Outro: The Ultimate Epistemic Question

Standards of Truth was designed to introduce epistemology—the study of ways to find truth—through the lens of a significant religious question about prophets. However, the principles discussed here have much broader applications.

Of all the possible takeaways in Standards of Truth, I suggest the most important is to ask the “ultimate epistemic question” when faced with consequential truth claims:

“What would be the best way to tell if that were true?”

This question has guided our exploration of prophets. In response to the consequential claim that certain individuals are true prophets, we posed a relevant version of the ultimate epistemic question: "What would be the most reliable standards for identifying true prophets?" We then explored various epistemic standards and applied an example set.

While powerful, the ultimate epistemic question is rarely easy to answer. Developing reliable standards requires significant mental effort, as anyone who has struggled to define rigorous criteria for identifying true prophets can attest. Moreover, grappling with epistemic questions often leads to cognitive dissonance, especially when we observe inconsistencies between well-reasoned standards and our deeply held beliefs. These challenges may explain why many avoid epistemic inquiry altogether.

Why Ask the Ultimate Epistemic Question?

Why should we engage with the ultimate epistemic question despite its difficulties? One compelling reason lies in the foundational role of epistemic methods in forming the beliefs we hold dear (see diagram).

Epistemic methods—such as trust in authority, intuition, tradition, emotional reasoning, consensus, testimony, lived experience, or experimentation—are the tools we use to seek truth and form beliefs. Every belief we hold today originated from one or more epistemic methods, even if we weren’t consciously aware of them at the time. For instance, a child might first learn that fire is dangerous by trusting a parent’s warning (trust in authority). Later, the child may burn their hand and adopt a different epistemic method (lived experience) as the primary foundation for their belief.

Epistemic foundations can shift over time, and some beliefs rely on multiple methods simultaneously. However, not all epistemic methods are equally reliable. The most dependable methods, such as systematic experimentation, form a sturdy foundation on which accurate beliefs can securely rest. In contrast, weaker methods, like emotional reasoning, provide a fragile base that may crumble under scrutiny. 

By asking the ultimate epistemic question—"What would be the best way to tell if that were true?"—we can evaluate the quality of the foundations supporting our beliefs. Strengthening these foundations ensures our cherished beliefs are more likely to be accurate and resilient. 

Insights from CoJCoLdS Leaders

CoJCoLdS leaders have emphasized the importance of examining our epistemic foundations. President George A. Smith taught:

“If a faith will not bear to be investigated, if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.”

Similarly, President J. Reuben Clark stated:

“Truth has no fear of the light. If an individual or an organization seeks to silence doubt or questioning… it is filled with fear and its house is built on sand. And if we have the truth, no harm can come from investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

These teachings underscore the value of honest epistemic inquiry, suggesting that resistance to such investigation may indicate a weak foundation.

(For more teachings on the topic, see the appendix section: "CoJCoLdS Statements on Critical Thinking.")

Preventing Gullibility with the Ultimate Epistemic Question

Another compelling reason to ask the ultimate epistemic question—"What would be the best way to tell if that were true?"—is to protect ourselves from gullibility and resultant poor decision-making. The world constantly assails us with truth claims—scientific, financial, medical, religious, and conspiratorial in subject matter. Without reliable methods for evaluating these claims, we can easily fall prey to falsehoods. 

Reliable Epistemic Methods

Asking the ultimate epistemic question helps us develop reliable epistemic methods, which, as illustrated in the following diagram, can function as filters or sieves. These epistemic filters allow us to accurately distinguish true claims from false ones, ensuring that our beliefs rest on solid ground. 

Unreliable Epistemic Methods

When we use reliable epistemic methods, we’re more likely to accept true claims and reject false ones. In contrast, unreliable epistemic methods function like a poorly designed or clogged sieve (see next diagram). These faulty methods allow both rocks (true claims) and sand (false claims) to pass through, while also retaining both indiscriminately. This results in a confused mix of true and false beliefs, leaving one vulnerable to both believing falsehoods and dismissing truths. 

The Harm of Believing False Claims

Beliefs shape our decisions, and false beliefs can lead to harmful outcomes. Earlier we discussed the Seekers, who sacrificed time, money, and relationships due to their belief in Dorothy Martin’s prophetic abilities—even after a significant failed prediction. This belief was maintained by the confirmation algorithm, an unreliable epistemic method that prevented them from sufficiently questioning her claims. 

Had the Seekers engaged with the ultimate epistemic question ("What would be the best way to tell if that were true?"), they might have scrutinized the validity of their epistemic foundation and recognized its flaws. This critical examination could have inspired them to change course, sparing them significant personal loss.

Similarly, when we encounter extraordinary claims—whether a suspicious financial offer, a miracle cure, or a conspiracy theory—applying the ultimate epistemic question helps us separate fact from fiction. By doing so, we can make decisions grounded in reality, avoiding the pitfalls of gullibility and the far-reaching consequences of misguided choices.

Positively Influencing Others with the Ultimate Epistemic Question

Influencing Beliefs as a Missionary

During my time as a missionary for the CoJCoLdS, I experienced firsthand the complexities of influencing deeply held beliefs. Even in moments when spiritual feelings were strong, and when I believed I had made a compelling case for the Church, many individuals ultimately chose to maintain their beliefs, often offering reasons that seemed, at the time, to defy logic.

This taught me an important truth: many beliefs are deeply tied to a person’s identity, emotions, and sense of self. Adjusting one’s confidence in such beliefs can feel like losing a part of oneself. In contrast, epistemology—the study of the ways we arrive at beliefs—seems to be far less contentious. Unlike debates over specific beliefs, conversations about epistemic methods rarely seem to provoke defensiveness.

By focusing on epistemic methods rather than beliefs themselves, we may encounter less resistance, opening the door to more productive and respectful conversations (see diagram).

How Minds Change

In his book on the science of persuasion, How Minds Change, David McRaney asserts that the most influential discussions occur not as debates, which “have winners and losers, and no one wants to be a loser,” but when both sides feel safe to “focus on their processing, on how and why they see what they see, not what.” By shifting a conversation’s focus from facts/beliefs to the best methods of acquiring them, epistemically focused people “avoid the dead-end goal of winning an argument” in exchange for the more satisfying and productive goal of discovering the truth together. 

Flat Earth

A practical way to redirect a conversation toward epistemic methods is to pose some version of the ultimate epistemic question ("What would be the best way to tell if that were true?"). For example, if someone claimed the Earth was flat, rather than trying to argue against their belief, you could ask, “What would be the most reliable ways of finding out if the Earth was flat or round?” Then, listen actively as they propose methods. Together, you can assess the rigor of these methods (e.g., checking for falsifiability, reliability, or consistency) and work toward mutual agreement.

This approach does more than increase the likelihood of influencing the other person—it demonstrates intellectual integrity and open-mindedness as you prioritize rigorous epistemic methods over a vainly won debate.

(For more on this topic, refer to the appendix link titled "How Minds Change.")

Facilitating Critical Thinking with the Ultimate Epistemic Question

Ghosts

The ultimate epistemic question ("What would be the best way to tell if that were true?") can also spark critical thinking in young minds.

When my 6-year-old son declared our house haunted after some papers mysteriously fell off a table, I resisted the urge to correct him. Instead, I asked, “What would be the best way to tell if there were a ghost in a house?” He paused, then devised a surprisingly rigorous epistemic process, paraphrased as follows:

1. Observe a floating, transparent figure.

2. Attempt to pass through the figure to ensure it isn't a mundane object like a hanging sheet.

3. Wave a hand above and below the figure to check for artificial suspension.

4. Conduct a thorough search of the house to rule out wires, strings, magnets, actors, or image-projecting devices.

Concluding confidently that all ghosts would pass these tests (based on his extensive experience of having “seen 100s of them”), my son reassured me that there was no need to worry that the house was haunted. While his epistemic method was not flawless (e.g., what about invisible ghosts?), I found it more robust than attributing all unexplained events to ghosts.

CoJCoLdS University Course

The ultimate epistemic question also proved impactful during a university course I attended on CoJCoLdS history. At the beginning of the semester, the professor posed a central question, “What would be the best way to tell whether a prophetic teaching represented official Church doctrine?” 

Initially seeming inconsequential, the question gained significance as the professor exposed us to numerous instances of prophets teaching conflicting ideas. This new information created significant cognitive dissonance among students who had not confronted these discrepancies. 

To address these concerns and the course’s central question, the professor and his colleagues developed a system categorizing CoJCoLdS doctrines based on importance and supporting evidence (see the appendix link titled  “Evaluating Doctrine").  This framework has empowered not only students but members worldwide to more thoughtfully reflect on the teachings of their leaders, producing a deeper and more nuanced understanding of CoJCoLdS prophets.

Closing Thoughts

As we navigate a world filled with consequential and extraordinary truth claims, let us embrace the ultimate epistemic question—“What would be the best way to tell if that were true?”—as a guiding principle. By consistently applying this question, we can confront our biases, refine our epistemic methods, strive for more justified beliefs, and become a voice of reason in the face of extraordinary or important truth claims. 

Thank you for engaging with these ideas. Standards of Truth is a work in progress, so please share your perspective on how to improve it—I am eager to learn from others. I hope this work has offered even a small measure of insight or encouragement in your journey toward truth. 

For additional readings on epistemology, prophets, and related topics, please refer to the appendix.