Flaws in the Essay Truth vs. Truths
In the essay Truth vs. Truths, Dr. William M. (Bud) Gardner asserts that the categories of reason, Mystica: The Holy Land, Logica: The Land of Reason, and Empirica: The Land of Reality are three distinct pillars that contribute to Rhetorica: The Motherland, or the nature of debating truth. Gardner’s central claim is that these domains are not only separate arbiters of truth but are also incommensurable, making the concept of an ultimate, absolute truth impossible.
Gardner mistakes differences in methods of knowing for differences in reality itself. By holding him to his own standards, it is simple to see why his argument is flawed. At first glance, his reasoning seems reasonable, fitting, and logically coherent according to Logica. Yet Gardner’s theory relies on a universal claim about truth while denying the possibility of universal truth. The domains describe methods of knowing, not separate realities. They organize how we search for truth; they do not determine whether truth exists.
If Gardner’s claim is intended as a universal account of truth, it functions as a meta-truth and is therefore subject to the same criteria it denies. This creates a classic self-referential contradiction. Gardner never fully escapes this problem; he asserts domain separation as a meta-truth without explaining why his own claim should be exempt from that separation. The proverbial snake eats its own tail in Gardner’s argument.
If moral truths recur cross-culturally, they behave like absolute truths regardless of domain classification. Truth does not exist with borders; such a rule does not apply in any of the domains; Logica, Mystica, Empirica, or Rhetorica.
The natural order of truth and instinct, what evolutionists call conscience or group herd instinct, can remain true, and from a Mystica perspective, it can also be true. C.S. Lewis describes this as the “Tao” or “Dao,” a principle rooted in goodness across cultures.
For example, as one modern thinker remarked, “It is considered morally a bad thing to kick old ladies in the shin.” It does not matter whether one is in Asia, Mexico, or Canada; such an action is widely understood as wrong. This recognition of good and evil may also be explained as a group herd instinct dictated by evolution.
This example demonstrates that the truth of human conscience can be supported from multiple lines of reasoning and does not exist apart from other domains. One could argue that these lines of reason coexist, or even that there are no true borders at all, only different approaches to the same universal truth. This directly undermines Gardner’s claim that the domains are irreconcilable.
To argue that the domains of reason are separate and therefore there is no absolute truth is like claiming a fish is not an animal because it cannot walk. (This analogy is not offered as proof, but as an illustration of a category mistake.) This is a stipulation error. The domains cross into one another frequently to support and refine understanding.
It is notable that Gardner titles his work Truth vs. Truths: An Enduring Dilemma for Skeptics, as the fallacy in his argument ultimately disarms skepticism itself.
Gardner’s use of the O.J. Simpson trial does not critique the quality of reasoning used by jurors but instead suggests that truth itself is bound by the rules of Rhetorica. In doing so, flawed reasoning, superstition, and rhetorical manipulation overshadow what many believed to be an objective truth—the evidence. Public frustration with the case stemmed precisely from the sense that an absolute truth existed but was not properly recognized due to procedural failure.
“The jurors sought and found truth, as defined by the rules enforced by the court... And according to the rules of Rhetorica, they have.”
This example exposes the fallibility of institutions and reasoning processes rather than demonstrating that truth itself is relative. It would be unreasonable to dismiss the existence of truth because a flawed jury failed to reach it, just as it would be unreasonable to judge an entire sports team by the performance of a single player.
Defenders of Gardner may argue that religious disagreement supports the claim that domains are separate realities. However, differing methods within Mystica do not invalidate the search for truth; they reveal multiple attempts to grasp it.
Using the analogy of a child’s shape-sorting box, truth claims must be tested against appropriate methods. A shape is not false because it does not fit every hole; it simply requires the correct one. Contradictions within Mystica suggest refinement, not the absence of truth.
Ultimately, the borders between domains function as organizational tools, not metaphysical divisions. Domains guide inquiry; they do not determine reality. Any theory about truth must itself operate as a truth claim. Even if one argues that Gardner’s claim is merely descriptive, then it doesn't refute absolute truth, only our access to it.
Gardner’s central error lies in treating differences in methods of knowing as differences in truth itself.
This essay was developed through dialogue and revision, reflecting an ongoing process of philosophical inquiry.
Comments