Truth?

I was reminded recently of a story;

A professor was ill, very ill, (cancer in fact). To cut a long story short, after several treatments he managed to recover.
Whilst he was still less than 100% (but on the road to recovery) he took part in a prestigious conference where he could present some of his latest work.

During the course of the presentation, in the middle suddenly someone stood up and said "no that's wrong"
"no it's right" retorted the Professor,
"no that's wrong" (etc)... .then the man began to explain why he believed a certain theorem was actually false.
[as it happens this stranger was correct]
What does that sounds like?

In many walks of life, one would say that the person who stood up was being rude, how could he have been sure he was right?
Even then surely that was not the right time to talk? He was being insensitive to interrupt in the middle of the talk for starters, and moreover he was being insensitive to a person recovering from cancer.
If you can, put yourself in the place of the professor. I suspect you (or I) would feel it as a personal attack, an embarrassment perhaps; definitely they are trying to score points at 'my' expense.

Put yourself in the shoes of the stranger, what do you feel? What was your motivation after you have noticed a mistake? Perhaps this is a chance to prove your worth? Maybe now you can demonstrate people need to take you seriously?


However the thing is- all of these 'deep' questions that we might use to analyse motives are missing the point.
The 'truth' is what is being discussed (the truth of a mathematical concept). That is what should be at the centre of decision making.
But in the name of the truth people will make point-scoring attacks. Or dismiss a stranger telling them this is the wrong time to talk (to divert any attention from your own failing).

I think that what has really got into the centre of the discussion is "whose truth".
Is the professor upset that the truth is different to what he thought, or is he actually upset that someone else's truth is now believed?
Is the man who stood up acting to try and reveal the truth, or to reveal that he is the one who knows the truth?

[And before you claim that this story isn't realistic, or that I am making up emotions in the characters to prove a point - think back over the past year to any confrontations that took place between two other people, I'd wager you could find one that fits the basic pattern above.]
We only consider the above story an attack, because we allow ourselves to have concepts of 'owning the truth', and to personalise it as 'my theory', 'my idea'.

When you tried to imagine how this might pan out in reality, did you recall the stranger shouting "no you're wrong" rather than as I wrote "no that's wrong"?


[As it happens, it's a true story.
Indeed the Professor involved is Miles Reid, who is one of the best, Algebraic-Geometers alive today. He is a Professor at Warwick.
Some people at the time observing followed the train of thought above, however I am told Miles did not take it as an attack. The stranger was a former student of his, and so he knew that the young boy was more concerned with what is right rather than who is right.



As soon as you loose sight of the 'quest to truth' being more important than 'who gets to the truth', I feel you have slipped down a dangerous road attaching emotion to truth.
And as you become more aware of others attaching emotion to truth, you begin to let that affect your presentation of the truth.
Fair enough, but then when you are aware of others like this, and no longer prioritise finding the truth over all else... then you have gone down the same path as the politician who decides to choose based on what will cause the better emotional reaction amongst people
i.e. 'what do they want to believe is true' is more important to you than 'what is actually true'?
You have gone down the path that says 'I will condemn one man rather than another man, because the public want to vilify this man over the other' and pays little attention to who should be condemned.
This is (if you haven't already noticed) the same path as saying 'I Pilate, will send the innocent Jesus to die, because it is what the Jews want'.




So what are we to do?
If we take the attitude of the former-student above then sooner or later we will meet someone who doesn't like the way you abruptly point out 'truth' without concern for feelings.
We have to worry about how people will hear, no one likes to hear they are wrong, and I don't this is a character weakness. But there are ways of presenting it without seeming rude.

The balance we must strike is somewhere between:
-admitting we can be wrong
-regarding others feelings
-but when all is said and done, making sure that we done more 'making feel comfortable with our presentation of the truth' then 'making the truth more comfortable to peoples feelings'.

i.e. if someone is innocent, then they should not be made a scapegoat.


Jesus died because it is easier sometimes to give the people what they want, than what is good.

He died because when push came to shove Pilate had given up on an absolute definition of truth and had gone for a more post-modern 'everyone can have an interpretation that is equally valid' definition of truth.
It's a lot easier to live with other people when you do what Pilate did.
And let's face it, we're lazy.
That is why we sent him to die.