An assertion is a statement about our empirical observations of phenomena in the world.
Assertions generally relate to the past and provide a linguistic association with what is true about the world as we know it. We can also make assertions about what might happen in the future, distinguished as ‘pending assertions’. Pending assertions are valuable as they establish a context of what we believe may happen in the future and so act accordingly.
For the moment, let us explore assertions in general and begin by looking at some examples:
- “The room contained five chairs and a table.”
- “I met my brother at the beach last Tuesday.”
- “The carpet in my dining room is green.”
- “Pete Sampras won the Australian Open in 2003.”
- “There will be a maximum temperature of 40 degrees Celsius in Melbourne tomorrow.”
All of these statements describe something that are or might observed about the world and which can be verified as true or not at this time or when the specified time has passed as in the case of fifth example (a ‘pending assertion’).
As they rely on verification, the linguistic act of making an assertion ultimately allows for only two basic stances – assertions can be true or false. Looking back at the examples above, it can be seen that for the first four, the trueness of each statement can be found in evidence which might be provided. I can take you to the room and show the table and five chairs. I can show you the carpet in my dining room. I can get my brother to testify that he met me at the beach last Tuesday and we can look up the records of the 2003 Australian Open to see who won. In the cases, where the assertion is true, it is called a ‘fact’. Given that Andre Agassi won the Australian Open in 2003, the assertion, “Pete Sampras won the Australian Open in 2003” is false. The statement is still the linguistic act of an assertion but is a false assertion.
The last example, “There will be a maximum temperature of 40 degrees Celsius in Melbourne tomorrow.” is a prediction, but still an assertion. This is a ‘pending assertion’, and the only way we can ultimately see if it will be true or false is to wait until tomorrow and verify the maximum temperature in Melbourne. From a temporal perspective, pending assertions lose their ’pending’ status and become true or false once they are in the past. Pending assertions are being made all the time by organisations such as the weather bureau and, indeed, the main thrust of gambling relies on guessing the ultimate trueness of pending assertions such as which horse will win a specific race. The value of pending assertions lies in our belief that they will ultimately prove to be true. Such beliefs will create a context for certain actions such as making plans to go to the beach if I think it is going to be 40 degrees Celsius tomorrow.
Assertions are possible because human beings share the same biological structure and live in communities that share common distinctions.
Our common biological structure allows us to observe the world in a similar way and relate to similar experiences. However, this is not always the case as everyone does not have the same capacity with all human senses. Take, for example, the assertion, “The siren on the fire engine makes the same noise as the one on the ambulance.” What meaning would this have for a person who is profoundly deaf and unable to hear sound? They will certainly not have the same frame of reference to interpret that sentence as someone who is not hearing impaired. Our biology creates the basis for what we can observe the world and the way in which we can distinguish it.
Human beings observe through their distinctions. We make our assertions through commonly held distinctions and, as such, any assertion only makes sense in the context of a common way of observing. “I met my brother at the beach last Tuesday” only makes sense to someone who knows what a ‘brother’ is, what a ‘beach’ is and what ‘last Tuesday’ is. Without those distinctions my speaking would be unintelligible.
As human beings share similar observations, it becomes very easy to believe we know how things really are independent of ourselves. However, it must be stressed that in this work this is not so. I cannot know how things are, I can only know how I observe them, and through conversation, I can get a sense of what other people observe and that we might share similar observations.
Whether an assertion is ultimately deemed true or false does not relate to the reality of the observations which are made, it depends on the agreement of the community of observers and the distinctions they hold. What can be a fact for one community may not be so for another. For example, there is still society for people who would say “The Earth is flat”, even though for most people this assertion would be false. For Christians, “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is a true assertion, but not so for atheists. The trueness of assertions is not limited to the bigger aspects of life, and regularly shows up in our day to day life. We frequently make assertions about what people have said or what they have done. We are constantly seeking a verification of the various assertions we hear from others in our daily life.
It is also important to distinguish between what is true and the ‘Truth’. In this interpretation, the Truth is defined as speaking as though one knows absolute reality. Yet, we cannot know how things really are, only how we observe them. Yet many people claim to know the Truth, whether it is as simple as what happened yesterday at a meeting or something as profound as the existence of God. When someone claims access to the Truth, they do far more than claim access to ultimate knowledge. They claim a privileged position over others who do not know the Truth. The only position for others to take in relation to the Truth is either to agree or be wrong. There is no scope for compromise. This is not a trivial matter as wars have been, and continue to be, fought over disagreements about the Truth. It is important to restate that human beings do not know how things really are, only how we observe them. We can never know the Truth only what is true for us as an individual and believe to be true for others.
Ontological coaching pioneer, Rafael Echeverria has said, “Speaking is never an innocent act.” The implication is we can be held responsible by others for our every utterance. In the case of an assertion, this responsibility entails providing evidence to support an assertion should it be called into question. Failure to do so will impact our reputation as long as others are willing to challenge our authority to claim an assertion as true
