Custom. Many persons either knowingly or unwittingly employ custom as a criterion of truth, assuming that doing what is customary will not lead them too far astray. The admonition, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," expresses an appeal to custom as a criterion, particularly in matters involving the determination of moral truth. Thus people adhere closely to custom as a criterion when they dress as others dress, use expressions which are in vogue, practice moral principles currently approved -in other words, do whatever is popular.
Custom scarcely merits serious consideration as a criterion of lruth. Surely, a scientist oblaining evidence of facts or principles. could never accept conflicting customs of majorities, or of minorities either, as a test. A public opinion poll can never be the best way to determine scientific truths.
Tradition. Closely allied to custom as a proposed test of truth is tradition, the notion that what lasts for generations must be valid. Those who accept tradition as a criterion may defend their view on the ground that any practice which has gained the loyalty of succeeding generations must deserve a measure of credibility.
The same objections to custom as a standard of truth apply to tradition as well. Many traditions merely repeat what is false (consider, for example, the innumerable false traditions of primitive tribes) and, moreover, traditions often conflict with one another. It is clear that science cannot accept tradition as its test of truth.
Time. Perhaps you have heard some person in a debate appeal to time as the test of truth, arguing with statements such as, "My belief has stood the test of time," or "Christianity must be true, for . it has stood the test of time." The logic of such argument is based on the assumption that if a belief is really erroneous, the error will sooner or later come to light, whereas, if there is nothing wrong with the belief, the mere passage of time cannot destroy its validity.
Time is not an adequate test of truth. It is closely related to custom and tradition, which, in fact, are simply aspects of the time factor. The inadequacy of time as a criterion becomes apparent if we note that many errors have lasted for a very long time before being exposed as errors. The most absurd superstitions have endured throughout generations, centuries, even millenia. Surely, modern peoples who believe in the truth of a great religion, such as Christianity, would not give up their beliefs and change to some other system of religion which happened to be hundreds or perhaps thousands of years older than their own religion.
Feelings (Emotions). Many individuals faced with the necessity of making a decision allow their emotions to sway them despite contrary evidence or without even attempting to obtain and evaluate evidence. Such people are implicitly accepting emotions as a test of truth. Too many depend upon subjective feelings as a guide to a great variety of situations, ranging from trivial problems of everyday living to the most serious problems of the community.
Most people today, however, will admit that they cannot trust their emotions in important matters. Thus the experienced business executive ignores his feelings and searches for facts when making investments. The scientist, physician, historian, and scholars in other fields have similarly learned to ignore subjective reactions of this kind.
Intuition[/B] as a criterion of truth suffers from two major objections: (1) It is not available when needed; it cannot be depended upon in given situations in the same or at least similar manner that reason may be employed. (2) Intuitions are, at best, potential sources of truth, not tests; when a person claims to have an intuition, he should immediately test it in order to determine whether it is true or false.
Revelation. The main difference between intuition and revelation is the fact that the source of intuition is unknown, whereas the source of revelation is assumed to be God. Revelation may be defined as a truth or disclosure which emanates from God. Many religions rely heavily upon the validity of revelation as a criterion of truth.
The adverse criticism stated above in regard to intuition holds good for revelation as well. When a person possesses what he claims to be a revelation, it is incumbent upon him to prove it, and the standard to which he appeals as the test consequently becomes his criterion. An individual may accept revelation as a source of some truths, but he cannot depend on such experience as a means of demonstrating to others the validity of his beliefs.
Majority Rule. The criterion of majority rule is a statistical basis for the acceptance of assertions or proposals. In democratic countries and organizations, majority vote is accepted by all members of a group as a guide to joint decisions. This is particularly true during enactment of laws pertaining to personal morality and social behavior. Often, however, a democratic community, divided into several opposing factions, must be content with a mere plurality.
Although a majority vote is good democratic procedure, it is not the best system for determining truth. Think what would happen if a scientist tried to arrive at conclusions by means of a majority vote-if, for example, an astronomer took a vote among the general population to ascertain whether assertions about the planets or stars were to be accepted as true or rejected as false.
