# data[].attributes.body
Connection: Truth is something that is determined through copious amounts of research and findings. It could be based on our everyday observations that we make that is supported by extensive research.

Challenge: Facts that are known to be the 'truth' now may change over time with the uprisings of more research and advancement in technology. How will the society be able to adapt to big change in what we perceive as 'truth'.

Concepts: What we perceive as truth may be subjected to impartiality and thus, it is important to not involve emotions when validating something.

Changes: I feel that it is salient to assess what we call 'truth' before expressing it publicly.

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: Truth is not only based on evidence given to support it, but it requires a process of examination and proving before it can be verified as a truth, or knowledge.

Challenge: Some truths vary through times (for example the fact that sun orbits the earth in the past while now people know earth orbits the sun), so how do we know a truth is definite and will remain true forever?

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: truth is whatever that corresponds to reality which can be backed up by our knowledge that we can find in our daily lives.

Challenges: when confronted with questions like i am lying, how do we know whether it correspond to the reality

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: we always observe things around us but is whatever we see around us enough to determine the truth? we all live in our own bubbles and have yet to explore what life has in store for us.   correspondence theory of truth gives us the need to step out of these bubbles and see if things are actually true.

Challenge: do we need consciousness to prove existence? what if the truth observed by facts are out there but we cannot observe it, will it still exist

Concepts: it takes years of research and to get closer to the truth. in this process, what may be perceived to be true may change

Change:after reading this chapter, I feel truth is not trivial and we need to evaluate facts and statements before saying that something Is true

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: This process of recognising facts and relating them to truth in our lives happens almost constantly for us to verify our knowledge.
Challenge: One example in the notes was "It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France." Which got me thinking; What if the capital of France was to change for whatever reason? This theory relies on facts and reality to support truth, but that seems to be slightly flawed considering that most facts are a result of human behaviour. We decided to separate landmasses into different countries and subsequently cities, therefore these truths can be manipulated. you may see a glass of water sitting on a table and determine that "there is a glass of water on the table", but if someone was to move that to the floor then the truth would change. This theory seems to neglect the impact the fluidity that truths can hold.
Concepts: There are multiple different types of truths, such as

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: Facts are identified through the observations we make in our lives and are determined when there is enough evidence to support the claim.

Challenge: How do we decide if something is really a fact?

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: Something is the truth when it corresponds with a fact, for example, I am certain that i have 3 members in my immediate family as it is a fact that i do not have any siblings and that i have one father and one mother.

Challenge: What can we deem as facts? What is real to us might not be what is actually real. How can we decide what is a fact?

Concepts: A particle had previously been present but this fact could only be verified after the technology that could detect these particles was created. Therefore, just because we do not know something is there does not mean that it does not exist.

Changes: nil

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: I think that one's truth is his/her understanding of something based on their past or present experience. It is a well educated assumption made by a person based on information available to him/her. As a result, truth is subjective as it is determined  or greatly impacted by opinion. However, the a person's truth is not equivalent to a fact. A fact is a kind of ultimate undisputable truth which is truer than what we deem to be the truth based on our own limited perspectives.

Challenge: This makes me wonder whether a person who is somehow able to see things from a completely objective standpoint would be able to see facts as an equivalent of how normal people see truths.

Concepts: Truth is not equivalent to facts

Changes: I used to be under the impression that the things I know are facts when they are actually my own personal truths which are subject to my opinion but now I am aware of the existence of a greater, complete truth in the form of facts.

# data[].attributes.body
Connection -
we identify and determine facts by observing them in our lives, or through substantial evidence to back up each fact

challenge -
what puzzles me is how to identify this in real time, as we consider this as common sense and may very easily overlook this

changes -
nil

# data[].attributes.body
It is something that is quite obvious and can be supported with evidence( could be from our daily life)  effectively

challenge:
if a fact can be rebutted. Then not all facts are true. If that is the case, then what is true all the time and can be relied on?

Concepts
Facts and truths are not the same. There is a rather significant difference between the two. Facts are based to a lot of study and research. it is also backed up by tons of evidence. Regardless, facts remain as facts as long as the evidence backing it is present. Th moment the evidence backing it up becomes weak and fragile, it can be rebutted and hence, the fact is no longer a fact.

Changes: I
had the impression at first that facts are always true. however, now I have come to realise that facts r true only if the evidence backing it remains valid. ( I had overlooked this point)

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: correspondence theory is a logical take on verifying facts
Challenge: why should this theory depend on observable phenomena when it will be different from different perspectives
Concepts: facts only hold true until observed to be otherwise
Changes: no changes

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: In life, we determine if something is true if there is substantial evidence to support the claim.

Challenge: How can we really trust people on whether that is the truth?

Concepts: Truth can be subject to feelings or bias but can be impartial which is really difficult.

Changes: I used to think Truth and Facts are the same. Facts are conclusions determined through extensive research and usually is fixed as there is a lot of supporting evidence whereas Truth usually is anopinion that matches with facts or reality

# data[].attributes.body
Connection:
The correspondent theory of truth states that something is true if it is the truth.
Challenge:
The theory is quite redundant as it just states that obvious.
Concepts:
A knowledge claim is true if it corresponds to a fact about the world.
Changes:
None.

# data[].attributes.body
Connection: I agree that correspondence truth theory is logical and it makes sense in our daily lives.
Challenge: Why does this theory rely on our own senses? Are we really that reliable to trust ourselves? We cannot see things that are 'invisible' to our naked eye, or we might be mistaken. For example, if a color blind person says that a bag is blue, is it true for him but not for other people?
Concepts: It is important for other people to ascertain facts and get fact checked by other people with evidence
Changes: No change

# data[].attributes.body
concepts:Truths and facts are not the same since facts are obtained through extensive study on the topic. However, despite the very thorough research, we cannot account for every variable from the beginning of time until the end. There will bound to be facts that may no longer be truths after a while. One example of this is how animals once thought to be extinct began to emerge again. The fact that these animals are extinct is a fact. In spite of this, since after some time the same species was rediscovered, this fact that the animals are extinct no longer hold through, rendering the fact false.
Challenge: If we cannot take facts as the truth then what can we ascertain as true?
Changes: While i have gained new insight in this topic, i still do not feel a shift in my thinking of attitude.

# data[].attributes.body
Connections: The truth is the truth when there is distinct evidence to support it. Its something that is fairly obvious, and nothing much new.
Challenge: What puzzles me about this is that its basically common sense, and yet there's still people arguing against it in some way. I understand that there may be a possibility that something occurs, like my eyes suddenly not working and hence I cannot verify what is in front of me, but the chances of that is so miniscule, I do not think it should be considered at all.
Concepts: A key concept is definitely the usage of evidence to support a theory, which then becomes a fact.
Changes: Checking up on the facts before trusting what someone has said is something we should be doing more.

# data[].attributes.body
Connections: based upon my life I can confirm that correspondence theory is a sound theory.
Challenge: It puzzles me that the theory is so obvious
Concepts: A key concept is that the theory highlights the fact that truth is a relation with the world
Changes: no changes

# data[].attributes.body
Connections: A truth is only a truth if it can be properly proven with facts and evidence
Challenge: This all seems very trivial to me. like the fact how something is very obviously true if the necessary evidence is there to support it. I feel that this theory really shouldn't even be a theory at all as this feels just like common sense
Concepts: The importance if evidence to verify a fact
Changes: No change

# data[].attributes.body
What puzzles me is that this correspondence theory shouldn't even be a theory in the first place, as the theory is quite common-sensical. If someone says that something is right, and it is indeed so, then his statement would be correct. I am not sure why this is even a theory in the first place.

My thinking has changed in the sense that not everything that people say are true, especially when they concern subjects that we are not familiar with. We should always check with already existing knowledge to confirm whether his statement is indeed true.

The key concept is that if someone says a statement, it has to be proven with knowledge and facts for it to be correct.