Is there any way to gain "truth"/accuracy in social truth? How?

What seems to make it difficult is that I don't know if social truth has any generally accepted epistemologies, truth deduction principles, consistency etc. Thus it makes it too easy to treat the entirety of "social truth" as "subjective opinion" from which it's always possible to deviate. And then one loses possibly all accuracy, because, in theory, every subject could deviate from whatever claim.


  • I don't understand your question. Do you mean "Is there anyway to obtain knowledge in social sciences?" Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 8:45
  • @JishinNoben Not that broadly. More like, when can one permit reasoning in "vague" domains, such as social truth? E.g. if one proposes a claim in social truth, then how can one decide on whether or not one should agree on it? Based on something else than subjectivity.
    – mavavilj
    Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 8:54
  • The only quantifiable would the ballot boxes, maybe precedent law, and voting with wallets i.e. commercial popularity.
    – christo183
    Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 16:39
  • @christo183 For example. Which at least drove me to minarchism. There's possible not much in modern politics, which has any well-known "accuracy". More like subjective belief applied globally. Which makes the context of politics for example seem absurdly naive.
    – mavavilj
    Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 18:22
  • @Gordon No they're not the same. E.g. reasoning is a process, whereas intuition could be regarded as more immediate. Premises are again either intuitive or reasoned. There are different time scales, different variations of subjective-objective etc. My questions differ in "context".
    – mavavilj
    Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 18:25

1 Answer 1


Upon pondering this question a bit. I would (informedly) answer that, yes there is in some sense.

The some sense is agreement or disagreement. Everything beyond this steps into much more noticeable subjectivity. Also, without agreement or disagreement I don't think one could have any expression and "silence" would not work for social animals for practical reasons. Thus in "Occam's razoric sense" one's left with "minimal premises" to decide on something.

However, this has a vague concept of accuracy, since the only unambiguously measurable is the count of agreement or the count of disagreement. Still it's entirely possible that 1) the question to be answered has been formulated in a bad way and 2) people passing the vote are not well-informed. Thus e.g. democracies don't really guarantee for anything. They act on much arbitrarity.

Thus I'm not sure how this answers the problem of "accuracy", because it relies on arbitrary notions of accuracy. Theoretically one could expect accuracy if one relied only on "well-informed" voters, but I'm not sure how one'd formulate criteria for being well-informed (I don't claim it to be impossible though). Relying on merely count, while being absolute, would not work for accuracy.

Thus I think that social truth may build upon some of the following:

  • Demonstrated experience (replicability)
  • Being able to be proven wrong with new evidence / anti-authoritarianism (fallibility)
  • Relying on well-defined terms (operational definitions)
  • Understanding of mathematical, physical truth and related science epistemologies, since they represent the best model for all knowledge (formality, consistency)

I would also add that since there are things that will not fit to these, then these would be perhaps categorizable as undecidable. Particularly, because without having accuracy, it would be dumb to suggest either agreement or disagreement because one cannot demonstrate anything either way. Thus it should be left as undecideable. Undecideable means that it cannot be decided either way, it can be (in order to allow distinguishing natural separation of thought from action) merely acted on "somehow", and this action is "non-determinable".

  • Also perhaps, add consistency in action. That means that if one holds a particular rule as being "applicable". Then whenever confronted with the same context, that rule must hold. Otherwise one could not decide, when it holds and when it doens't. And then "rule" would make no sense.
    – mavavilj
    Commented Feb 15, 2019 at 12:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .