What Does Someone's
"Version of the Truth" Mean?
 

"The Thinker"

I suspect you are also correct in thinking that other people have been exposed to this error in one way or another.  Or, if they have not come across it already, the way the world is today, there is a higher probability that they will come across it in the future.  By reading what follows, they will know how to respond to such a gross error.

So, for everyone who is reading this, you will find the detailed answer below, beginning with some fundamental basics which constitute the real "meat" of the answer.  The obvious logical beginning point is a brief review of what Truth actually is.

What Does the Bible Teach Us About the Subject of Truth?

"What Truth can come from that which is false?"  (Ecclesiasticus  34:4).

"I am the Lord and I change not" (Malachias 2:6).

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of Grace and Truth” (John 1:14).

“For the law was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

“But he that doth Truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God” (John 3:21).

"And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free"  (John 8:32).

“But if I say the Truth, you believe Me not” (John 8:45).

"I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life.  No man cometh to the Father but by Me"  (John 14:6).

“But when the Paraclete [God the Holy Ghost] cometh, Whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of Me” (John 15:26).

“But when He [God the Holy Ghost], the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all Truth” (John 16:13).

“Thy word is Truth” (John 17:14).  (Christ speaking to His Heavenly Father.)

“Pilate therefore said to Him:  Art Thou a king then?  Jesus answered:  Thou sayest that I am a king.  For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the Truth.  Every one that is of the Truth, heareth My voice” (John 18:37).

"No lie is of the Truth" (1 John 2:21).

“And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the Truth” (1 John 5:6).

“...because they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

"Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.  Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever" (Hebrews 13:8-9).

“Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the Truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

“Who hath hindered you, that you should not obey the Truth?” (Galatians 5:7).

“Put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of Truth. Wherefore putting away lying, speak ye the Truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:24-25).

"God... will have all men... to come to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

"Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the Truth"  (2 Timothy 3:7).

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of Truth shall be evil spoken of.  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not"  (2 Peter 2:1-3).

“But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the Truth.  For this is not Wisdom, descending from above:  but earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:14-15).

“My brethren, if any of you err from the Truth, and one convert him:  He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).

What Do the Fathers and Doctors of the Church Teach Us About the Subject of Truth?

Saint Justin Martyr

"Everyone who can speak the Truth, yet speaks it not, will be judged by God" (Saint Justin Martyr [b.
Sichem, a.k.a. Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis, modern day Nablus, Palestine c. 100 A.D. - d. Rome, Italy c. 165 A.D.], DIALOGUE, Chapter 82).

Patriarch Saint John Chrysostom

"Not only does he betray the Truth who transgresses against the Truth by openly speaking falsehood and not the Truth, but he also betrays it who does not openly speak the Truth, which must be openly proclaimed, or does not boldly defend it when it must be boldly defended" (Patriarch Saint John Chrysostom [b. Antioch, c. 347 A.D. - d. at Commana in Pontus on Friday, September 14, 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople [Thursday, February 26, 398 A.D. - Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D.], exiled from his See the 2nd time on Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D., Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, Cause 11, Question 3, NOLITE.)

Bishop Saint Augustine

“That is True which is” (Bishop Saint Augustine, a.k.a. Aurelius Augustinus [b. Tagaste, Africa, Saturday, November 13, 354 A.D. - d. Hippo Regia, Africa, Wednesday, August 28, 430 A.D.], Bishop of Hippo Regia, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, the Doctor of Grace, a protégé of Patriarch Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], SOLILOQUIES, 2, 5).

"Anyone who conceals the truth for fear of some authority calls down the wrath of God upon himself, because he fears men more than God...Both are guilty:  he who conceals the Truth and he who speaks falsehood, because the former does not wish to make the Truth known and the latter desires not to refute it" (Bishop Saint Augustine, AD CASULANUS, Cause xi, question 3, Quisquis).

“Thou must in no manner deny that there is an immutable Truth, embracing all such things as are immutably true; a Truth which thou canst not call thine, or mine, or any man’s but which is present to all and gives itself to all alike who discern the things that are Immutably True, as a light which in some miraculous way is both secret and yet open to all” (Bishop Saint Augustine, DE LIBERO ARBITRIO, 2, 12, 33).

“For there is mutability in our mind, which comes by learning to the perception of what it was previously ignorant of, and loses by unlearning what it formerly knew; and is deceived by what has a similarity to Truth, so as to approve of the false in place of the True, and is hindered by its own obscurity as by a kind of darkness from arriving at the Truth” (Bishop Saint Augustine, lectures or tractates on the Gospel according to Saint John, Tractate XCIX, chapter XVI).

Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.

"God is Truth"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 5; Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 93, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 60).

"Truth cannot be Truth’s contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 8).

"Every knowledge of Truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the eternal law, which is the unchangeable Truth"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 93, Article 2).

"Truth knows no distinction of persons.  Therefore, he who speaks the Truth is invincible, dispute with whom he may"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Commentary on Job, Chapter 13, Lesson 2).

"Truth is the equation of thought and thing"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 1).

"The formal motive and object of Faith is First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Church.  A person who does not commit himself to the doctrine of the Church, as to a Divine and unerring rule proceeding from the First Truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, is without the Virtue of Faith; he assents to the Truths of Faith in some other manner"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 53, Article 3).

What Do Councils and Popes Teach About Truth?

"Moreover, since one Truth cannot contradict another Truth, every assertion contrary to the Truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false" (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, December 19, 1513).

"Every assertion contrary to the Truth of revealed faith is altogether false, for the reason that it contradicts, however slightly, the Truth" (Fifth Lateran Council, Bull APOSTOLICI REGIMINIS).

"God is not only True, but Truth Itself" (Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Encyclical, Æterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, Monday, August 4, 1879 A.D.).

"Truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day"  (Pope Pius XII [1939-1958], HUMANI GENERIS, April 12, 1950).

What Do Modern-Day Prelates Teach About Truth?

Giuseppe Cardinal Siri

1. Opinions replace Truth.  In this world the first and fundamental doctrine of power consists of an affirmation that there is no truth.  Saint Augustine said that the difference between the city of this world and the City of God consists of the former having a thousand opinions, while the latter has only one truth.  The basic difference between both cities, therefore, is not based on the content, but on the very existence of truth.  It suffices to remember the dramatic dialogue between Jesus and Pilate.

What is most grave is that there is a technique to replace truth by opinions.  This technique exists and is very useful.  It suffices to look at present religious, literary, and philosophical productions.  Opinions can be so cautiously expressed that it is impossible to get to know what the author’s thesis is, or even more paradoxical, doctrines that are mutually contradictory are juxtaposed as if they were consistent.

Let us look at the words:  `God is dead.’  If the slogan were denial everybody would be able to understand.  However, here we have a subtly sophisticated idea through which `theologians’ want to convey the deceitful impression that they are preserving the most assayed and chemically pure idea of God...through its `identification’ with the most profound reality of man.

Even the ambiguous terms `conservative’ and `progressive’ [i.e. liberal] conceal the relativistic technique, which leads every doctrinal issue in the direction of right wing and left wing.  Thus everything becomes relative; everything becomes a matter of opinions and an instrument of power.  Relativity of truth and doctrine is the actual goal of these arbitrary developments of the Church’s present problems.  Is not this measure, proclaimed even by bishops and cardinals among Us, absurd and most unjust, as if it were an ideal to place us halfway between truth and error?

2. Is Gnosis Reappearing?  (Note:  The Cardinal prefers the term Gnosis instead of Modernism or the Protestantization of the Church perhaps because these things are the modern-day version of Gnosticism.)  Let it be remembered that Gnosis, with its appeal to science and higher speculation, with its eagerness to understand mystery and to naturalize the Faith, was, during the second century, perhaps the worst danger in all the history of the Church.  I believe that the complex of errors circulating today can be called Gnosis, systematically speaking.  But....do many people know what they are talking about?  This is terrible, but they do not!

One does not act on rational grounds, but on one’s excessive desire to adapt oneself to the world.  Worldly power, however, has its own philosophy, and fashionable theologians translate fashionable opinions into theological language, not because they accept a doctrine as such, but because they accept these doctrines that flatter the powers of this world.

The present times are grave, not because it is not longer a question of opposition or contrast between truth and error, but between truth and non-truth, between the order of truth and the dictatorship of public opinion.  PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE BECAUSE THIS APPEARS IN JURIDICAL TESTS; AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS DECEIVING BELIEF IS EVIDENCE OF THEIR SERVITUDE.

Is the Church also under the despotism of public opinion?  Perhaps not the Church, but certainly many people within the Church are.  The Church could not be deprived of its freedom with the Holy Spirit’s provoking powerful reactions....

What is Most Urgent?  The most urgent work is to restore the distinction between truth and error in the Church.  We have reached a point where any exercise of ecclesiastical authority is considered an abuse of freedom, as if authority were a denial of freedom!  A thousand illegitimate powers severely and systematically curtain the conscience and liberty of people at a superficial level, while at the deepest level they detach them from the truth contained in the sources of revelation and the Magisterium.  I hope that just and authorized distinctions will be forthcoming.  PASTORAL AUTHORITY IS NO ART OF COMPROMISE AND CONCESSION, BUT THE ART OF SAVING SOULS THROUGH THE TRUTH.

This truth is many times obscured by abusive liturgical deformations.  Today dangerous losses are discovered in the essential.  Not only is the Rite sacred, but also the presence in the Rite of the meaningful reality.  Once the Rite is mythologized the meaning of its contents is lost.  No wonder that the Eucharist becomes for some a mere feast of human unity where God is just a spectator.  THIS IS NO LONGER HERESY, BUT APOSTASY.

Right.  The present situation in the Church is one of the most grave in its history, for this time the challenge does not come from outer persecution, but from inner perversion.  This is very grave.  But the gates of Hell will not prevail.  (Giuseppe Cardinal Siri [b. Sunday, May 20, 1906 in Genoa, Italy - d. Tuesday, May 2, 1989], Archbishop of Genoa, Italy, emphasis added.)

Other Sources

"Great is Truth and powerful above all things!” (Magna est Veritas et prœvalebit.) (Third Esdras - one of the three uncanonical books appended to the official edition of the Catholic Latin Vulgate.)

The teachings regarding Metaphysical [Ontological] Truth, Logical Truth and Moral Truth are summed up in that department called Epistemology or Major Logic or Material Logic or Criteriology.  At the same time Epistemology takes truth and investigates the nature of Truth as well as Certitude.

Rt. Rev. Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D., S.T.D.

“TRUTH is a relation; it exists between two things.  The two things are mind on the one hand, and something judged by the mind, that is, some judged reality, on the other.”

“When the judging mind forms a judgment which accurately squares with the reality about which the judgment is made, there is truth in the judging mind.  In other words, when we know things accurately and factually, we have the truth about them.  And since things are knowable, since they can be rightly judged upon by the mind, there is truth in them to know.  Truth, therefore, is the relation of equality, of squaring-up, of adequation, between the mind and reality.  The opposite of truth is falsity.”

“Classification of Truth.  Since truth is the relation of equality or adequation between the mind and reality, it can be looked at from two standpoints, that of the mind, and that of reality.  Inasmuch as the mind can square up to reality by knowing it accurately, the mind can obtain and possess truth.  This is truth in the mind, or truth of thought, or truth of knowledge.  Its technical name is logical truth.  Inasmuch as any reality is knowable, inasmuch as it can be rightly known and accurately judged by an adequate mind, truth abides in it.  This is truth in things.  Its technical name is ontological [metaphysical] truth.”

“Hence we have two classes or types of truth:  the truth of thought and the truth of things.  There is a third type of truth which does not concern us here beyond a simple mention:  this is the truth of speech and it consists in the agreement between the knowledge and the words of a speaker or writer.  Truth in its logical and ontological [metaphysical] aspects is verity; truth of speech is veracity.  Veracity is called moral truth.  We shall discuss moral truth when we take up the Ethical Question.”

“Now, things or realities are what they are.  And they are necessarily knowable as they are.  If a knowing mind does not judge them truly, this is not the fault of things but the inadequacy of the mind or its precipitate use.  Hence, things are necessarily true; there is no such thing as the falsity of things; there is no ontological [metaphysical] falsity.  When we call things false as we often do,-for we speak of false teeth, false whiskers, and false friends, to name but a few of a long list of such expressions,-we speak figuratively, not literally.  For false teeth, false whiskers, and false friends are not teeth, whiskers, or friends at all; they are things which bear the appearance of teeth, whiskers, and friends, and so an unwary mind may be led to judge that they are really teeth, whiskers, and friends.  Thus it is manifest that the falsity touches the judgment about things, not the things themselves.  It is logical falsity, not real or ontological [metaphysical] falsity.”

“There are, then, three types of truth:  ontological truth, logical truth, and moral truth.  In other words, we have truth of things, truth of knowledge about things, and truth of utterance or speech.  But there are only two types of falsity:  logical falsity, which consists in mistaken judgment; and moral falsity, which consists in telling lies.”

“Strictly speaking, there are no degrees of truth.  A thing is true of necessity, for it is what it is.  A judgment is true or it is false.  An utterance is true or it is mendacious.  There is, therefore, no comparing of truth and seeing it as true, truer, and truest.  But here again we have a way of speaking as though truth could be parceled out in degrees.  We say, for example, `Your view of this matters seems truer than John’s view.’  But what we mean is, `You seem to know more about this matter than John does,’ or `Your view is more extensive, more complete than John’s.’  THE DEGREES ARE IN ONE’S KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH, NOT IN TRUTH ITSELF.  We may always learn more about a thing, but our knowledge does not become truer as we advance; it becomes more ample. What we knew at first, if we had logical truth about it, remains true knowledge; our subsequent learning does not make the first truth truer.”

“There are, however, degrees of falsity.  The full-grown tree which casts a shadow does not grow taller or shorter, but the shadow grows longer or deeper with the shifting, or the change of intensity, of light.  Falsity is like the shadow; it has degrees of length and depth, but what casts the shadow remains unchanged [like the unchangeable truth].  For falsity is all in the mind or in speech, whereas truth is based upon adamantine reality.  The mind can be more deeply and deviously deceived; the lips can utter more and more details of falsehood.  To take a new analogy, there is only one surface of the lake upon which the boat floats safely, but if it sinks, it may sink deeper and still deeper into the water.  There are, therefore, degrees of falsity, but no degrees of truth.”  (Rt. Rev. Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D., S.T.D., AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, pp. 194-197.)

What Is the Truth About Personal Opinion?

Having thus reviewed the subject of Truth, it will also be helpful to review what is found about Personal Opinions.  You will recall that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, in writing about Truth, also wrote about Personal Opinion above where he begins with:  Opinions replace Truth.

When Saint Thomas More, [b. London, England 1477 A.D. - d. martyred, Tower Hill, London, England, Saturday, July 6, 1535 A.D.] refused to follow the Bishops of England into apostasy, Audley, the Speaker of the House of Commons, taunted him with the contemptuous question: Are you wiser than all the Bishops of England?

Saint Thomas More answered:  For one Bishop of your opinion, I have a hundred Saints of mine.  (Source unidentified)

A different source has it this way with more details:

"For I nothing doubt but that," he [More] told Audley, "though not in this realm, yet in Christendom about, of these well learned bishops and virtuous men that are yet alive, they be not the fewer part that are of my mind therein. But if I should speak of those that are already dead, of whom many be now holy saints in heaven, I am very sure it is the far greater part of them that, all the while they lived, thought in this case that way I think now; and therefore I am not bounder, my Lord, to conform my conscience to the Council of one realm against the general Council of Christendom. For of the aforesaid holy bishops I have, for every bishop of yours, above one hundred; and for one Council or Parliament of yours (God knoweth what manner of one) I have all the Councils made these thousand years. And for this one Kingdom, I have all other Christian realms"  (John Villiers Farrow [b. at Sydney, Australia, on Wednesday, February 10, 1904 - d. from a heart attack at Beverly Hills, California on Monday, January 28, 1963], Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, married to actress Maureen Paula O'Sullivan [b. at Boyle, County Roscommon, Ireland on Wednesday, May 17, 1911 - d. at Scottsdale, Arizona on Tuesday, June 23, 1998], The Story of Thomas More, Chapter 17).

In the Science of Scholastic Philosophy, the fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Baculum, Argument to Force, is an appeal, not to the Truth found in logic, but rather to physical brute force, of which it has been said: To knock a man down when he differs from you in opinion may prove your strength, but hardly your logic.

What Are Fallacies?

Fallacies are tricky arguments which on the surface may appear valid but in reality are not valid, i.e. they are not True.  Such cunning arguments are called fallacies.  In other words - in plain English a fallacy is something that sounds good, but is not good and sound.

It also means that while Truth is NOT ANY of the following, fallacies ARE ALL of the following:

artful
canny
colluding
conniving
crafty
cunning
deceptive
delusive
elusive
foxy
furtive
hypocritical
intriguing
misleading
plotting
scheming
shifty
sly
surreptitious
tricky
undependable
unreliable
wily

Scholastic Philosophy

It is in Philosophy that one discovers what fallacies are.

Philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, which is literally translated as:  love of wisdom.

There are a variety of "schools" of Philosophy.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches (at least before Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965]) the science of Scholastic Philosophy in its seminaries in the training of future Priests because Scholastic Philosophy is the basis for the study of Thomistic Theology.

Scholastic Philosophy has a number of divisions or sections or departments which are:

 Logic
 Epistemology
 Fundamental Metaphysics/Ontology
 Cosmology
 Psychology
 Theodicy/Natural Theology
 Ethics/Moral Philosophy

Epistemology, a.k.a. Major Logic, a.k.a. Material Logic, a.k.a. Criteriology, is concerned with the four areas or branches of Truth which have Truth for their subject.  They are:

 Logical Truth
 Ontological Truth (Truth in a Being)
 Metaphysical Truth (Truth in an Action)
 Moral Truth

Please note:

Psychology is NOT concerned with Truth, per se - i.e. with objective Truth as its subject matter.

In other words, Psychology is NOT concerned with:

 Logical Truth
 Ontological Truth (Truth in a Being)
 Metaphysical Truth (Truth in an Action)
 Moral Truth

On the contrary, Psychology, a.k.a. Philosophical Psychology, a.k.a. Rational Psychology, is concerned with life and living bodies.  Psychology is Greek for “the science of the soul” or “the science of the life-principle”.  Psychology attempts to set forth, in the most basic, fundamental manner possible, the ultimate realities about life and living bodies.

Sometimes this science is presented in two parts, called, respectively, Minor Psychology - which deals with life in plants and brute animals, and Major Psychology - which deals with life in human beings.

In summary, Psychology, per se, is the science which investigates the objective, absolute realities of life in plants, life in animals, and life in human beings.

Modern Psychology

Today there is what is called "Modern Psychology".  This term certainly sounds good - but is it good and sound?

"Modern Psychology" is found today in many settings, most of them private, and a few which are public.  Obviously the specifics will vary from psychologist to psychologist, but the general nature of "Modern Psychology" seems to fall into a distinguishable pattern.

Even so, there are some public vagaries of "Modern Psychology", e.g. what one can witness on various TV programs.

One TV example which comes to mind is fairly consistent in the use of "Modern Psychology".  There seems to be a somewhat popular TV program - which is mostly all talk - which gives observers the appearance of being nothing more than fluffy and otherwise superficial exercises in pagan secular humanism in which “the science of the life-principle” is denigrated to mostly everything which appears to be of a Freudian relative nature - on a televised stage which is a non-clinical setting for the practice of quasi-psychoanalysis for treating psychopathology through dialogue which process elicits a certain drama which seems to appeal to some audience members?  There are, of course, occasional exceptions from this procedure from time to time.

But whether in private, or in some kind of a public or quasi-public forum, "Modern Psychology", provides evidence of how, from time to time, it tends to blur the boundaries between itself and some other sciences.

Case in point is the question of T.C. about a TV news program he was watching on which there was an "expert" who was identified by the TV news program as being a "psychologist" who was talking about how one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth".

The problem is that this "psychologist", in virtue of being a psychologist, is, by definition, not qualified to make such a statement.  On the contrary, as explained above, the subject of psychology is not Truth itself as a subject.

Therefore, no psychologists, by definition, are qualified to speak on Truth as a subject.  But this is exactly what this psychologist that T.C. was watching on a TV news program attempted to do!  In the process, this psychologist was blurring the boundaries between the science of psychology and the sciences which have Truth as their subject, namely the sciences of:

Logical Truth
Ontological Truth (Truth in a Being)
Metaphysical Truth (Truth in an Action)
Moral Truth

So here is but yet another example of a psychologist who, by his actions, and in this case - specifically in virtue of his public statement - falsely claims that these sciences (this apparently varies to some extent from "psychologist" to "psychologist") are also part of the domain of "Modern Psychology"?

What does this mean?  It means that, in general, the mentality of those who "practice" Modern Psychology is not only wrong and erroneous, it displays an arrogant pride which automatically invalidates "Modern Psychology" as an actual science, and instead automatically classifies it as some kind of a "cult of mad scientists", or more correctly, "a cult of mad psychologists", which thereby suborns said "Modern Psychology", which thereby has been transformed into nothing more than a sham "science".

This effect requires "Modern Psychology" to be classified as, and relegated to the status of, an irrelevant rogue thesis, which, in the blindness of the black darkness of the profundity of its gross ignorance, proudly displays itself as an inimical, parasitic pariah.  Apparently most, or maybe all, "schools" of these piranhas gorge themselves on the sin of pride, having removed and cast far away whatever remaining vestiges of "science" might still otherwise clothe their stubborn egotism?

Truly do they do their part to fulfill the Scripture of those who are “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the Truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

So what you have in the case of the psychologist that T.C. saw of the TV news program, as well as with other TV "personalities" who are also psychologists, or pseudo-psychologists, not to mention at least some, or maybe even all, of those in private practice - is that at least part of the problem of Modern Psychology seems to be pathological in its very endemic nature.  At least part of this "disease", so to speak, consists in the use of what are called fallacies.

Kinds of Fallacies

As explained above, fallacies are tricky arguments which on the surface may appear valid but in reality are not valid, i.e. they are not True.  Such cunning arguments are called fallacies.

The term fallacy, as it is commonly used, means any false opinion, inaccurate statement, confusion of ideas, or even clumsiness of expression.  A fallacy is also any violation of a logical principle disguised under a show of validity.  It is also an argument which, while apparently valid, really violates some logical principle.  The chief synonyms for fallacy are sophism and paralogism.

Fallacy defies a complete and scientific classification of the ways in which a person may attain error since such ways are infinite in number and variety.  By  limiting this study to only the principal sources of error in reasoning, We find the different fallacies to be:

Fallacies of Deduction

Those fallacies which occur in deductive reasoning either arise from the language used or from some other source, i.e.,  from the non-observance of the laws of correct reasoning, or from a misapprehension of the Middle Term, or from the matter, that is, the content of the argument.

Fallacies arising from language are called fallacies of diction.  All others are extradictional fallacies.  These last are purely logical when they arise from the violation of the rules of the syllogism; semi-logical when they arise from a misunderstanding of the Middle Term; and material when they arise from the matter, or content, of the argument.

Summary of Fallacies

Fallacies can be summarized as follows:

1.  Fallacies arising from language - Fallacies of Diction. 2.  Fallacies arising from some other source - Extradictional Fallacies.      1)  Purely logical fallacies.      2)  Semi-logical fallacies.      3)  Material fallacies.

1.  Fallacies arising from language - Fallacies of Diction.

Aristotle listed six Fallacies of Diction which he called:

1)  Equivocation
2)  Amphibology
3)  Composition or Compounding
4)  Division or Dividing
5)  Accent
6)  A Figure of Speech

2.  Fallacies arising from some other source - Extradictional Fallacies.

1) Purely Logical Fallacies

2)  Semi-logical Fallacies

    a)  Fallacy of Accident
    b)  Confusion of Absolute & Qualified Statement

3)  Material fallacies

1)  Begging the Question
2)  Irrelevant Conclusion/Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue
3)  Argumentum Ad Hominem - Argument to the Man (i.e. person)
4)  Argumentum Ad Populum - Argument to the People
5)  Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam - Argument to Ignorance
6)  Argumentum Ad Verecundiam - Argument to Authority
7)  Argumentum Ad Baculum - Argument to Force
8)  False Cause
9)  Complexity of Questions/Many Questions

10) Fallacies of Induction

a) Fallacies of Observation:
b)  Fallacies of Non-Observation;
c)  Fallacies of Mal-Observation.
    c-1)  Optical Illusions
d)  Fallacies of Generalization:
e)  Illicit Generalization;
f)   False Analogy.

A Brief Analysis of Someone's Version of the Truth

To refresh your memory, the question from T.C. has to do with his watching a TV news program on which a person, who was identified as a "psychologist", among other things, made the statement that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth".  What does this "version of the truth" business mean?  I thought there was only one "truth".  This guy made it sound like there can be contradictory "truths"?

As should be self-evident from the above, at the very most, this psychologist was merely stating his personal opinion.  But, because the TV news program put the caption psychologist under his live TV picture as he was talking about such things, the impression was given that he was speaking as an expert psychologist.

Therefore, in an analysis of Someone's Version of the Truth, as already explained above, no matter how "expert" any psychologist might be in the science of psychology, Truth, as a subject, is not by definition the subject of the science of psychology.

Today, what further complicates the problem is how "Modern Psychology" has been - apparently - the only kind of psychology which modern culture, at least in the U.S.A., has accepted, or at least seems to use exclusively?

This is certainly true of various TV programs.

When, for example, was the last time you saw a TV program which was based on the science of Epistemology, a.k.a. Major Logic, a.k.a. Material Logic, a.k.a. Criteriology as taught by Scholastic Philosophy?  In other words, when was the last time you saw a TV program on the correct way to determine if something is True or False; if something that is said is a Truth or a Fallacy?

I can think of only one TV program - which was broadcast live - which, from time to time, correctly explained something within the context of Logical Truth or Ontological Truth (Truth in a Being), or Metaphysical Truth (Truth in an Action), or Moral Truth.  There were also a few instances, if I remember correctly, when the same thing happened concerning one or more problems within the context of fallacies.

The program of which I am thinking premiered on the DuMont Television Network on February 12, 1952 and ran until 1955 when it went to ABC until 1957. It is still shown in reruns on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and the Trinity Broadcasting network (TBN).

The name of the program is "Life Is Worth Living" with Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. (R.I.P.).

Archbishop Sheen made his program very interesting, even though he would sometimes go into these more technical areas.  Even so, that was never a problem.  People in those days were hungry for the Truth - over ten million of them were more hungry for the Truth than for entertainment.  The following is illustrative of this salient point:

DuMont Television Network was searching for programming ideas.  In the process, it put on a series of rotating religious programs with a Protestant minister, a Jewish rabbi and a Catholic Bishop. While the other shows did not catch on, the one with Bishop Sheen (he was later made an Archbishop) became an overnight hit, found a sponsor in Admiral television sets, and was DuMont's only Emmy Award winner in its brief period of broadcasting. It also held the distinction of being aired on more TV stations than on any other regularly-scheduled DuMont program.

It has been said that, had Bishop Sheen not been a Catholic Bishop, he might have been America's greatest Shakespearean actor. Prior to Life is Worth Living, Bishop Sheen had appeared on the radio program Catholic Hour from 1930 to 1952. With his hypnotic gaze, disarming smile, and dramatic delivery, Bishop Sheen was a natural for television. Airing opposite NBC's highly popular Milton Berle Show on Tuesday nights, Bishop Sheen was the only person ever to give "Mr. Television" a run for his money, drawing as many as 10 million viewers.

Bishop Sheen and Berle enjoyed a friendly rivalry. Berle is reported to have joked:

"We both work for the same boss, Sky Chief."

This reference was made to a brand of gasoline produced by Texaco, his sponsor.

Later, when Bishop Sheen won an Emmy, Berle quipped:

"He's got better writers!"

As a take-off on Berle's popular nickname with the public - "Uncle Miltie", Bishop Sheen once opened his program by saying:

"Good evening, this is Uncle Fultie."

Yet, although the issue has been resolved concerning the psychologist on the TV news program, the larger question now becomes, what if an "expert" in the science of Epistemology, a.k.a. Major Logic, a.k.a. Material Logic, a.k.a. Criteriology as taught by Scholastic Philosophy was to say the same thing, namely that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth"???!!!

What this implies is that Truth is relative.

The problem is that this is NOT True because Truth is ABSOLUTE!  Why?

Because:

1. “Thou must in no manner deny that there is an immutable [absolute] Truth, embracing all such things as are immutably true; a Truth which thou canst not call thine, or mine, or any man’s but which is present to all and gives itself to all alike who discern the things that are Immutably True, as a light which in some miraculous way is both secret and yet open to all” (Bishop Saint Augustine, a.k.a. Aurelius Augustinus [b. Tagaste, Africa, Saturday, November 13, 354 A.D. - d. Hippo Regia, Africa, Wednesday, August 28, 430 A.D.], Bishop of Hippo Regia, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, the Doctor of Grace, a protégé of Patriarch Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], DE LIBERO ARBITRIO, 2, 12, 33).

2.  “That is True which is” (Bishop Saint Augustine, SOLILOQUIES, 2, 5).

3.  "God is Truth"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 5; Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 93, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 60).

4.  "Truth cannot be Truth’s contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 8).

5.  "Every knowledge of Truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the eternal law, which is the unchangeable Truth"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 93, Article 2).

6.  "Truth is the equation of thought and thing"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 1).

7.  "Moreover, since one Truth cannot contradict another Truth, every assertion contrary to the Truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false" (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, December 19, 1513).

8.  "God is not only True, but Truth Itself" (Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Encyclical, Æterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, Monday, August 4, 1879 A.D.).

First of all, such an "expert" should know better!  IF he was to give his own personal opinion, as the psychologist presumably did, he should very clearly state that it is his only his own personal opinion - not his professional position.

But, if such an "expert" should insist that it is in fact his professional position, and if in fact this also happened to be the professional position of the psychologist on the TV news program, then the following should already be self-evident for you?

In such a case as just stated, what you are dealing with is a case of one or more fallacies - whether intentional or unintentional only God knows for certain.

There is at least one fallacy involved, possibly several?  Here are the possible fallacies which could be involved.  This would vary with each person to some extent because of the nature of the fallacies themselves but also the intention(s) of the speaker.

1)  The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, Argument to Ignorance, is a fallacy in which the Sophist counts on the ignorance of his audience and takes advantage of it to conceal the weakness of his own case or to misrepresent the case of his opponent.

In this case, the statement that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth" takes advantage of the ignorance of the audience which does not really know: a) that Truth is absolute; and:  b) anything about fallacies.

This statement also cleverly, albeit very subtly, imputes to the audience that they already know that Truth is relative.  But this imputation to the audience is totally unfair to the audience because some members of the audience most probably realize that what this really is happens to be is nothing more than his personal opinion and they may choose not to agree with his personal opinion for whatever reason(s).

2)  The Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, Argument to Authority, is a fallacy in which a modern-day Sophist attempts to put his opponent to shame by urging the superior weight and dignity of authority on his own side.  For example:  “Are you more American than the President of the United States of America?”

In this case, the statement that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth" implies that the "psychologist" is an "expert", and hence a knowledgeable authority on the subject of Truth.

3) Fallacies of Generalization are fallacies which consist in the attempts of a modern-day Sophist to overrate the evidence of the facts observed, and draw a conclusion which the facts do not warrant.

In this case, the statement that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth" is not only an attempt to imply that there is indisputable evidence that this statement is True - but it also further implies that the psychologist knows to be "fact" at least one situation in which two people each had their own particular Truth, but that each of these two Truths were different to some degree from each other.  Hence, the Truth of one person's "version" was different to some degree from the Truth found in the other person's"version" - thus two Truths are found, not one Truth.

But this modern day Sophist fails to tell the Truth by cleverly avoiding the use of the terms "opinion" and/or "personal opinion".  Hence, instead of telling the Truth that one person's "personal opinion" can be totally different from another person's "personal opinion", the Sophist tries to claim that these two differences of "personal opinion" are really facts which prove that this is a case where not only is it mere "personal opinion", but, more importantly, it is a case of one person's "version of the truth" contradicting another person's "version of the truth".

This false conclusion puts too much emphasis on the contradiction itself by overrating certain factual differences - while ignoring the fact that these differences are differences of opinion and not of Truth. And then he tries to force the conclusion that these facts prove that one "version of the truth" is factually different from another's "version of the truth".

So instead of saying that the facts prove that one's "personal opinion" is the exact same thing as one's "version of the truth", that they are synonymous with each other, the Sophist merely skips over and omits all mention of "personal opinion" and tries to focus only on one person's "version of the truth" contradicting another person's "version of the truth".  The bottom line is the Sophist is using several fallacies here (the Fallacy of Missing the Point and the Fallacy of Ignoring the Issue) to try to force a conclusion which the facts themselves do not warrant.

4)  Ignoratio Elenchi, or Irrelevant Conclusion, is a fallacy which consists in evading the point at issue.  This fallacy is also known by two other names, i.e., the Fallacy of Missing the Point and the Fallacy of Ignoring the Issue.  Thus, instead of proving the conclusion that should be proved, this fallacy tries to establish some other conclusion.  In other words, it is a mistaken or cunning effort to prove one thing by offering an argument for something else.

In this case, the statement that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth" is an example of using not one, but at least two different fallacies at the same time.  In the Fallacies of Generalization above, the Sophist was trying so hard to prove that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth", and was quickly getting nowhere fast, so the Sophist needed help and thus had to also use this fallacy of Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue.  This is why the above explanation of what the Sophist was trying to do by using the Fallacy of Generalization is so convoluted and confusing.

In the Fallacy of Generalization, the Sophist was trying to evade the real point at issue - namely, that one person's "personal opinion" can be totally different from another person's "personal opinion" because he erroneously thought that since he had the "fact" that this "personal opinion" is no different than the "version of the truth", because in his mind both are synonymous, he could easily evade the point at issue - "personal opinion" - and substitute "version of the truth" for it because there is no way that he logically make the Fallacy of Generalization "work" for him on its own.  Hence, his need to combine it with this fallacy of deliberately Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue.

Nevertheless, even though the whole thing becomes extremely convoluted, it becomes easier for him, by combining both the Fallacy of Generalization and the Fallacy of Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue.  It is the only way he can try to "force" the Fallacy of Generalization to make any real sense.

The reality is that there is not a whole lot of difference between:

1) overrating the evidence of the facts observed, and drawing a conclusion which the facts do not warrant - the Fallacy of Generalization;and,

2) evading the point at issue... so, instead of proving the conclusion that should be proved, this fallacy establishes some other conclusion by a cunning effort to prove one thing by offering an argument for something else - the Fallacy of Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue.
 

Therefore, in conclusion, it is an error to claim that one person's "version of the truth" can be totally different from another person's "version of the truth". This statement is not True - it is grossly false.

Truly do they who say this do their part to fulfill the Scripture of those who are “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the Truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).