The Tests of Truth

by Ray Arrowood

Person A replies: World hunger and poverty could be eliminated if all the wealthy people on the planet donated a small portion of their wealth to helping the poor.

Person B replies: World hunger and poverty could be eliminated if the wealthy provided more and/or better jobs to the needy.

Person C replies: World hunger and poverty could be eliminated by increasing the efficiency of production to lower the cost of food, housing, etc.

Person D replies: World hunger and poverty could be eliminated by reducing world population to better match supplies of resources.

We might characterize the first response as the welfare approach, the second as the economic approach, the third as the scientific approach, and the fourth as the pragmatic approach. Which approach contains the greater truth however? They will all work to some degree no doubt, but which one contains the real solution to the problem?

All resource allocation problems are a matter of supply and demand. That is a basic economic law of nature. The welfare approach assumes there is enough supply for all, but it needs to be more equally distributed. The economic approach also assumes that supply is adequate but the monetary wealth needed to purchase it is out of balance. The scientific approach on the other hand focuses on increasing the supply while the pragmatic approach focuses on decreasing the demand.

Using the basic truth of the universal supply and demand law, we can initially group the four approaches into two sets based on the degree of recognition of the law. The welfare/economic set and the scientific/pragmatic set. The welfare/economic group makes assumptions about the supply/demand while the scientific/pragmatic group attempts to work with the law itself. It is obvious that working directly with supply and demand will be more productive than just making assumptions about it, as the evolution of human agriculture demonstrates. Thus we can say that the scientific/pragmatic solutions must contain greater truth than the welfare/economic wealth solutions.

We can also generalize a logical rule from this example saying that any statement containing principles of basic truth must state greater truths than those not containing such principles. This is our basic rule for determining degrees of truth.

Now we come to the problem of how to determine which of the two remaining solutions that actually work with the law of supply and demand contains the greater truth. Both seem to offer viable solutions to the problem but take opposite approaches. Is one solution better than the other?

Getting back to our supply and demand problem now, we must again find a way of determining which approach contains the greater truth and thus offers the best solution to the question. Applying our logical rule again, let's see if one solution recognizes another basic truth that the other doesn’t, or using the inverse, does one solution contain something that violates a basic law of nature. Either instance would be justification for saying one contains greater truth than the other.

On the supply side we know that the earth has a finite amount of resources available for use, and we also know there are limits on efficiency which cannot be surpassed. In other words, it is impossible to have infinite growth on a finite planet. This is another basic truth that also affects the demand side, but with a major difference. Demand increases directly with population size, but also increases due to social pressures like materialism (greed). This makes it possible for demand to quickly surpass supply. There are essentially two demand sides, a “want” for more supply and a “need” for more. In our social economic system however, they are lumped together into one total demand.

We can use this second basic truth about the finite nature of supply and demand to determine which of our two remaining approaches contains the greater truth. The scientific approach to our problem makes the assumption that supply can be increased indefinitely through increased efficiency, ignoring the basic truth about finite resources and limits to efficiency. The pragmatic approach on the other hand recognizes the truth of limits to growth, and suggests we reduce demand to match supply. Thus, ultimately, the best solution to our problem question is answer D, reducing demand by limiting population (note however that even this approach does not address the issue of material greed that can always keep demand ahead of supply).

This method of applying “tests of truth” can be used to determine the best solution to any question or problem. Our society would be much different if our social leaders applied such a logical system to problem solving instead of letting business economics rule their decisions. Ignoring the basic laws of nature long enough will eventually result in nature making the adjustments necessary to balance the demand for the limited supplies for us.

"And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God." -- Nephi 1:16-17