Is The True Story Always The Truth?

If I told you that the true story was not always the truth, would you believe me?

Regardless of whether you would or wouldn't, you would take a moment to think about the question right. Something along the lines of, "what is the point of this question? Isn't the true story based on the truth? How then can a true story not be the truth?" These are all good questions. I will try to explain my thoughts and hopefully be able to convince you that the true story is not always true.

Before we dive into the depths of this question, we should first explore the idea of truth. To me, the truth is an irrefutable piece of information. An absolute statement that is grounded in facts and supported by reason. For example, if I were to tell you that it becomes dark when the sun sets, you would believe me instantly. That is because you have seen it become dark after sun set for the duration of your life. For you it, is a piece of information that is grounded in facts and supported by evidence obtained from every day of your life. This is the truth. No matter what happens, no one can change the fact that it will become dark once the sun sets.

The next facet of this argument is the meaning of a true story. The important thing to note is that the true story doesn't necessarily have to be grounded in the truth. The key word here is "story". This word implies that the true story is given from the perspective of storyteller. In other words, the true story depends on what the storyteller's version of the truth is. This is the reason why one event can have multiple accounts. Each person involved would view the truth from their perspectives and hence each account would be colored by their perception of the truth. Obviously reasoning alone won't be sufficient to convince you. So allow me to present two examples.

Let's take the first example from some day to day experience. You were fooling around with your sibling and accidentally topple a china vase which happened to be very expensive. Your mother overhears the commotion and comes to scene of the crime. She pulls you into a room and questions you about what transpired. Fearing her rage, you blame it on your sibling. This being the first account your mother heard, it becomes the "true story" to her even though it is grounded in a lie. Keeping this in mind, she pulls your sibling into the rooms and asks him why he broke it. Taken aback by the sudden accusation, your sibling refutes the claim and offers his version. To him, it is the "true story" which happens to be grounded in the truth. Now to your mother, she receives two conflicting descriptions of the crime. Both accounts are claimed to be "true story". The fact that both these accounts are supposed to be true, the idea of an absolute truth must mean that one of these accounts are false. This allows me to draw the conclusion that the "true story" is not always the truth.

Let me go one step further and try to apply this reasoning to a larger issue. Back in high school, I was introduced to one my favorite play, "Inherit the Wind." This courtroom drama was a depiction of the Scopes Monkey trial that took place in Tennessee in the 1920's. The defendant John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution in a high school biology class. Strange? Indeed. At the time, the church believed that evolution was some pagan garbage and the "truth" was that God created the world in seven days. Now, you and I both know that Darwin's theory of evolution is the real truth behind the evolution of life on earth. Why I brought this up was to show that people can buy a fake "true story" so well that they are prepared to persecute people who believe otherwise. Again we see that the "true story" the townspeople took to court for was not indeed the truth. The truth was instead purged, again showing that it is not necessary for the true story to be the truth.

Lastly, we come to the implication of this argument. If the true story is not the truth, how do we believe what we know? The good news is that there are people who work to ensure that the information we receive is the truth. If a flaw is found in a scientific theory, it is changed to ensure it reflects the truth. If an inconsistency is found in an historical account, it is deemed unreliable and an alternative, true account is present. Obviously, this means that there are a few stories that we consider the truth which many not actually be true. There is nothing wrong with that. As long we keep an open mind and accept the argument that is best supported with the facts, we are good. This is why the Flat-Earth society irks me, despite having years of evidence pointing against a flat earth, they seem to be perfectly content with their 16th century views. To them I quote Henry Drummond, "All motion is relative. Perhaps it is you who has moved away-- by staying still"

- Thoughtful Penny