Practice and Truth

There is a Chinese saying: “Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth.” Based on my reasoning, I believe this expression is inaccurate and logically flawed. Returning to the geocentric and heliocentric cases, both of which dominated as “truth” for over a millennium, yet centuries of practice failed to verify their validity. How, then, can we claim practice is the sole criterion for testing truth? Not only is it not the sole criterion, but the idea that practice can test truth is itself inaccurate.

Based on my framework, I propose a more precise expression:

I believe that practice can test a theory’s adaptability in specific scenarios, constrained by factors such as people, regions, or time. Practicing a theory in a specific context only confirms its adaptability value in that context, which may not generalize to other contexts. Widespread practice by many individuals can provide broader adaptability feedback, but still cannot assert absolute truth. In the white swan and black swan example, catching 100 white swans does not prove all swans are white.

If we treat “practice is the sole criterion for testing truth” as a theory, we cannot entirely deny its adaptability. In many scenarios, encouraging practice provides feedback and supports the execution of theory. This theory exemplifies my concept of adaptability: a flawed statement still brought unique value to China’s reform and opening-up. Whether this value is limited to specific periods or contexts is difficult to conclude.