The Leaning Tower of Truth

The Leaning Tower of Truthleaning-tower-of-pisa


“The truth has a liberal slant.” This quote from a Liberal person on a Facebook post was used to justify not welcoming conservative views into discussion. I have two things to say about that. First off, using that axiom as a defense against other ideas is inherently and blatantly narrow-minded and a fine example of tunnel vision. It is also an example of employing the fallacy of the Psychogenetic Fallacy – rejecting a specific statement someone puts forth because you can identify (and dislike) their general viewpoint or ideology.  A fascist could make a true statement about history. A psychopath could accurately describe the appropriate use of Chianti with fava beans. Secondly, categorically, the statement is logically untenable therefore indefensible. Truth does not slant. People do. Ideas do, but truth does not.

Let’s start with math. “1+1=2.” Is this true? Is it conservative or liberal? Not so much.

Let’s try chemistry. “Water is a compound made of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.” Hmmm…not here either.

How about, “the typical human brain consists of two lobes.”

Catching my drift here? Ah, but you say, that is science. Ok, I will grant you that. But by acknowledging this, you are also saying that truth is not inherently and axiomatically liberal or conservative.  You might then try to further claim that some truth is non-slanted (hard science) but that other truth is slanted (soft sciences or non-science). Either way, you must, at least, pull back on the original claim and narrow it to, “some truth has a liberal slant.”

But is even this narrower claim defensible? I suggest not. Science, by definition, operates solely upon the use of inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are great. They allow us to investigate our universe and make judgments about how it operates and allows us reasonable expectations about future operations. The heart and soul of science is the scientific method which is based on hypothesis testing and drawing conclusions. The problem with science is that inductive arguments can NEVER result in truth. The most they can give us is high probability. The strongest claim that should be made by scientists is something like, “At this given moment in time, the broad consensus of scientists hold that ___________, but we are always open to further research that could not only refine current positions, but even negate them.”


For a more thorough explanation of this, see my papers on Arguments and Truth accessed at the bottom of:

There is no Liberal truth, Female truth, Western Truth, or etc. There is just truth, by definition.

There are facts. There are claims to fact. These claims are used to form the basis of larger positions and ideologies. The claim that, “the truth has a liberal slant,” is really (likely) saying that “the facts support liberal positions.”

That, my friends is a claim so large as to beg a laugh. People who are liberal might agree. People who are conservatives would likely disagree. How could such a claim ever be proven? How many sub-claims are there in Liberalism? Thousands upon thousands. There is, pragmatically, no way to confirm this… not only because of the scope, but also because no conservative would sit long enough to hear them all!

To me, the statement, “The truth has a liberal slant,” is nothing more than shorthand for saying, “Liberals are correct.”

For more Critical Thinking aids, go to:

This entry was posted in Critical Reasoning. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *