Truth is a funny thing.
Everyone thinks they’ve got it.
Scientists think they have it. Every religion thinks they have it. And, its a tad curious how psychedelic drugs cause their users to preach of new truths and perspectives.
For a hard core materialist, it won’t matter how believable an “experience” may be–its not real unless it can be scientifically verified (some “scientists” are moving away from the constraints of falsification, thus rendering their theories non-scientific, though they still contain lots of equations–a story for another day). For these materialists, love is tough to prove. Even pain is tough to prove, doctors have to take your word for it. For some, it may be that mathematics contains the more truth than the probabilistic sciences can deliver.
If there even is such a thing as “truth” floating around out there somewhere, what are some reliable ways to find it?
In our court system, the jury decides what is true. We call them the “finders of fact”. But, we filter what the jury can hear (we call these filters the rules of evidence). The hearsay rules, for example, keep rumors out of our quest for truth.
Our criminal laws have lots of rules regarding confessions. Again, if we’re on a quest to discover the truth, can you really trust a cop who will do anything to get a confession out of someone? Our Supreme Court started laying down confession rules many years ago in Spano v. New York. 360 U.S. 315 (1959). Spano was suspected of murder but the cops couldn’t get him to talk, so they rounded up a close childhood friend, who then manipulated him into confessing. Yes, his confession was thrown out of court.
Surely, that sort of thing doesn’t happen today, does it? Continue Reading