Skip navigation

Back when he was young, Karl Popper said the difference between scientific theories and unscientific ones was that the first were falsifiable. That it was possible to prove them wrong. In other words, that a scientific theory should be a body of ideas with clear and specific implications, so that if we came to experience anything contrary to those implications we consider this theory false.

And then someone correctly pointed out to him that this implies that there is no truth, and he panicked, and to avoid this obvious argument he came up with the theory of spiral truth.

The thing is, implications we actually experience do not prove the theory true, no matter how many times they happen. They just do not disprove it. One single counterexample is enough to disprove, so that a theory that has withstood lots of disproving attempts is very sound. This is akin to the imbalance between induction and deduction: the correctness of deduction depends only on it’s logic, but the correctness of induction depends on the validity of the samples collected.

What you will rapidly see, if you follow the argument honestly, is that scientists do not find truth, ever. They just recognize when they find untruth.

Which i find a comfortable system, but not Popper. No! He couldn’t stand for his own ideas. He couldn’t bear the consequences of his system. He couldn’t face it. He wasn’t willing to put his money where his mouth was.

Incidentally, this is the dilemma between Niels Bohr’s instrumentalism and Albert Einstein’s realism. Popper wanted to be a supporter of realism, even if his criteria of falsifiability was the apex of all the instrumentalist philosophy that the world had known till then. He wanted. So he had a fit and wrote books and books about such nonsense as spiral truth and everything being problem solving and so on and so forth.

Basically, he states that, well, OK, we never actually find truth, but that truth nevertheless exists, and that we are always coming closer to it, just like a true spiral is always coming closer and closer to a centre, but never actually touches it.

Now i ask you to suspend disbelief for a minute and disregard the fact that spiral truth is not falsifiable AT ALL (and therefore according to Popper’s own criteria is poor and unscientific) so that i can argue a bit about it. After all, i still have to talk about something in this blog…

[If you are so much a fan of Popper as to not see how obvious the last paragraph is, consider that, if we never find truth, we can not measure our current distance to it, and therefore we can’t compare two different points in the history of science as regards their proximity to truth, and therefore we can’t disprove the theory. If you find any means whatsoever to measure the “distance to truth” without actually finding truth, it also means that you can predict where science was going by analysing it’s past “trajectory”, and most progresses in science did go in directions no one expected.]

The spiral truth idea basically tries to model the progression from Aristotelian physics to Galilean mechanics to Newtonian to Einsteinian. It proposes that, well, Aristotle was not so bad, but Galileo was much better, almost perfect, but then Newton got a bit closer and Einstein even closer. What’s more, each of these theories is a subset of the ones that supersede it.

Obviously, most other scientific fields do not have any form of sequence like this, to begin with. Psychology has a multitude of concurrent theories and sub-fields. Social sciences actually subdivide themselves into Sociology and Anthropology. And so on, and so forth. None of them seem to be superseding the others, or proceeding into a path leading closer and closer to … whatever. What they seem to do is enhance the breadth of our comprehension, which has nothing to do with truth whatsoever.

Consider for example Maxwell’s equations. They are like a milestone in electromagnetism theory. They define more or less all that we know about electricity. You can say that they describe all that matters about, for example, electronic circuitry. And so, computers. And so, the internet. Therefore, computer science should be said to bring us a little closer to truth. It should be, like, a wrong detail in a bigger canvas that we are fixing. This big canvas is our “model” of reality, our description of “truth”.

But is it adequate to say that we are just “coming closer” to something, to some essence of all? A quintessential knowledge of life the universe and everything else?

I feel this depiction of coming closer and closer extremely unfair. I feel it implies that things are becoming easier and easier to understand. Or that it SHOULD mean that things are easier to understand, when all around me i just see the opposite happening. Not only in a collective sense, that our society is more complex, but also on a personal level.

As my understanding of the world is enhanced through study and experience and life, i feel that i am getting farther and farther into the unknown. That my possibilities are closer and closer to the infinite. That the questions of life become more undecidable.

If knowledge was just an approach to truth, it should become less complex over time. It should have to be as complex as the world and stop there (i’m taking that as an unclear consequence of Ockam’s). But understanding itself makes the world more complex. Understanding the human brain is harder than understanding the stars above, despite them being unbelievably numerous.

And what to say, for example, that a few equations in a brief paper like the special relativity needed years and years to be understood enough to guess even their main implications? If the objective was just “coming closer to truth”, what would be the interest in “solving the equations for the case of supernovas”? We should be happier with just the equations.

But our quest is not towards truth. It is just about learning new tricks. And tricks are not an horizon or an untouchable centre or anything.

Finally, truth as a tool (otherwise know as instrumentality) is a betterment of our own comprehension, the last (but not final) stage in a sequence that includes truth as God » truth as description » truth as sincerity » truth as not-opinion » truth as reliability and so on, and so forth. Which, on the other hand, would seem to be alike the progression of physical theories, and therefore to the spiral truth. But anyway, that is OK. Desacralization of truth is OK. It will happen in due time. Even the folks that have an unjustified fear of it will come to understand. It is just plainly sound.

14 Comments

  1. Great post. I’ve never heard about spiral truth before, but unlike you, I really like the concept. As you point out though, it only works with physics. I guess pure math is on the other side of the spectrum here. In pure math, one can build and build, without anything out there to approximate or somehow approach. The same goes for computer science, I think. Social sciences is something in between the extremes. That’s how I look at this, at any rate.

    Your comments on truth and how the brain makes things difficult for us: You’d have to explain in what sense you mean truth for me to agree with this. Personally, I prefer to view truth as an absolute, final word on all of reality. And that would of course include both stars and brains, even qualia and the limits of thought. I like this “sacred” notion of truth, because it makes me humbler and more open to alternatives.

  2. Oh, i did like the concept. I read it, like, 10 years ago and just now i’ve seen how flawed it is. It is not like i despise Popper or anything, it is just that… well… he couldn’t really take his own ideas seriously. He didn’t accept the consequences of his own arguments. For example that “falsifiabilism” is another form of instrumentalism.

    What can i say? It is.

    Now, about truth. Man, i’ve just came through the most unpleasant discussion about this. But anyways…

    “I prefer to view truth as an absolute, final word on all of reality”. Do you know what that is? It is God. Absolute, final word on reality is the definition of God. And i don’t want to disrespect your religion.

    I am not kidding. I really think this is a religious matter. If you want for example to find some distinction about the God which is implied by “Inteligent Design” folks and your “spiral epistemological God” (like: one is sentient and the other isn’t, one imposes {what?} on humanity and the other doesn’t, one is anthropomorphising and the other isn’t, so on, so forth), by any means, be my guest. But this is theology and i won’t discuss it.

    Not only that, if you go too close to that Dawkins guy, you’ll be not only religious, but the worst kind of it, the fundamentalist kind which wants to cut the heads of the unfaithful.

    Now, to be clear, i think that forcing this argument, that is, trying to force the idea that “truth as reality” is a form of religious belief, which sounds a bit preposterous, is no more than taking your argument seriously. I sincerely do not say this in order to ridicule your opinion on truth. I do think this is only a faithful following of the consequences of your thesis, which i would not bother to try if i didn’t see anything of value in it.

    But, let me also take your idea (“truth as an absolute, final word on all of reality”) in a lighter way. This means that truth is the one criterion of validity of all ideas. This is good enough. It can orient you most of the time — like aristotelican physics could. When we are dealing with, for example, scientific revolutions, or religion, or the limits between science-as-job and science-as-world-view, on the other hand, this criteria is ambiguous and ineffective.

    Consider further that we do not, nor anyone else does, deal with those things commonly. Those kinds of things are, by definition, life-shaking experiences. They can affect a whole civilization from time to time, but not usually. And i even would take with a grain of salt the SOTA guys who are shouting “Singularity” these days — that is, i do not even take for certain that such a revolution is on the horizon.

    In other words, if you prefer to believe truth as a last-resort criterion for validity of ideas, be my guest. And i am not gonna predict bad things going your way if you do so.

    What i am pretty sure of, though, is that the “there is no truth” idea is more abstract. In other words, it goes more in the direction of your “virtuality” idea. It is more virtual, it gives more freedom to the understanding of the world.

    Notice that i am not denying an exterior world, or trying to challenge the authority of science or of the common sense, or anything like that. I am pretty adamant that believing “there is no truth” does not have any adverse or uncanny consequence. I continue to listen to my records and eating at the burger place near my home. My life goes on.

    And i still have knowledge and certainty. I am only judging the possibility of being certain about ideas without a clear and fixed scale. That doesn’t mean that my knowledge is useless, it just means that i deal with my knowledge in another way. (I would like to say “a more flexible way”, but i fear this is a bit judgemental).

    This means that, in an flexibility-of-ideas scale, your idea comes before mine. Believing in truth (however you choose to qualify it) comes before questioning if it really does exist or mean anything in the end. It is “more natural”. It is also “more acceptable”.

    Also, exactly like Galileo’s physics, it explains LESS the world around ourselves than the previous theory. But it has more space to grow.

  3. And, about “You’d have to explain in what sense you mean truth for me to agree with this”, it is actually the other way around. My position does work with precise, unambiguous definitions of truth. Your position does not. For example: “absolute, final word on all of reality”. What exactly does reality mean in this sentence? And word? How can i evaluate if a given idea is adequately conforming to this standard? What do i do when two different people think different incompatible ideas to be truth? You’ll notice that my position, while not having any answers to those questions, also does not grant relevance to them: it doesn’t matter what “is true”, what matters is what are we gonna do about it. It proposes one final solution to all those dilemmas: NEGOTIATE. Two people disagree on “truth”? OK, let’s talk about it and see if we can find common ground. There’s a statement i am not sure about? OK, let’s try to find some means to measure it. And so on, and so forth.

  4. I don’t see how spiral truth contradicts instrumentalism. To me, spiral truth is a metaphysical framework which makes it easier to organize our instrumentalist activity of science and philosophy.

    On the truth issue: Having read your dialogue on truth as well as your answer here, I suspect our disagreement is a superficial one. In said dialogue, you discern between two kinds of truth:

    1. Empirical truth, i.e. claims in perfect correspondence with the world (this does not exist).
    2. Logical truth, which is not empirical.

    In my last comment, I said “Personally, I prefer to view truth as an absolute, final word on all of reality.” What I was referring to was exactly the concept of empirical truth you yourself have employed. However, you also like to use another concept of truth, where truth is defined as “claims in accordance with experience“. That is closer to the common-sensical use of the term, and useful as such, but philosophically it is only a distraction.

    Now, about truth as an absolute, final word on all of reality: You seem to misunderstand me on this. I’m fully aware that such a truth, if it were actualized, would be God. But I’m also aware of that such a truth is in reality not actualized (this is where I think you misunderstand me). And that is exactly the point of my God: My God is the God of Agnosticism. I.e. something opposite of other gods (whose function is first and foremost to instill certainty, or at least security of mind). My God, or “metaphysical framework” as I prefer to call it, is on the other hand simply something that prevents me having excessive belief in my own beliefs!

    Such a notion of a transcendent truth is not very useful when it comes to practical questions though. So we’ll have to use other words, words to point to levels of reasonability based on evidence. Using “truth” here will only cause misunderstandings of the kind that people might confuse their beliefs with abolute truth.

    To conclude, I hope I made the case somewhat clear that I think we agree on everything but the question of whether or not to allow a non-strict use of the word “truth”.

  5. >> I don’t see how spiral truth contradicts instrumentalism.

    First of all, spiral-truth was created AS A REACTION AGAINST INSTRUMENTALISM.

    And the reasoning is something like: instrumentalism says truth does not matter, what matters is just the effects we can achieve with our theories, the use we can put them to. Therefore, it is useful to say “an atom is described by the probabilities of it being in a given state at a given time” even if an atom never actually has a “probabilistic state”. The theory works, and the “reality” of the world has nothing to do with that. Spiral-truth says that even if truth doesn’t exist and can never be described or measured or used it still has an normative value.

    So, they are opposed by definition.

  6. >> On the truth issue:

    If it is never actualized, it does not exist. I mean, that’s what the word “actualize” means, to bring into existence. Or at least this is what i believe it means, with my non-native English.

    Again, must i really insist that you are the one using words in unclear ways? Because, if something is “used as a framework”, it is exerting an influence. And one very important characteristic of things that “don’t get actualized” is to not exert influence.

    Therefore, i presume you actually using the word truth in place of something in line with “presumption of truth” or “evaluating framework” or even something farther. Those things DO get actualized.

    Either way, i believe your meanings are going out of the — assuredly ambiguous and vast — field of meanings the word “truth” can be safely used to bear. And the reason i believe this is:

    Truth in both it’s naive meanings (such as sincerity, certainty) and it’s formal meanings (such as reality, externality) imply the idea of impersonality. That means truth can be assumed to be neutral or unbiased. Contrary to that, both an “presumption” and an “evaluation” imply an agent. Truth as a framework imply that there is ONE PREFERENTIAL DIRECTION of truth — that truth HAS TO point in one direction and not the other. But this directionality contradicts the neutrality of truth.

    In other words, a given person can always evaluate some given idea to truth or false, but this evaluation is personal, and not part of “truth” itself. Whenever you assume “Truth” to be evaluatable in ONLY ONE way, you are scrapping the neutrality in favor of some interest — and the more this interest is hard to pinpoint the more dangerous it is, for it gets harder to deal with.

    It is very much irrelevant to determine if what’s pushing in one direction is Bog, God, the God-of-Agnosticism, Empirical Data, Scientific Community, Technology, Consensus Reality, or whatever you please. Truth-as-framework implies an dangerous directionality. It assumes an univocity of truth which i believe reality does not have, or at least you can never prove a priori it to have. Therefore, if anything, truth-as-framework sets us into an unreliable methodology.

    Further, the idea of truth, in whatever guise you prefer to give to it, might seem to put a check to personal interpretation, but this is not so. What it DOES is impede opinion-changing. That is, it forces interpretations to be fixed. Truth cannot be untrue.

    It forces you to have ONE opinion, but it does not force your opinion to be impersonal.

    Further, if it forces ONE opinion, it forces certainty. It might make demands on where does this certainty come from, but it forces certainty none the less. Exactly because it assumes interpretations to be always reducible. It assumes, for example, that facts are independent of measuring. It assumes that externality-to-the-subject implies univalence of interpretation. Bluntly: it assumes too much.

    If you are “prevented to believe too much on your beliefs”, what is actually happening is you are exempting yourself of responsibility for your beliefs. You believe such and such, not because of your own choice in doing so, but because something else FORCES you to. In other words, it is not your fault.

    Taken in the wrong light, the interpretation of truth seems to promote impartiality and neutrality, but it does not. It promotes only certainty. It makes you MORE set to take your opinions as final words — it might as well impose some prudence prior to belief, but once belief sets it becomes unquestionable belief. Truth is not to be questioned. No matter that “scientific ideology” says that every theory is just an hypothesis, always questionable, the belief in truth prevents questioning of established fact. Fact is taken as “final”. Exactly like you said: final word on reality.

    And the problem is exactly that your belief is not under your responsibility.

    Finally, i must add that i do not believe the difference between our beliefs (poor phrasing, eh?) to be superficial. Au contraire. I think on the surface we agree. I agree that GPS works and that we can very safely say that Einstein’s Relativity to be “True”. I agree, so to say, that i have sand in my hands. I agree that ideas need to be checked, and that this checking has to avoid biases and idiosyncrasies as much as possible. But all of those things are “on the surface”.

    Deep down, i see a disagreement. I see a basic, and basal, conflict into our attitude towards the world. I believe my view assumes the universe to be basically infinite — even if limits are to be found, analysed and used — and your assumes the world to be basically finite — even if every proposed limit is proven artificial.

    I know, i know, i know that A LOT of my argument can be seen as “stretching the meanings” of things. I know i thread too closely to lit-crit. And i definitely could express myself into “more defendable” words, into constructs full of shielding and safeguards. But i also think this attitude is the opposite of what is healty, and one example of the negative side-effects of the belief in truth (whether actualised of not;-).

    Finally, i hope hope hope that i didn’t sound too critical or patronizing, and i probably did and apologize in advance, but I FIND THOSE SUBTLE DISTINCTIONS extremely relevant and important. I do think the “basal differences” do have huge effects into our worldviews. And i do really believe that assuming personal responsibility for our own beliefs (and implementing ACTIVE policies to deal with our biases and excessive faith and tendentiousness) is the only reliable way to promote understanding beyond mere non-agrresion. I think it is the only thing that allows us to seek understanding instead of being forced into it at crisis points.

    What do YOU think?

  7. I still don’t see how instrumentalism and spiral truth is opposed. They seem to me to agree essentially, even though they disagree on the superficial issue of how to present their conclusion.

    To your second reply: By truth not being actualized, I did mean that it doesn’t exist now and hasn’t existed ever, but I don’t think we can be certain that it won’t ever come into existence in the future. It would be an act of faith to say that science will or will not bring truth into existence. And I’m not one to rest my head on faith, so I’m agnostic about this.

    You have an irrational aversion to the concept of truth. The concept has admittedly had its totalitarian sides, historically, but this is not the only face of the concept. Truth the concept, or rational thought in general, has led humanity to radical scepticism, and to copernican revolutions in both physics and metaphysics! Rationality would ideally like the world to be as simple as possible, but, as Einstein said it, not simpler than possible. In other words, when the immense complexity of reality finally dawned on rationality, this was (and is) a transformative and humbling experience for the rational thinker. Here, there is room for spirituality. In extension of rationality, not in negation of it.

    The other issue you raise against rationality, which is that it impedes exchange of opinion, is easily refuted by saying that the rational agents you are thinking about are immature ones. Ones that have a banal view of the rational endeavor. That, perhaps, haven’t come to terms with the bottomless complexity of reality — the impossibility of completing the grand rational project.

    You are right about your claims about the superficiality of rationality. But this critique can only be provided by rationality itself. Or what do you suppose it is you’re doing when you give cogent and logically valid arguments against rationality?

    In other words, you should fight against the immaturity of rationality (or ‘popular rationality’, if you prefer), rather than against rationality as such.

    I hope this is not inaccurate criticism. I had some difficulties understanding your position, so I might have missed something when I tried to boil it down to what I thought was the essence of your claims.

  8. Gorm, your whole point rests on the equality of “Truth” and “Rationality”. I do not agree that both things are equal. So i can’t answer.

    Also, you did not argue this point, you just assumed it. I do not know what you mean.

    Finally, inaccurate criticism doesn’t bother me. That i wasn’t able to make myself understood, on the other hand, is worrisome. Maybe you could be so kind as to tell me exactly what you didn’t understand?

  9. The concept of truth is just that, a concept. Rationality, which has been guided by the promise of arriving at truth, has, with Kant, come to the conclusion that such an arrival is impossible, because of our epistemological limitation. Thus, truth is a mere figment of our imagination.

    This means that we can no longer allow ourselves to be seduced by the promise of arrival. But such a seduction is not what I’m proposing. On the contrary, I’m proposing acute awareness of the virtuality of the concept of truth. In other words, the idea of truth is a product of our minds, and we must continually remind ourselves of this fact.

    However, if we are conscious of what the concept of truth is and how we should deal with it, then I don’t see any reason not to utilise it. It’s a great metaphor. Why use complicated language when easy language that carries the same weight is available?

    You need to have some ironical distance to this word. I mean, we both agree that there is no such thing as empirical truth. Ergo, all empirical models must be fictional in a sense, or as I prefer to say: virtual.

    Now, if you agree that all models of reality are virtual, then you should wish to ban the use of the words “evolution” and “gravity” just as much as you should ban “truth”. Because these are also concepts that may mislead people to think we have knowledge we strictly speaking don’t.

    Banning these words would be a silly and time-consuming game which would be about trying to achieve more precision than needed, more than what is practical, perhaps even more than is possible.

  10. Geez. Gorm, sorry, but i don’t see consistency in your arguments.

    I do not mean to ban truth-as-word. I never said that. “There is no Truth” does not imply that.

    >> Why use complicated language when easy language that carries the same weight is available?

    This is exactly my point! Why say “Truth as an empirical absolute certainty remains for now unproven-possible and there are good reasons to believe that it is not a safe gamble to orient our intellectual endeavours” when you can say simply “there is no truth”?

    The thing is, maybe it is not such a great metaphor after all. And the reason for that is that you can never be too sure what does the other person understand by truth. In fact, this idea is at the bottom of many arguments for things that are not very good, and the argumentation is convincing exactly because this word has an disproportionate rhetorical power.

    I remain very much convinced of this point. To stick to the “There is no Truth” banner is good for our futures.

  11. As for Popper, spiral truth is his cosmological constant. It was there ad-hoc for political reasons.

    Now this is fact: an unreachable (but real) truth is unfalsifiable. If this hypothesis was incorrect, even then i would have no way to prove so with an experiment.

    Finally, i agree that, on an casual basis, just for talk, like having tea with biscuits with your old great-uncle, it is plenty OK to say “Truth” and “True” and such things. That is not at all the point of disagreement. The point is that this concept finds it’s way to the cores of many a philosophical current. And there it causes plenty of harm.

  12. “There is no truth” is confusing, as there clearly are logical truths. “There is no empirical truths” is better, but begs a question of clarification: What is the reach of our ‘logical fiction’ in the endeavor to model reality, given that there “is no empirical truth”?

    I believe that this endeavor, this ‘theoretical project’, is fruitful, if not something we can complete. Science doesn’t seem able to make a final arrival on the shores of truth, but sure has traveled a far way from home! And what is the direction? What is the telos of science, the star they follow? The ideal of “truth”, of course.

    “All the concepts of physics have no other aim than to transform the ‘rhapsody of perceptions,’ by which the world of sense is actually presented to us, into a system, a coherent epitome of laws.” (Cassirer, Language and Myth, p. 27)

    Truth is a great image of this goal, and ideally, we should be able to make use of it (the concept truth). But as you say, there is a lot of confusion out there about what truth is or isn’t. I acknowledge this as a serious problem, perhaps the biggest problem there is, or the biggest source of problems. It is imperative we make our insights into this subject matter as easily accessible as possible, so that young people and people that don’t really care about philosophy can be introduced to them effortlessly. Nothing would be better for the health of the scientific community, I think.

    Here, I think the metaphor of virtual reality is the key. If we explain transcendental idealism in terms of this metaphor, it will become understandable to a wider audience.

    About Popper, it seems to me that his falsificationism is ‘strict philosophy’, while spiral truth is metaphysics. No wonder that the one contradicts the other. But I don’t think this is a problem, as I see the use for both strict and speculative philosophy. Perhaps this is not a good argument against, you, but I don’t know what political reasons you are referring to. The other discussion is the more interesting one anyway. Let’s focus on that.

  13. But this ‘theoretical project’ is not a search for truth. You said it yourself!

    This argument, that despite not existing Truth serves as a “goal” for science, is really convincing, and the first time i read it, many years ago, again in Popper, it really backed my noodles.

    I realize it is foolishness today. Why? Because, despite this alleged thirst for Truth that all scientists (according to you) should have, it strikes me that EVERY SIGNIFICANT LEAP IN SCIENCE happened when one scientist showed complete disregard for truth. The Earth clearly IS immobile and the light clearly DOES NOT make curves.

    You, again, might needlessly overcomplicate things by talking about degrees of truth, that they were seeking more truth then the others, and so on and so forth. But the fundamental thing here is that they DID NOT ACCEPT what was consensus in their time. They simply didn’t take the ideas that they heard for indisputable. They assumed things could be the other way.

    The essence of science is doubting, not believing. And you can’t doubt truth.

    (Now enters the predictable and tiresome chit-chat about how truth can be questioned. I’ve been there. Please, not again!)

    Now your other arguments: you might believe in that, man. You really might. If my arguments up till now didn’t convince you, nothing will. Live your life, i wish you the best, i really do. BUT WHAT YOU SAY JUST ISN’T IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY EXPERIENCE. If you really, really prefer, nothing of what you are saying is TRUTH. It simply isn’t. And to make things worse, you cover your basal beliefs in so much unneeded verbiage that there is no single fact i can point to that would force you to concede.

  14. No sane person claims to be in possession of the truth. What has driven science forward is disregard for convention, not for truth. Because truth is no more than an airy ideal. Nothing substantive.

    I’m still quite certain our disagreement is superficial. We agree on the important thing: Truth is out of reach, so we should find a way to get by without the dream of truth tormenting us. Pragmatism, instrumentalism, something like that.

    I’ll retire from the discussion now.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] Realists. The problem is: i do agree with them in a lot of things. That led Gorm to declare that we both believe the same things, and that my insistence that “THERE IS NO TRUTH” was a mere confusion in […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: