If reality exists independently of us, the next question follows naturally: what does it mean for a belief to be true? This week builds directly on the split. Truth requires reality — something beyond preference or narrative. But acknowledging that does not grant us certainty. TST holds a disciplined position: truth without certainty, correspondence without illusion. We aim at reality, even knowing we may revise tomorrow.
WWB Research Audio
Truth
(25 Mar 2026: Truth)
~ 10 to 12 minutes of audio
I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the
Wednesday, March 25 2026 edition
of the Weekly Wisdom Builder. The core research that informs the week’s TST Weekly Column.
This is the expanded story mode edition.
With that, let’s frame the week’s key idea.
This week’s idea is Truth.
This week, we explore the idea of Truth.
Truth requires alignment with reality.
Now for this week’s 6 Weekly Crossroads. The goal, to blend and forge intersections into wisdom.
TouchstoneTruth is designed for rereading and relistening, not for consumption in a single pass.
Supporting the effort are tidbits.
Think of tidbits as intellectual scaffolding: modest on their own, essential to the strength of the whole.
On the home page are the key ideas for each, the core takeaways are also available here, but this story mode is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”
1.
A Critical Thinking Story.
From History:
Subject: Absolute Truth.
The Idea of the Unknowable Dao
New Look
Absolute truth exists in objective reality, but human claims to possess it remain provisional—always open to refinement, correction, or falsification.
So, to put it simply.
Absolute truth belongs to the material world as it is. Humans never hold it absolutely. We construct empirical and rational descriptions that may align with reality, but every claim remains open to testing and revision. Even our strongest conclusions are provisional—true until disproven, not true beyond challenge.
Now, the details…
Truth is the successful correspondence between a proposition and reality, and human absolute truths do not exist.
30 Phil, Chapter 20, Francis Bacon, Touchstone 49: Absolute Truth.
An absolute truth is a description that is universally consistent with objective reality. Objective reality refers to the material world as it is—reality that exists independently of human thoughts, beliefs, and emotions. This is the metaphysical “split” discussed in the Idea of Ideas, between the Material World and our ideas. The belief in objective reality is the key to science, law, and journalism. And the kicker is that every empirical test performed adds to its validation.
To be clear, absolute truths are not the same as Empirical Ideas. Both objective reality and absolute truths are on the other side of the “split” from our empirical ideas about them. Meaning, absolute truths about objective reality do exist, and our ideas concerning them represent our best descriptions, yet these ideas are still subject to fallibility.
Analysis: This view of absolute truth is extremely similar to Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. Both perspectives recognize an underlying reality beyond human perception. However, while Kant maintains that the noumenal world is ultimately unknowable and only serves as a limiting concept to our understanding, this view asserts that absolute truth exists as the foundation of reality, with our ideas about it being descriptive and subject to continuous refinement.
That Critical Thinking Story,
was first published on TST 2 years ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: In the Idea of Ideas, what do we call human descriptions of absolute truths?
Back: Empirical truths.
2.
A Philosophy Quote.
Subject: Unknowable Dao.
- Laozi.
- circa 550 BCE.
Laozi opens the Dao De Jing by reminding us that ultimate reality cannot be captured by words, names, or ideas. He opens with the split.
The central point is this.
The Unknowable Dao is the idea that our ideas about the material world are not the material world itself, but a reflection or description of it. Our ideas are always incomplete. Therefore, the material world is always unknowable. This is the “split” in my Idea of Ideas and Kant’s phenomena versus noumena.
Now, the details…
This quote, a translation from the opening line of the Dao De Jing has intrigued philosophers for centuries and highlights a central Daoist belief: the universe, or the Dao, is ultimately unknowable and beyond words.
Laozi’s teaching of the “unknowable Dao” resonates through time as a reminder of the limits of human understanding. It’s a skeptical idea that we cannot fully grasp the true nature of reality. No matter how much we learn, there will always be aspects of the universe that lie beyond our comprehension.
Consider, for instance, the concept of visible and non-visible light. We perceive visible light and might think it’s the whole spectrum, but science tells us it’s just a small fraction of what’s out there. Our brains filter and interpret the world, creating a version of reality that feels complete but is only a shadow of what truly exists.
Even something as simple as water can illustrate Laozi’s point. Water can be described as a necessity for life, a molecule by chemists, or even as a source of play for children. Yet, no matter how detailed our descriptions, they always fall short of capturing the essence of what water truly is. Words, like names, only scratch the surface of reality.
Laozi reminds us that the universe will always remain shrouded in mystery. While we can pursue the unknown, the unknowable will forever evade our understanding. As he wisely said,
“The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao.”
That Philosophy Quote,
was first published on TST 1 year ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What Daoist term means “the Way” or the natural course of reality?
Back: Dao / Tao
3.
A Science FAQ.
Subject: TST Ethics.
Scientific models succeed not because they are perfectly true, but because they reliably capture patterns in reality.
Now, to be clear.
Scientific models work because they structure aspects of reality like key relationships, variables, and components. Over time, models are refined, expanded, or superseded, not because science fails, but because science progresses models by improving maps, not by claiming direct access to reality.
Now, the details…
Scientific models work because they approximate reality, not because they perfectly mirror it.
A model is a structured simplification — a map, not the territory. When we describe an atom as a tiny solar system, or light as a wave, or spacetime as a fabric, we are not claiming those metaphors are physically exact. We are building tools that capture patterns well enough to predict outcomes. If the predictions hold, the model is useful — even if it is incomplete.
Throughout history, models have been refined rather than discarded outright. Newton’s gravity still works for launching rockets and building bridges, even though Einstein showed it was not the full story. Early atomic models captured energy levels long before quantum mechanics revealed probability clouds. Superseded does not mean useless — it means limited in scope.
Scientific models work because reality has structure. Our rational frameworks latch onto that structure. The closer the fit, the better the predictions. Models are not literal copies of the world — they are disciplined approximations that survive because they continue to work.
That Science FAQ,
was first published on TST 1 month ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What is a simplified symbolic representation of reality used to explain and predict patterns?
Back: Scientific model
4.
A Philosophy FAQ.
Ideas < Metaphysics < Philosophy
In short.
Agrippa argued that no belief can be finally justified. Every claim eventually runs into one of three traps: an infinite chain of reasons, a circular argument, or an unsupported assumption. Philosophers have wrestled with this for over two thousand years, and it still holds up, if, and only if, you’re talking about justification.
Now, the details…
Nope. They actually fit together surprisingly well. And yes, the Idea of Ideas does describe truth, something Agrippa’s Trilemma says is impossible to fully justify. But it does this not by escaping Agrippa’s challenge.
Agrippa’s challenge is fascinating, but it also sneaks in a few logical fallacies. It assumes justification is always required, but it’s not. Empirical truths don’t depend on philosophical justification. They depend on measurement. Rational truths don’t depend on external proof. They depend on internal consistency. In critical thinking, these are different categories entirely, and treating them as the same thing leads to the very confusion Agrippa warns us about.
In my framework, empirical ideas are grounded in observation. Rational ideas are grounded in logic. And irrational ideas are everything else: untested, untestable, or disproven. Agrippa isn’t talking about this kind of categorization at all. He’s talking about justification, not certainty, and not truth.
So how do these two ideas intersect?
Agrippa tells us that ultimate justification is impossible. The Idea of Ideas says, “Of course it is, that’s why empirical and rational truths sit on one side of the split, and absolute truth sits on the other.” In other words, Agrippa points out the gap; the Idea of Ideas names it.
Empirical ideas survive the trilemma because the universe itself does the verifying. Rational ideas survive because logic enforces consistency. And irrational ideas? Both frameworks agree, are never true and can never be justified.
So no, Agrippa doesn’t disprove the Idea of Ideas.
He actually explains why we need it.
That Philosophy FAQ,
was first published on TST 4 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
5.
Critical thinking almost always boils down to epistemology, and here, that means the Idea of Ideas.
Certainty belongs to reality; humility belongs to our ideas about it.
A Critical Thinking FAQ.
Subject: Reasoning.
Evidence. Inductive reasoning is evidence based; abductive reasoning is a best guess from limited evidence.
At its core.
Inductive reasoning finds patterns to predict future outcomes, while abductive reasoning makes the best guess based on available evidence. The Earth clearly revolves around the Sun, but hoofbeats outside might be horses or zebras. Abductive reasoning fills gaps by choosing the most likely explanation when certainty is unavailable. It’s useful—but it’s not proof. Opinions often lean on assumption without evidence. Good critical thinkers pause to ask whether a claim is truly supported by evidence.
Now, the details…
In today’s world of endless information, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by conflicting claims. So, how do you separate fact from opinion? Understanding different types of reasoning, like inductive and abductive, can help.
Take the statement
“The Earth orbits the Sun.”
This is an objective claim backed by scientific evidence gathered through inductive reasoning—scientists observed patterns over time that led to this conclusion. Inductive reasoning builds general truths based on repeated observations.
But what if you don’t have repeated evidence? That’s when abductive reasoning comes into play. It involves making the best possible guess based on available information. For example, if you hear hoofbeats, you assume it’s a horse, not a zebra, because horses are more common. Abductive reasoning helps us make practical assumptions when we lack certainty.
To evaluate truth, ask yourself: Is this claim supported by solid evidence (inductive reasoning)? Or is it a logical guess based on what’s likely (abductive reasoning)? Understanding these can help you discern what’s fact and what’s opinion.
That Critical Thinking FAQ,
was first published on TST 2 years ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What type of reasoning makes the best guess based on incomplete evidence?
Back: Abductive Reasoning
6.
A History FAQ.
Subject: Ancient History.
Philo’s allegorical reading of Scripture reflects an early awareness that a text and our interpretation of that text are not the same thing.
In short.
In TST terms, Philo’s work can be seen as layered interpretation: reality, then text, then ideas about the text. That makes him a useful historical example of the split between what is and how minds describe or interpret it.
Now, the details…
Philo of Alexandria lived around the time of Jesus, just a little off to the side of that story. So if you know the basic timeline of Jesus and early Roman Judea, this is that era.
Philo was a Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher in Alexandria, Egypt. Sometime around 20 CE, he became one of the best-known ancient thinkers to treat Scripture as something that could be read on more than one level. There was the text itself, yes, but also the deeper meaning he believed was tucked beneath the surface.
That deeper reading seems to have captured his heart. Philo is especially known for using allegory to pull philosophical meaning out of sacred text, not just taking the words at face value, but asking what they were really saying underneath. The Therapeutae he described near Alexandria fit that same spirit: an ascetic Jewish community devoted to prayer, study, contemplation, and symbolic readings of Scripture.
That does resemble the split in the Idea of Ideas, where reality and our ideas about reality are split. But the deeper point is that this split is not rare, exotic, or unique. It is as old as perception itself. The moment a mind takes in the world and begins making sense of it, there is already a split between what is out there and what is happening in the mind. Allegorical interpretation simply makes that ordinary fact more obvious. The words on the page are one thing. The meaning a mind draws from them is another. Philo did not invent that split. He worked within something as old as sensing, thinking, and interpreting.
In TST terms, Philo’s story lets us see that layering very clearly. There is reality itself, then the Bible as a textual and symbolic expression about reality and beyond, and then Philo’s ideas about what the Bible is really saying. That extra step matters because it reminds us that even a sacred text is not the same thing as reality itself, and our interpretation of the text is another layer still. His story helps us see something common and ancient: reality, then representation, then interpretation. That pattern is not new. It is woven into the ordinary act of sensing and interpreting, whether in a mind, a simple tool, or an advanced AI system.
That History FAQ,
was first published on TST 2 weeks ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: Reading a text for a deeper symbolic meaning beyond the literal words.
Back: Allegorical interpretation (Symbolic reading)
That’s it for this week!
Join us again next week. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth Wednesdays at 3 PM PST, and emailed Thursdays.
If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.
TouchstoneTruth is an experiment in whether ideas can remain alive without losing accountability.
Thanks for listening.
The end.