Truth & Validity of Doctrines

Distinct Approaches to Inquiry

Both philosophical schools-Q5 and academic disciplines-Q3, have a specific and direct focus on knowledge and a concern for truth.

However, there are cultural battles in society over what should count as knowledge, and passionate defenders of science frequently attack Q5 doctrines and denigrate their claims to knowledge and truth.

At the same time, all scientists use metaphysical systems-Q5 like empiricism, rationalism, and materialism that are taken as truth by colleagues, and required for employment, grants, publication, and promotion. That makes it is essential to clarify differences between these two Arenas.

A comparison of work-levels (WL) required by a Q2-Discipline with those required by a Q5-Philosophy reveals both similarity and stark contrast.
ClosedClick to View Table ►

Science, as an approach to knowledge that is distinct from its specific disciplines, possesses all the features required to label it as a doctrine. See more here.

Truth is the Essence

The above Table comparing levels of work within a Philosophy School (Q5) and an Academic Discipline (Q3) reveals the distinctly different challenges that each face. However, questions as to the quality of knowledge generated applies to both Arenas. Is the proposition true or false? genuine or fake? valid or invalid?

Philosophy schools under investigation here are guardians of knowledge that differs from what is offered as “conventional scholarship” or “scientific knowledge” or “disciplinary theory”, even if it draws on similar analytic methods.

Development of disciplinary-Q3 knowledge is controlled primarily by its concepts and methods. Phenomena must be closely observed and manipulated using those concepts and methods to generate understanding in the form of laws and theories. These get established and promulgated based on their empirical support and explanatory power. Practicality, ethics and meaning are irrelevant.

By contrast, doctrinal-Q5 knowledge is controlled primarily by the search for truth available to penetrating awareness. Explicit adherence to an established orthodoxy can expand and extend knowledge in a useful and meaningful way. Philosophies shape personal knowing and may influence or even govern the operation of disciplines. The result is a doctrine or Teaching, which is offered for belief and social use because it provides profound insights and makes life better.

ClosedAs Lévi-Strauss suggested:

Disciplines and their funding are often conflicted between work on «pure science» and «applied science». Even if pure science leads to immensely powerful applications in the distant future, it must be pursued without that concern and scholars are normally happy to work in that way.

Application in practice is more intensely desired by adherents to a doctrine. However, their enthusiasm often fails to recognize that the translation of ideas into practice is not a simple process. Doctrines are abstract purposes (L6 within RL6/PH6) while practice is concrete action (RL1) and the RH Tree reveals that there is no direct channel.

ClosedExample:

Can Doctrines be Proven?

Philosophies view truth as both a driving force and a claim. Still, it is reasonable and sensible to challenge any Teaching as to whether it can be shown to be true or valid.

Logical coherence is a prime requirement. Doctrines that are vague, rambling and semi-coherent deserve to be dismissed. Doctrines that are streams of assertion without some demonstrable validity are also highly suspect. They may be believed by some and even attract a cult following if they satisfy some emotional need.

The usual question, “is the doctrine scientific?”, is common but unreasonable. Criticism by conventional scientists that doctrines are unscientific is based on their own untestable and metaphysical formulations. Such critics dislike the the way doctrinal adherents use supplementary hypotheses and facile explanations to handle apparent disconfirmations.

ClosedMore...

■ Scientist-critics view knowledge as provisional and changeable through the application of impersonal methods. They devalue the production of knowledge through reflective awareness and reasoning. But in living one’s life and governing society, there are many things that depend on personal belief and commitment and to which scientific methods cannot be applied. Doctrines may answer this need.

■ Scientist-critics ignore their own use of unprovable doctrines, like empiricism or falsificationism, in carrying out research. They ignore their own dependence on unprovable paradigms in making sense of the results of investigations. In other word, the critics appear super-tolerant if not blind to their own dependence on metaphysical assumptions.

The fact that the knowledge embodied within a doctrine may not be tested and refuted (or confirmed) using conventional scientific methods does not suggest immunity to errors or that criticism is inappropriate. Nor does it mean that a doctrine cannot or should not be subject to a variety of validity tests.

Validation may checked in many ways, Closedincluding: 

• Logical criteria of consistency and coherence

• Piecemeal development

• Concurrent or independent discovery

• Structural corroboration

• Personal validation

• Practical validation

• Predictive validation

• Coverage

• Fertility

• Socio-historical validation

• Conventional research

• Falsification

• Error identification and removal

• Aesthetics

• Parsimony

See examples of a variety of validation perspectives in relation to the Taxonomy— which, taken as a whole, might be considered to be a doctrine.

While a doctrine's validity should be deeply questioned and properly checked, we must not ask whether it is scientific. Once validity is reasonably assured, we must ask whether the doctrine is valuable for humanity. If it provides meaningful guidance and is ethically substantial, then it may well be valuable.

If a doctrine seems to be valuable, then work is required to clarify why is it valuable, how it can be improved or refined, and how where and when the value can be extracted. Conventional research should be expected to have much to offer in that effort. (See some confirmation of this speculation here.)

Correcting & Developing a Doctrine

Because a doctrine seeks to represent truths, its emergence and formulation must be guided by the ultimate value (PH'6L7) of Truth. However, such Truth is an unattainable goal and it is preferable to refer to validity which can exist in degrees.

The validity of a doctrine demands accordance with logical criteria—which is to be expected if it depends on the logical use of language (PH'5L6). That means the formulations and analyses must be coherent, consistent, unequivocal and unambiguous. Above all, names/terms within the doctrine must be univocal and preferably unmistakable and distinctive. Such names represent reality by direct correspondence and direct reference, not by conceptual abstraction and formal definition.

But validityin the sense of being "true to life" also demands basic representational and awareness requirements—which is to be expected through its foundation in the gestalt use of language (PH'5L5). That means any doctrine can and should be subject to change based on the discovery of errors of all sorts. Names may need adjusting, ambiguity may need removal, incoherence may need ironing out, neglected topics may be incorporated, representations may need clarifying. (In the previous topic, this was included in L6-work.]

Looking at the investigative methods available in principle for any inquiry-PH'2, it appears that doctrines emerge from the Contemplative Method (L’7) to crystallize inspiration, draw on the Holistic Method (L’5) to ensure appropriate coverage, and depend on the Analytic Method (L’2) to avoid errors. While facts are used, the Empirical Method (L’1) is not adopted. While Explanations (L’3) are provided, they are used for clarification and verification rather than hypothesizing and falsification. Polarization (L’4) may present pressure to generate doctrine, or resolve puzzles or paradoxes e.g. the Catholic Church has provided papal encyclicals since 1740 in which pressing aspects of doctrine or theological controversies are resolved.

However, once a doctrine reaches a certain stage of development and popular acceptance, significant change becomes increasingly difficult due to the complexity of the subject matter, to the commitment of adherents, and to the many years of validation. If the change is fundamental, the only option may be to create a new doctrine. So schisms within schools occur as a corrective.

ClosedExamples: 

Psychoanalysis developed as a doctrine but its foundational emphasis on sexuality and aggression appeared to neglect other psychic fundamentals. So distinct schools soon arose e.g. Jung developed Analytical Psychology, Adler founded Individual Psychology. However, even within orthodox psychoanalysis there are distinct variants: Kleinian, Lacanian, Winnicottian, with their own literature and sometimes with their own trainings.

Christianity had its first Great Schism in the 11th Century into the Rome-based Catholic Church in the West, and Constantinople-based Orthodox Church in the East. The final break occurred around 1450. In the following century Roman Catholicism had a further schism to produce Protestantism with its variants. By contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Church never split but had numerous variants: Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Georgian, Romanian &c.

Having developed an initial sense of schools and their doctrines, it is possible to consider in more detail:

Originally posted: 15-Jul-2022. Last updated: 20-Mar-2024