"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”--Mark Twain

     When did the truth become subjective? When did cold hard facts come up for debate? Apparently, seeing things through one's own lens and everything that comes along with it--emotions, history,  public opinion--has become the new norm in determining what is and is not true.

Per Meriam Webster, truth is defined as: the body of real things, events, and facts

     Taking away the first part of that definition, let's focus on events and facts. Events cannot be denied as happening. Something either happened or it did not. That goes hand in  hand with facts as real things. Something either is or is not true. Here's a real-life example.

     I got up late today, but made it to work on time.

    If we examine the statement we can see that it is not my opinion, it is a cold, hard fact. I did indeed get out of my bed this morning at 6:40 AM, which is later than I should be getting out of bed, and I made it to work by 7:00 AM which is what time I'm supposed to start. I got up late today, but made it to work on time. End of story, right?

     Unfortunately, this is where things get tricky. Maybe, in my mind, I've convinced myself that 6:40 really isn't late. I mean, if I can make it to work on time how can it be bad? And maybe some folks think that getting to work right at starting time is late? So maybe I was not on time for work after all. See how a fact became open for debate because human emotion and "reasoning" put a spin on it.  It makes me wonder, is everything open for debate and discussion or are things just true or not true? Certainly, at times there are shades of grey in there. There are a lot of maybes involved.

     Obviously no one besides me (and maybe my boss) care what time I got out of bed in the morning. But when truth comes into play where things actually matter,  it is much more important, vital even, that we as discerning human beings pay attention to facts and not opinion-swayed details.  

"Galileo actively argued for a bold new way of knowing, openly insisting that what mattered was not what the authorities... said was true but what anyone with the right tools could show was true. As no one before him had, he made the case for modern science -- for finding truth together through the quest for facts." (1)

     That means the onus is on us to show what is true. To dig through all of the layers that the media (either side--right or left) tells us is necessary. We must focus on facts and not opinion. We need to ask, what actually happened that I can prove without putting my own bias into play? 

Another real life example: 

     I watched the inauguration. Begrudgingly I watched it because I wanted to keep informed of what was happening. I saw live feed of the National mall and how many empty spaces there were. Therefore, I don't believe Sean Spicer or Mr. Trump when they said that the media lied about the attendance numbers, because I saw with my own eyes how many people were actually in attendance. There are also documented photographs of the event. Numbers do not lie. I deduced the facts for myself. Yes, I will admit that the media had a sort of hey-day with these facts that I can easily, if not keeping myself in check, jump on board and join in the roasting of Mr. Trump. But if I want to stick to what was true, I need not infer my own opinions of WHY people were not in attendance, or even WHY someone would lie about numbers when they can be proven, I will stick to the items that can be, as Galileo says, can be shown to be true. I can only say this: that there were a lot of people at the inauguration, but there was a lot of empty space. I can also say that I would not have gone to this event because I am in hard opposition to Mr. Trump. Those are the facts that I know and can explain.
     
     I am not saying that people do not have the right to their opinions or that everyone has to agree on each and every thing. I am also not saying that people shouldn't share their opinions openly. What I'm saying is we need to be careful when we are speaking that we are not spreading half truths and that we've done our homework. As we can all see, shooting off our mouths without the full story or a rational grip on reality, is harmful, shameful behavior. 

     Here's a link to an article that explains truth versus falsehood much better than I have.
Truth

      I was introduced to this test a couple of weeks ago by a friend. It's used by the Rotary club.  The Four-Way test, is  a good way to determine whether or not something is ethical. Herbert J. Taylor, in an effort to save his company from bankruptcy, and to change its ethical climate 1930's explains,

 What we needed was a simple, easily remembered guide to right conduct - a sort of ethical yardstick- which all of us in the company could memorize and apply to what we thought, said and did.

1. Is it the truth?
2. Is it fair to all concerned?
3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

I called it "The Four-Way Test" of the things we think, say or do."  (2)

     I think this is a good measure to follow before we speak or act. I think now more than ever we need to foster goodwill and friendship. We do not have to agree on anything to be kind to one another, but we do need to be responsible for ourselves, our actions, and our words. We need to ensure that what we are saying is true and what we are doing will not harm others. 

1. Pomeroy, Ross. "How Do We Know What is True." Real Clear Science. N.p., 13 July 2016. Web. 3 Feb. 2017.
2. "The Four-Way Test." Wikipedia. N.p., 4 Dec. 2016. Web. 3 Feb. 2017.