complexities of human behaviour (psychology) or societal interactions (sociology), we find more nuance and ambiguity. This suggests that there can be multiple truths depending on our perspective.
But when scientists, such as physicists, chemists, biologists, or climatologists, declare something as true or false, they are referring to “objective truths” about the world, not “complex moral truths”. We shouldn’t confuse one with another.
To further illustrate my point, let me present a list of randomly selected facts. They are not debatable or subject to opinion, ideological belief or cultural background, and we can use the scientific method to confirm or dismiss each of them. The conclusions we draw about them will also not change over time.
Humans have walked on the Moon: True
The Earth is flat: Not True
Life on Earth evolved through a process of natural selection: True
The world was created about six thousand years ago: Not True
Earth’s climate is changing rapidly, mainly due to humanity’s actions: True
Vaccinations cause autism: Not True
Nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light in a vacuum: True
5G masts contribute to the spread of viruses: Not True
There are roughly seven billion billion billion atoms in the human body: True
Now, for each of these examples, one can provide mountains of evidence to support their truth or falsehood. Not only that, if science is wrong about any one of the items in the list, the whole edifice of scientific knowledge would need to be pulled down and rebuilt. Only someone who isn’t thinking scientifically would not agree with these facts.
However, there’s a school of thought called social constructivism which argues that personal and cultural biases, societal norms and historical contexts should be taken into account when deciding whether or not something is true. Basically, this theory holds that truth is constructed by social processes, and all knowledge is ‘constructed’. This is certainly not how scientists view the world.
Science has progressed thanks to what is known as scientific realism, which states that science provides us with an increasingly accurate map of reality that is independent of our subjective experience.
In other words, there are facts about our universe that are true regardless of how we decide to interpret them, and if we have more than one interpretation of what is going on, then that is our problem to resolve, not the universe’s.
For example, while the time taken for a ball to fall is a fact that will never change, with time we have evolved our understanding of what is actually going on under the hood. What was initially explained by Newton’s picture of gravity as an invisible force pulling the ball to the ground has been replaced with Einstein’s picture of masses bending spacetime around them.
And even this deeply profound picture may one day be replaced with a more fundamental theory of gravity; but the fact about how long it takes for the ball to hit the ground is not gonna change.
The crux of this idea is that even if our current understanding of some aspect of physical reality is hazy, that does not mean that the very existence of a real world is up for debate. The same holds true for moral truths. Let’s start by examining the following moral statements:
Murder is morally wrong
Human suffering is undesirable
Actions that cause more harm than benefit are negative
At first glance, these statements may appear universally true (like the ball taking ~1.01 seconds to hit the ground). However, let’s delve deeper and consider the “context”.
Considering the first statement, what if killing Hitler before the Holocaust could save millions of innocent lives? Does the context change the morality of murder in that specific instance? Additionally, suffering encompasses guilt and grief. Are these forms of suffering also inherently bad, or can they provide meaning to our lives? Lastly, actions can bring benefits to some while harming others. Who determines which outweighs the other?
While the initial moral truths may seem obvious, it’s not very challenging to find flaws in them if we genuinely seek to do so. However, this doesn’t make them untrue. It merely emphasises the importance of framing things in the right context.
Talking about context, when I stated that a ball dropped from a height of five metres will hit the ground after one ~1.01 seconds, I failed to mention the context in which it is a true fact: namely that this only applies on Earth when there’s no air resistance.
A ball dropped from five metres above the surface of the Moon will take much longer to hit the ground. Think of it this way: It’s the same formula that we use — that is an absolute truth — but the numbers we plug in to get the answer are different.
As we navigate the complexities of life, we must acknowledge that while our interpretations of things may evolve, the underlying truths would remain absolute. Despite all of humankind’s faults and frailties, biases and confusion, there are still facts out there about the world — objective truths that exist whether or not someone believes them.
Today I Learned
Contrary to popular belief, killing cancer cells is actually pretty easy.
I’ve got a dozen potential chemotherapy agents under my kitchen sink. Their labels identify them as glass cleaner or drain openers, but they would easily kill cancer cells too.
The problem is however that these poisons will also slaughter every normal cell in between, likely killing the patient in the process.
The game is won by killing cancers while sparing the normal cells. Selective killing is the key.
Traditional chemotherapy occupies a fuzzy region between poison and medicine. The mustard gas from World War I is actually a close cousin to some early chemotherapy agents, some of which are still in use.
These drugs disrupt the cell replication process, and since cancer cells are the Usain Bolts of replication, they take a harder hit than the average sprinters. Especially the many many noncancerous cells which also divide frequently, such as those in the lining of the mouth and gut, the hair follicles, and the nails — which is why typical chemotherapy agents cause side effects such hair loss and severe stomach problems.
Meanwhile, some cancer cells that do manage to survive chemotherapy often end up acquiring mutations that make them stronger, like cockroaches that develop resistance to insecticides.
The side effects of chemo might seem at the outset to be a fair trade for a “chance for a few more useful years,” as the late author Christopher Hitchens noted in his cancer memoir Mortality. But as his treatment for metastatic oesophageal cancer dragged on, he changed his mind.
“I lay for days on end, trying in vain to postpone the moment when I would have to swallow. Every time I did swallow, a hellish tide of pain would flow up my throat, culminating in what felt like a mule kick in the small of my back….And then I had an unprompted rogue thought: If I had been told about all this in advance, would I have opted for the treatment?”
Hitchens was experiencing the primary flaw of modern chemotherapy: It is systemic, but still not specific enough to target only cancerous cells and not normal healthy cells. Hence the horrible side effects he suffered.
Successful treatments, that are yet to come, will eventually need to be both systemic and specific to a particular cancer type. They should be able to exploit some weakness that is unique to cancer cells, while largely sparing normal cells (and, obviously, the patient). But what might those weaknesses of cancerous cells be?
Now, just because cancer is powerful does not mean it is invincible. There are two key hallmarks of cancer that have led to newer forms treatments, as well as potential methods of reducing cancer risk.
The first such hallmark is the fact that many cancer cells have enhanced metabolism, meaning, they consume huge amounts of glucose. Second, cancer cells seem to have an uncanny ability to evade the immune system, which normally hunts down damaged and dangerous cells — not unlike cancerous cells — and targets them for destruction.
Fighting off cancer via metabolism and immune surveillance have potential because they are both systemic — a necessary condition for any new treatment to combat metastatic cancers, i.e. a cancer that has travelled from one part of the body to a distant site where they should not be.
Both metabolic nor immune-based approaches exploit features of cancer that are potentially more specific to tumours than simply runaway cell replication. In other words, these are much much better. And the good thing is that neither of them are exactly new: dogged researchers have been laying the groundwork for progress in both of these areas for decades — which is actually a good sign.
Now, coming back to my kitchen sink, while I may not have a breakthrough treatment hiding under it, I still find solace in knowing that brilliant minds are tirelessly working to outsmart cancer.
Interesting Finds
Marc Andreessen recently wrote an op-ed titled, Why AI Will Save the World. It’s long. But I’ve read the whole thing so you don’t have to.
AI is the application of mathematics and software code to teach computers how to understand, synthesise, and generate knowledge. It is not killer software or robots that will destroy the world as portrayed in movies.
AI has the potential to augment human intelligence and improve various aspects of life, such as academic achievement, job performance, healthcare, creative arts, decision making, and overall quality of life.
With AI, every child could have an AI tutor, and every person could have an AI assistant to maximise their potential and outcomes in various areas. AI can greatly benefit scientists, artists, engineers, business people, doctors, caregivers, and leaders by expanding their capabilities and research opportunities.
The productivity growth and economic benefits resulting from AI could lead to the creation of new industries, jobs, and overall material prosperity. AI can contribute to scientific breakthroughs, the development of new technologies and medicines, and a golden age for the creative arts.
AI could potentially improve warfare by providing AI advisors to military commanders and political leaders, helping them make better strategic and tactical decisions, thereby reducing wartime death rates. AI has the potential to tackle challenges that were previously impossible to solve, such as curing diseases and achieving interstellar travel.
AI can also be humanising, enabling people without technical skills to create art, providing empathetic support, and making the world a warmer and nicer place.
Despite the positive potential of AI, there is a current public conversation characterised by fear and paranoia, leading to a moral panic surrounding AI’s impact on society.
Historically, moral panics have accompanied the introduction of new technologies, and while some concerns may be legitimate, they often get inflated to a level of hysteria that hinders constructive discussions.
The current moral panic about AI is being used by certain actors, referred to as “Baptists” and “Bootleggers,” to push for new restrictions, regulations, and laws. The Baptists genuinely believe in the risks of AI, while the Bootleggers stand to profit from regulatory barriers and the formation of a government-blessed AI cartel.
It is important to consider the arguments of both the Baptists and the Bootleggers regarding AI regulation and evaluate them on their merits rather than solely focusing on the motives of the actors involved.
AI killing humanity is a baseless fear: The notion that AI will develop a mind of its own and try to kill humanity is unfounded. AI is code and machines created and controlled by humans, not living beings with evolutionary motivations. The fear of AI turning against us is more of a superstitious belief than a rational analysis.
AI risk has developed into a cult: The AI risk movement has taken on cult-like characteristics, with extreme beliefs and behaviours. Some individuals, including industry experts, promote extreme restrictions on AI development, ranging from bans to military action. Their arguments often lack scientific grounding and rely on conspiracy theories. It is important to critically evaluate their claims and motivations.
Concerns about AI ruining society: Another AI risk is the fear that AI will generate harmful outputs, such as hate speech and misinformation, leading to societal damage. The debate around AI alignment revolves around determining what constitutes “good” or “bad” for society. The issue mirrors the ongoing struggles with social media content moderation, where the restrictions imposed by some are seen as authoritarian and a threat to free speech.
Job loss due to AI: The fear of job loss due to automation and AI is not a new concern and has repeatedly proven to be unfounded. Throughout history, technological advancements have led to more jobs and higher wages. AI may actually lead to a sustained economic boom, generating record job and wage growth. The Lump Of Labor Fallacy, which assumes a fixed amount of work, overlooks the economic growth and increased demand that arise from productivity gains.
It is important to approach discussions about AI risks with a rational mindset, critically evaluating claims, considering evidence, and avoiding extreme beliefs and behaviours.
The development of AI in China poses a significant risk as they view AI as a mechanism for authoritarian population control. China intends to proliferate its AI strategy globally, and if they achieve dominance, it could jeopardise the way of life in the United States and the West.
United States and the West should adopt a strategy similar to President Ronald Reagan’s approach during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The strategy should be to win the race for global AI technological superiority and prevent China from dominating.
The plan should allow big AI companies and startup AI companies to build AI aggressively. Opensource AI should be allowed to freely proliferate and compete.
Governments and the private sector should collaborate to maximise society’s defensive capabilities using AI and address broader societal problems such as malnutrition, disease, and climate change.
The goal should be to drive American and Western AI to absolute global dominance, even within China itself, to prevent China from achieving global AI dominance.
Timeless Insight
Before the thirteenth century no more than five persons in the whole of Europe knew how to perform a division. Modern algebra didn’t exist until the 1600s. Today both are taught standard by age 15.
Until the 1940s people doubted whether humans could ever run a mile in less than four minutes. Then Roger Bannister did it in 1954. Nowadays, college kids do that every year.
Growth follows the same exponential road of compound interest. One person sticks their neck out and does X. The next generation starts with X and says “I can do X + 1.” The next starts with X + 1 and shoots for X + 1 + 1, and so on.
These are often tiny improvements. But, as compounding teaches us, tiny improvements built upon a base that is generations in the making can add up to something remarkable.
What I’m Reading
It appears that people who have gone through a life of suffering, hard work, and labour, who have raised their children and been gratified in their work, have shown greater ease in accepting death with peace and dignity compared to those who have been ambitiously controlling their environment, accumulating material goods, and a great number of social relationships but few meaningful interpersonal relationships which would have been available at the end of life.
— Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, On Death and Dying
Tiny Thought
In order to gain an advantage or a establish a better understanding of the current situation, the natural tendency is to acquire the newest technology, obtain the most up-to-date data, and seek advice from “experts”. This is understandable. When you do this, it feels like you are looking ahead. Yet the key might be to resist this temptation and opt instead to look to the past by dusting off some old books.
Before You Go…
If you’re finding this newsletter valuable, share it with a friend, and consider subscribing. If you aren’t ready to become a paid subscriber yet, but feel like I’ve done a good enough job writing today’s issue, you can also support me by buying me a cup of coffee. ☕️
I’ll see you next Sunday,
Abhishek 👋
PS: All typos are intentional and I take no responsibility whatsoever! 😬