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.