2.2 Judging claims 23
truth – by 195 metres. You may have thought
it was fair to say that Katya’s claim was nearly
true, or approximately true; but this is really
just a way of saying that Katya ran nearly a
marathon or approximately a marathon.
Indeed, it is completely true that Katya ran
nearly a marathon, even though [C], as it
stands, is not true.
Is [C] as it stands justified? That is a more
difficult question. It depends on the
circumstances or context in which it was
asserted. If it is just a conversational context,
which is what it sounds like, then it would be
plainly silly to call Katya a liar. However, if she
had to run at least one complete, officially
recognised marathon – perhaps in a certain
time – to pass some test, and she was counting
the training run as her qualifying run, then
we have to say that her claim is not justified.
What makes the difference is the standard of
accuracy or precision required.
The most familiar example of varying
standards of this kind is in the law. Take a
guilty verdict passed in a criminal trial. (A
verdict is a special kind of claim. You were
asked to define it in the assignment at the end
of Chapter 2.1.) Under the justice systems of
many countries, the UK included, a guilty
verdict is justified only if it can be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. That phrase sets the
standard. So, even if the jury are pretty sure
the defendant is guilty, but there is just a
small, lingering uncertainty, they must give a
verdict of not guilty – or in some countries an
‘open verdict’, or ‘unproven’. Similarly, those
who give evidence in a court are instructed
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. This, too, sets a very high
standard on what counts as a justified or
warranted assertion.
By contrast, the standard required for a ‘not
guilty’ verdict is much lower: all that is
required is that there is some room for doubt –
at least in societies which hold the principle
that a person is innocent until proven guilty. InSo [A] and [B] on their own do not really
justify taking the hypothesis as fact. It could
be true, and many scientists consider it more
probable than the counter-claim that the
dinosaurs were warm-blooded. But there is no
proof one way or the other.
Standards
It should be noted that ‘justified’ is not an
all-or-nothing term like ‘true’ and ‘certain’. A
claim is either true or it is not. You may want
to object that some claims are partly true (or
partly false); or somewhere in between truth
and falsity. But in strict terms ‘true’ means ‘the
whole truth and nothing but the truth’, and
does not allow degrees or approximations. A
claim, on the other hand, can be more or less
justified according to the strength of the
supporting grounds and the context in which
the claim is made.
Here is a simple example. (A ‘marathon’,
officially defined, is a running race over
42.195 km. There are various explanations
and historical accounts for this rather
peculiar distance. You may like to do some
research and find out why. But for present
purposes what matters is that it is a fact.)
Let us suppose that Katya has just returned
from a training run of 42 km and announced
to her friends:[C] I have just run a marathon.
Discuss whether her claim is justified (or
warranted), given that it is so close to the
truth. Is it in any sense ‘true’? Or is it
altogether ‘false’?Activity
Commentary
The assertion is, strictly speaking, untrue.
Even if we allow that by ‘marathon’ Katya
means the marathon distance (rather than an
organised race), her claim is short of the whole