Theories of Truth
The Wikipedia article on truth informs readers that there are competing theories on what ‘constitutes truth’, and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. The article goes on to explain the ‘major theories of truth’, such as correspondence theory, coherence theory, consensus theory and pragmatic theory, and reminds the reader that ‘theories of truth continue to be debated’. This debate is framed as though theories of truth are competing for the title of ‘truth‘, but are they?
When do theories to compete? If two scientific theories compete, then they are expected to contradict one another, but the theories of truth do not. For example, the word ‘post’ can refer many different things--including a piece of wood set upright into the ground as a marker, a starting point at a racetrack, or an electronic message sent to a forum. Do these alternative meanings of the word ‘post’ contradict one another? Of course not, and it would seem very strange to call them ‘theories of post’. This, however, is exactly what has been done in regard to truth.
Suppose that a scientist is interested in searching for theories which correspond to the facts, and by convention he labels such theories ‘true’. One day a philosopher visits the scientist, and asks whether he has had any success. The scientist is careful not to make any guarantees, but answers that he has been successful. At this point the philosopher informs the scientist that his theories could not possibly be true because they have not yet been agreed upon. Now suppose the philosopher convinces the scientist of the consensus theory of truth: should he revise his aim, and search for theories on which there is consensus? The original aim was the discovery of theories corresponding to the facts, and that goal can remain even if the scientist no longer labels such theories ‘true’.
If theories of truth are competing at all, then it is not regarding the essential meaning of ‘truth’, but as proposals for the adoption of a convention. The meaning of the word ‘post’, for example, is not a matter of essences, but of convention and context. A word is useful to the extent that it has a shared interpretation (except when deception is the aim), and although this is uncontroversial with ‘post’, it is often forgotten when the discussion turns to ‘truth’.
With this in mind, the most sensible theory of truth is the correspondence theory. When most people say that something is true, they mean that it corresponds to the facts (or accurately describes reality). Other theories of truth encourage equivocation, and by introducing ambiguity they devalue the word ‘truth’. To say that a sentence is true, and to mean something other than it corresponds to the facts, is usually deceptive, even when that is not the intent.
On Truth
-
Nocturne
- Posts: 8
- Joined: May 24th, 2008, 7:05 pm
Criterions of Truth
There is a common assumption that to discuss truth meaningfully we must have a criterion of truth, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a sentence is true. This is a mistake.
We can, perhaps, trace this assumption back to the logical positivists of the early 20th century, who claimed that sense experience was the proper criterion of both truth and meaning. For the logical positivists, sense experience was the only legitimate source of knowledge; a sentence which could not be verified by sense experience was meaningless. They sought to banish metaphysics from philosophy and science, but did not succeed; their criterion of truth and meaning was, by its own standards, meaningless. However, the legacy of the logical positivists is still pervasive, and the spirit in which their criterion was offered remains. Sense experience may now be rejected as an adequate criterion of truth and meaning, but the assumption that such a criterion is necessary or desirable is still with us, manifesting itself in the notion that truth cannot be meaningfully discussed without one.
However, for a sentence to be true it merely needs to correspond to the facts. This relationship between a sentence and the facts does not depend on anything we do, and can hold even when nobody believes that the sentence is true. An economist does not need a criterion of inflation, that is, a rule of procedure which can prove that there is inflation, before he can meaningfully discuss what it would mean for there to be inflation. Likewise, there is no need for a criterion of truth before we can meaningfully discuss what it means for a theory to be true
We are, in fact, fortunate that a there is no need for a criterion of truth, because there cannot be one. The problem here is analogous to Gödellian sentences in mathematics. For any criterion of truth c, it is possible to construct a sentence which is both true and improvable by c, for example:
S: S is improvable by c.
Suppose that S is true. If S can be proved by c then S is false, c has proved a falsehood, and therefore, c is not a criterion of truth. If S cannot be proved by c then S is true, c has failed to prove a truth, and therefore, c is not a criterion of truth. In either case c is not a criterion of truth. In consequence, no rule or procedure can be a general criterion of truth.
There is a common assumption that to discuss truth meaningfully we must have a criterion of truth, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a sentence is true. This is a mistake.
We can, perhaps, trace this assumption back to the logical positivists of the early 20th century, who claimed that sense experience was the proper criterion of both truth and meaning. For the logical positivists, sense experience was the only legitimate source of knowledge; a sentence which could not be verified by sense experience was meaningless. They sought to banish metaphysics from philosophy and science, but did not succeed; their criterion of truth and meaning was, by its own standards, meaningless. However, the legacy of the logical positivists is still pervasive, and the spirit in which their criterion was offered remains. Sense experience may now be rejected as an adequate criterion of truth and meaning, but the assumption that such a criterion is necessary or desirable is still with us, manifesting itself in the notion that truth cannot be meaningfully discussed without one.
However, for a sentence to be true it merely needs to correspond to the facts. This relationship between a sentence and the facts does not depend on anything we do, and can hold even when nobody believes that the sentence is true. An economist does not need a criterion of inflation, that is, a rule of procedure which can prove that there is inflation, before he can meaningfully discuss what it would mean for there to be inflation. Likewise, there is no need for a criterion of truth before we can meaningfully discuss what it means for a theory to be true
We are, in fact, fortunate that a there is no need for a criterion of truth, because there cannot be one. The problem here is analogous to Gödellian sentences in mathematics. For any criterion of truth c, it is possible to construct a sentence which is both true and improvable by c, for example:
S: S is improvable by c.
Suppose that S is true. If S can be proved by c then S is false, c has proved a falsehood, and therefore, c is not a criterion of truth. If S cannot be proved by c then S is true, c has failed to prove a truth, and therefore, c is not a criterion of truth. In either case c is not a criterion of truth. In consequence, no rule or procedure can be a general criterion of truth.
Last edited by Nocturne on September 6th, 2008, 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Nocturne
- Posts: 8
- Joined: May 24th, 2008, 7:05 pm
Probable Truths
Many people do not expect to find a criterion of truth, especially for scientific investgation. in response to inconclusive evidence, the search for proven truths has been replaced by a search for probable truths. It is usually taken for granted that this shift poses no problems, but are there any?
Some kind of sentences must be false, for example, any sentence containing variables, such as ‘every x is y’. The variables x and y cannot be true because they are empty, and without interpretation, there is nothing for the facts to correspond to. A sentence which does not correspond to the facts is false, by definition, and therefore, any sentence containing variables must be false.
The problem is that sentences about probabilities contain variables, and therefore, must be false. Let the probability of rolling a ‘five’ with a die be 1/6, and imagine the following sequence of rolls:
four, two, six, four, three, one, five, one, two, two, ... ad infinitum
The sentence ‘the probability of rolling a “five” is 1/6’ is equivalent to ‘the probability of roll x being a “five” is 1/6‘. That is, the probability of obtaining a ‘five’ by randomly selecting a member of this sequence is 1/6. However, the sentence ‘the probability of roll x being a “five” is 1/6’ contains a variable, does not correspond to the facts, and is therefore false.
The variable x must be interpreted before the sentence can be intelligibly said to be true. An interpretation would result in a sentence like ‘the probability of the sixth roll being a “five” is 1/6’, but there was only one sixth role, and for a sequence with one member the probability that it is a ‘five’ is either 1 (true) or 0 (false), not 1/6.
Sentences which contain variables are false; sentences about probabilities contain variables; therefore sentences about probabilities are false. Before such sentences can be true the variables must be interpreted, but upon doing this the resulting sentence will no longer about probability. In other words, there is no truth when there is probability, and there is no probability when there is truth. The phrase ‘probably true’ is nonsense.
Many people do not expect to find a criterion of truth, especially for scientific investgation. in response to inconclusive evidence, the search for proven truths has been replaced by a search for probable truths. It is usually taken for granted that this shift poses no problems, but are there any?
Some kind of sentences must be false, for example, any sentence containing variables, such as ‘every x is y’. The variables x and y cannot be true because they are empty, and without interpretation, there is nothing for the facts to correspond to. A sentence which does not correspond to the facts is false, by definition, and therefore, any sentence containing variables must be false.
The problem is that sentences about probabilities contain variables, and therefore, must be false. Let the probability of rolling a ‘five’ with a die be 1/6, and imagine the following sequence of rolls:
four, two, six, four, three, one, five, one, two, two, ... ad infinitum
The sentence ‘the probability of rolling a “five” is 1/6’ is equivalent to ‘the probability of roll x being a “five” is 1/6‘. That is, the probability of obtaining a ‘five’ by randomly selecting a member of this sequence is 1/6. However, the sentence ‘the probability of roll x being a “five” is 1/6’ contains a variable, does not correspond to the facts, and is therefore false.
The variable x must be interpreted before the sentence can be intelligibly said to be true. An interpretation would result in a sentence like ‘the probability of the sixth roll being a “five” is 1/6’, but there was only one sixth role, and for a sequence with one member the probability that it is a ‘five’ is either 1 (true) or 0 (false), not 1/6.
Sentences which contain variables are false; sentences about probabilities contain variables; therefore sentences about probabilities are false. Before such sentences can be true the variables must be interpreted, but upon doing this the resulting sentence will no longer about probability. In other words, there is no truth when there is probability, and there is no probability when there is truth. The phrase ‘probably true’ is nonsense.
Last edited by Nocturne on September 6th, 2008, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Edward J. Bartek
- Posts: 270
- Joined: July 14th, 2008, 12:50 pm
Re: On Truth
ejb: Facts change, to deny truth; principles don't change, to affirm truth. There are three kinds of truth: Spiritual-rational-sensual, based on belief-reason-observation, on intuition-reason-facts. What is true for all of them is the same principle that applies to all of them. To start, all the principles that describe or apply to the parts, functions, relationships and interrelationships of a dynamic balance scale, that weighs between negative-neutral-positive values, apply to theology-philosophy-science as truth. The core of this truth is the maxim: All things change, yete nothing changes. All is one, yet all is diverse. The scientific Conservation Law is an example, so is E=MC2. Philosophically, the principle says that the blance Scale of ultimate principles, as a whole,never changes, but its parts always change. The whole is universal; the parts are relative. There is truth in both as a dynamic systematic whole. The same principle applies in the Trinity of theology, that sldo applies to the balancing trinity of spiritual-rational-sensual man. If this principle does not apply to all dynamic systems of fact, then it applie to most. It is the core of what could be a pending Grand Unifying Theory for most knowledge. This is all theory. Can you disprove it by logic, fact, or inconsistency?Nocturne wrote:Theories of Truth
the most sensible theory of truth is the correspondence theory. When most people say that something is true, they mean that it corresponds to the facts (or accurately describes reality). Other theories of truth encourage equivocation, and by introducing ambiguity they devalue the word ‘truth’. To say that a sentence is true, and to mean something other than it corresponds to the facts, is usually deceptive, even when that is not the intent.
-
Belinda
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13874
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Thank you Nocturne.
Does the value of the correspondence theory of truth depend on the social context in which corresponding to facts is implicit? I agree with you that most people imply the correspondence theory of truth. However, this applies to people thinking within the frame of social reality, and does not necessarily apply when the same people are being metaphysicians. In the case of people who are concentrating their attention on metaphysics the coherence theory of truth applies, not so?
When people are being effective metaphysicians they transcend one and all social reality.
Does the value of the correspondence theory of truth depend on the social context in which corresponding to facts is implicit? I agree with you that most people imply the correspondence theory of truth. However, this applies to people thinking within the frame of social reality, and does not necessarily apply when the same people are being metaphysicians. In the case of people who are concentrating their attention on metaphysics the coherence theory of truth applies, not so?
When people are being effective metaphysicians they transcend one and all social reality.
-
Samon
- Posts: 25
- Joined: September 6th, 2008, 8:45 pm
Thank you for the very interesting read, Nocturne. I enjoyed the elucidation of the article on truth very much. I do have things to add, though.
Firstly, the very act of forming any statement suggests the belief that truth is, in reality, absolute. Even the very act of stating an opinion suggests the same (That one's opinion is one's opinion). I submit the statement that all truth is absolute.
To elucidate this statement, below are definitions and histories for the words "truth," "is," and "absolute" that I extracted from an etymology dictionary.
Quote:
Truth (Noun)
Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1570. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English for "speak the truth." Noun sense of "something that is true" is first recorded c.1362.
Quote:
Is (Verb)
O.E. is, from Gmc. stem *es- (cf. O.H.G., Ger., Goth. ist, O.N. es, er), from PIE *es-ti- (cf. Skt. asti, Gk. esti, L. est, Lith. esti, O.C.S. jesti), from base *es- "to be." O.E. lost the final -t-. See be.
Quote:
Absolute (Adjective)
c.1374, from Medieval French absolut, from Latin absolutus, pp. of absolvere "to set free, make separate" (see absolve). Most of the current senses were in Latin Sense evolution is from "detached, disengaged," thus "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1612) is from notion of "absolute in position;" hence absolutism, 1753 in theology, 1830 in politics, first used by Gen. Perronet Thompson. Absolutely as an Amer.Eng. colloquial emphatic is first recorded 1892.
In other words... "That which correctly and accurately is, is, and what is is separate." "Separate from what?" one might ask. Separate from external entities completely. That means that truth solely is, by itself presently (at every present), without intrusion or involvement of external persons, places, things, ideas, etc...
Personal perception of truth or Subjective ideas may agree completely with truth, but are not needed for the truth to be truth. Look at simple mathematics for example.
Example: Six people are given a mathematical problem. They are asked to find the sum of the numbers two and two (2+2). Three of the people relate that the answer is 5, while the other three relate that the answer is 4. If the veracity of each answer was assumed to be true due to 'subjective reality,' two correct answers would exist for a mathematical problem that cannot support more than one correct answer. An objective answer I might add. If the answer could only be taken from the majority, agreeing with the idea of subjective reality, a logical conclusion could not be found. Hence, subjective theories have subjective foundations (a slight insult).
I won't even touch knowledge relativity... it's a 'walking contradiction.'
At first glance, objectivity looks hopeful. The following statement was taken from wikipedia:
Quote:
A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
Thus, avoiding the frailty that subjectivity resonates. This doesn't last long. The following statement was taken from the same page on wikipedia:
Quote:
To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
Was somebody confused while trying to write about the four possibilities for defining truth? *laugh* Of the two quotes on objectivity, the later represents objectivity and the former represents absolutism. Objectivity, in some cases, still seems to leave room for error. Who can say with 100% certainty that the applied methods are correct? Therefore, we must conclude that absolutism is the only possibility that can be considered absolutely perfect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On subjectivity: If, by chance, each of us had a separate reality, the realities could possible contradict each other; thus, eliminating the possibility of multiple realities mirroring truth. That leaves the option that the only way that subjectivity could be a correct method to determine truth is if there exists only one reality... mine. *laugh*... not likely.
The question arises though... Can we be aware and completely certain of any truth? Descartes coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am." This is the only example of absolutism that is certain. This idea validates itself. Everything external of this is left up to our limited perception.
I have brain cramps right now.
Firstly, the very act of forming any statement suggests the belief that truth is, in reality, absolute. Even the very act of stating an opinion suggests the same (That one's opinion is one's opinion). I submit the statement that all truth is absolute.
To elucidate this statement, below are definitions and histories for the words "truth," "is," and "absolute" that I extracted from an etymology dictionary.
Quote:
Truth (Noun)
Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1570. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English for "speak the truth." Noun sense of "something that is true" is first recorded c.1362.
Quote:
Is (Verb)
O.E. is, from Gmc. stem *es- (cf. O.H.G., Ger., Goth. ist, O.N. es, er), from PIE *es-ti- (cf. Skt. asti, Gk. esti, L. est, Lith. esti, O.C.S. jesti), from base *es- "to be." O.E. lost the final -t-. See be.
Quote:
Absolute (Adjective)
c.1374, from Medieval French absolut, from Latin absolutus, pp. of absolvere "to set free, make separate" (see absolve). Most of the current senses were in Latin Sense evolution is from "detached, disengaged," thus "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1612) is from notion of "absolute in position;" hence absolutism, 1753 in theology, 1830 in politics, first used by Gen. Perronet Thompson. Absolutely as an Amer.Eng. colloquial emphatic is first recorded 1892.
In other words... "That which correctly and accurately is, is, and what is is separate." "Separate from what?" one might ask. Separate from external entities completely. That means that truth solely is, by itself presently (at every present), without intrusion or involvement of external persons, places, things, ideas, etc...
Personal perception of truth or Subjective ideas may agree completely with truth, but are not needed for the truth to be truth. Look at simple mathematics for example.
Example: Six people are given a mathematical problem. They are asked to find the sum of the numbers two and two (2+2). Three of the people relate that the answer is 5, while the other three relate that the answer is 4. If the veracity of each answer was assumed to be true due to 'subjective reality,' two correct answers would exist for a mathematical problem that cannot support more than one correct answer. An objective answer I might add. If the answer could only be taken from the majority, agreeing with the idea of subjective reality, a logical conclusion could not be found. Hence, subjective theories have subjective foundations (a slight insult).
I won't even touch knowledge relativity... it's a 'walking contradiction.'
At first glance, objectivity looks hopeful. The following statement was taken from wikipedia:
Quote:
A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
Thus, avoiding the frailty that subjectivity resonates. This doesn't last long. The following statement was taken from the same page on wikipedia:
Quote:
To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
Was somebody confused while trying to write about the four possibilities for defining truth? *laugh* Of the two quotes on objectivity, the later represents objectivity and the former represents absolutism. Objectivity, in some cases, still seems to leave room for error. Who can say with 100% certainty that the applied methods are correct? Therefore, we must conclude that absolutism is the only possibility that can be considered absolutely perfect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On subjectivity: If, by chance, each of us had a separate reality, the realities could possible contradict each other; thus, eliminating the possibility of multiple realities mirroring truth. That leaves the option that the only way that subjectivity could be a correct method to determine truth is if there exists only one reality... mine. *laugh*... not likely.
The question arises though... Can we be aware and completely certain of any truth? Descartes coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am." This is the only example of absolutism that is certain. This idea validates itself. Everything external of this is left up to our limited perception.
I have brain cramps right now.
Last edited by Samon on September 9th, 2008, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
nameless
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
This quote from wikipedia displays, quite clearly, the reason why wikipedia is not an accepted source of reference for or by the serious student/researcher.Samon wrote:taken from wikipedia:
A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
(It's the 'fortune cookie' of critical thought!)
-
Samon
- Posts: 25
- Joined: September 6th, 2008, 8:45 pm
I'm beginning to see what you mean.nameless wrote:This quote from wikipedia displays, quite clearly, the reason why wikipedia is not an accepted source of reference for or by the serious student/researcher.Samon wrote:taken from wikipedia:
A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
(It's the 'fortune cookie' of critical thought!)
-
Edward J. Bartek
- Posts: 270
- Joined: July 14th, 2008, 12:50 pm
Truth
EJB: The facts of history verify this. The Medieval Age (1000-1400) was dominantly ruled by spiritual, theological truth. The Renaissance Age (1400-1700) was dominantly ruled by rational philosophical truth. The Modern Age (1700-2000) was dominantly ruled by sensual scientific truth. The human being is a balancing trinity of spirit-mind-body, with a trinity of spiritual-rational-sensual minds, that have a trinity of spiritual-rational-sensual values (Truths), like conscience-reason-observation. All three are accepted as truth, but there is a balancing change between them, so that only one may be dominant at a time. This is determined by the spiritual mind that says "no" to the sensual mind, which says "Yes" to its fulfillment, but the rational mind has a free will that says "Maybe" before decideing for one side or the other, to determine which truth will be dominant. Beware of this and you will see it applied to Adam and Eve and it applies to you and everyone else. It says that truth is an unchanging trinity as a whole and relative in its changing parts.Belinda wrote:How do you know this , Edward?ejb: There are three kinds of truth: Spiritual-rational-sensual, based on belief-reason-observation, on intuition-reason-facts.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024
Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024
Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024
Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024
Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024
Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024
The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023
The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023
Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023
Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023
First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023
Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023
Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023
Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023
2022 Philosophy Books of the Month
Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022
My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022
2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022
The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022
What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022
The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022
Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)
The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022
Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022
In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022
The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022
2021 Philosophy Books of the Month
The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021
Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021
Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021
Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021
Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021
Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021
If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021
The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021
Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021
Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021