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.
I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the column research for the
Wednesday, March 25 2026 edition
of the TST Column.
This is the expanded story mode edition.
With that, let’s frame the key idea.
Truth.
This week, we explore the idea of Truth.
Truth requires alignment with reality.
Now for the 6 research tidbits. The goal, to blend intersections into wisdom.
Each monthly TST Column focuses on one central idea, supported by Column Research and reinforced through the TST Trainer.
Each tidbit carries its own links and citations, allowing claims to be traced back to their sources without overloading longer essays and articles.
The key ideas are available on the home page, 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
Truth is the successful correspondence between a proposition and reality, and human absolute truths do not exist.
30 Philosophers, 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.
2.
A Philosophy Quote.
Subject: Unknowable Dao.
- Laozi.
- circa 550 BCE.
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 2 years ago.
3.
A Science FAQ.
Subject: TST Ethics.
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 3 months ago.
4.
A Philosophy FAQ.
Subject: Theory of Truth.
Nope. They actually fit together surprisingly well. Yes, the Idea of Ideas does speak about truth, and Agrippa’s Trilemma reminds us that truth cannot be fully and finally justified from within human thought alone. But that does not hurt the framework. It helps define its limits.
Agrippa’s challenge is fascinating, but it also blurs important categories. It treats justification too generally, as if all truths must be grounded the same way. That is not the case. Empirical ideas are grounded in observation and measurement. Rational ideas are grounded in logic and internal consistency. Irrational ideas are speculative or disproven. Some are untested, untestable, some are inconsistent, and some are empirically disproven. Mixing these categories together creates the very confusion Agrippa exposes.
Agrippa is mainly talking about ultimate justification, not truth itself, and not certainty. That matters. The Idea of Ideas is doing something different. It sorts ideas by how they relate to reality, how they are formed, and how far they can be trusted.
So where do the two meet?
Agrippa tells us that final philosophical justification runs into a wall. The Idea of Ideas says, of course it does. That is why we must keep a clear split between reality itself and our ideas about it. Absolute truth belongs to reality. Human truth belongs to our descriptions, measurements, and rational models of it.
Empirical ideas do not defeat the trilemma so much as they are anchored by the world. Rational ideas do not defeat it either; they hold by internal coherence within a system. Irrational ideas fail on both fronts. So Agrippa does not disprove the Idea of Ideas. He highlights why such a framework is needed in the first place.
That Philosophy FAQ,
was first published on TST 2 months ago.
5.
A Critical Thinking FAQ.
Subject: Reasoning.
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.
6.
A History FAQ.
Subject: Ancient History.
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 months ago.
That’s it for this issue!
Join us again next month. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth on the first of the month, and emailed the next day.
If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.
TouchstoneTruth is built around a simple aim: think well, live well, and keep seeking truth with clarity, humility, and discipline.
Thanks for listening.
The end.