Must authors of non-fiction tell the truth?

Must readers who detect things that cannot be not true give authors the benefit of the doubt by concluding that what seemed like non-fiction is actually fiction?

Where does religious or spiritual writing fit into this consideration?

Isn't that where it should be taken with a grain of salt,or caveat Emptor,or Are you terminally ill, feel guilty or righteous,Vengeful or can't re-write the book yourself?

(respectfully declining to post snarky reply on the assumption that the poster will regret the whole episode in the morning ... done that myself, time or two)

If I can't count on Cisco Press to get things right with technical and certification manuals, I sure as heck can't count on authors of other types of non-fiction. There are a lot of lies in print.

I'd say yes, writing non-fiction is intended to convey knowledge of something. Knowledge is justified true belief. This does not necessarily mean the knowledge conveyed is ultimately true, just that the author has a justification (which can be examined) for believing it is true.

For example, when the ancient Greek's wrote about astronomy they wrote about their justified true belief; it just turned out to be a wrong.

This reminds me of a line from Indiana Jones: "Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."


No, I think that we need to respect authorial intent. If I wrote something I'd rather someone disagree with my points than extol my work as fiction.

We also need to be cautious when we claim something cannot be true. Is it that the claim runs counter to an underlying assumption or worldview we hold, or is there actually something objectively or logically wrong with the claim?


There is no difference when it comes to religious works. A work of non-fiction in this area still contains justified true belief. As with any work, that justification can be examined and explored.

I read in a non-fiction book where a gentlemen took off the safety on a revolver before firing.

Lie or mistake?

I take what I read in anything with a grain of salt. Trust but verify. And then, verify it again from another source.

Trust half of what you see, nothing of what you hear.

NightHiker beat me to it:

"If it's not the truth... then it's fiction."

If it's unsubstantiated opinion, it's probably still just opinion. That isn't fact or truth. If you firmly believe that spontaneous generation happens, it still isn't truth/fact.

There are too many totally different religions for all (or any) of them to be fact/truth.

Are you bored today, Dweste?

Sue

I think non-fiction authors should tell the truth. However, proving the truth could be a contentious and tedious process. What do you do, take an author to court and conduct a trial in front of a jury of peers?

You are correct. Logically, they cannot all be true. When examined, almost all systems of spiritual belief make claims which contradict the claims of at least one other system. On the other hand, logic doesn't preclude one system from being true, only that contradictory systems cannot both be true.

Thanks all for the input. I am going to be posting about the four Tom Brown, Jr. tracking books I just read and I am trying to get together a thoughtful and respectful first impression-type thing.

Denis,

Nice walk-through in response to the statements and questions. I wish I could have put it that well. Again, nicely done.

My $.02

(I have not been compensated for my views; that is a fact and the truth)

Concluding that it is fiction implies the author made the whole thing up. I don't see that as giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd say, supposing that the author made a mistake, or simplified, or extrapolated, or whatever, would be more charitable; that the author's intent is still honest and the rest of what they wrote may still be valid and useful.

For example, there are wildlife documentaries about lions hunting, that actually cut together scenes from several different hunts to make a coherent narrative, without informing the audience they have done so. The result isn't literally true, but still shows the lions' general behaviour in a truthful and useful way. All journalist includes distortion, because of editing; not everything can be included. You have to decide whether you trust the journalist.

Hard to say without an example. If I catch them out in a minor detail, then it's the same as above. If it's a major detail that they know is impossible but are claiming is a miracle or some such, then, in my view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not much inclined to cut such authors much slack. I am pretty much starting from the position that they are, at best, misinterpreting whatever they saw anyway.

Your acceptance of the work as a whole seems to very often boil down to answering this question: "Is a mistruth, misconception, different perception, opinion or un/sub-validated claim, etc. the same thing as a lie?"

Sometimes they did.
Sometimes they took a few facts and created a whole new scenario out of their head.
Sometimes they collected what the thought were facts and came up with a reasonable scenario, just to find out the original 'facts' weren't facts at all.
Sometimes they pass off theory as fact.
Sometimes, they simply don't know what they're talking about.

But when people come up with stuff, they really need to label it as fact or fiction or theory or opinion.

If you've ever read The Amityville Horror: A True Story by Jay Anson (1977), would you say it's truth or fiction?

Sue

1. YES! Otherwise its fiction. That isn't to say that you can't be mistaken.

2. No.

3. See clarification to 1.

'Fiction' and 'Non-Fiction' are nothing more than bookstore classifications to facilitate shopping. They are not a guarantee of the purity of a books' contents.

On religion, I'll take the bait: I don't think you can compare non-fiction books like a cookbook or an auto repair manual with a bible.

Organized religion represents a human attempt to explain and codify an innate spiritual feeling and/or yearning most humans across all cultures possess.

Human institutions like religion, politics, and education are fraught with frailty, and some of these (maybe all) have been corrupted from time to time by power and money.

Right on! I like to think I write non-fiction, but my field is archaeology, so you never know for sure.....

I want to avoid getting too deep in religion but I hard something someone one said that sums up organized religion quite well. "Religion is man seeking God."

Jeanette Isabelle

True, but you can't compare historical works of antiquity like Tacticus or Herodotus to a cookbook or auto repair manual either; it's a category error.

However, these great works can be tested for historic fidelity; they are just tested differently than you would test a cookbook or an auto repair manual. The tools that one would use to test these other works of antiquity are the ones that need be used when testing the veracity of something like the writings in the Bible.


A guy I used to listen to a bit has a good saying: "If you want to mess something up, all you need is two things: people and time." (Matt Slick)