Abstract

This paper investigates the actual use of truth as a criterion in the setting up of and choice between descriptive characterisations. The consideration for truth is often weighed against other considerations. This weighing character is illuminated through examples from everyday life, politics, law, and science. In everyday life the weighing character shows itself inter alia through the categories of ‘white lies’ and ‘great questions’, and in politics, inter alia through the categories of ‘personal character’ versus ‘the party’. In law there are numerous examples of norms that increase the probability of untrue characterisations being taken as a basis for the application of the law. This paper focuses on the categories of ‘exclusion of evidence’, ‘burden of proof’, and ‘adjusting of facts as a means to concretely reasonable and just results’. The paper concludes by showing that burden of proof considerations are also found in an area in which many people assume that the truth criterion is paramount, namely science. The method is thus casuistic. However, the aim is a certain representativity in relation to the problem aspects.