Competing hypotheses in physics are not evidence of subjective truth. They mean that one or both of them are wrong. Physicists necessarily accept this or they'd never discover anything but just say 'Everybody is right. Let's go home.'https://twitter.com/BraneRunner/status/1000046108784160768 …
We shouldn't try to get less wrong? About things like biology and history? We should just settle for being consistent whether we're consistently right or wrong?
-
-
Is it possible to be consistently wrong? That looks to me close to a contradiction. Probably the best you could get to being consistently wrong would be, ironically, through absolutist philosophies such as Plato's forms.
-
Absolutely. You can state a premise and then build on its tenets with great internal consistency for years - feminist epistemology - or centuries - theology - if necessary.
-
Those are good examples where people have sought for and found the 'truth'. Once you have the 'truth' anything that is 'inconsistent' with it can be ignored or rationalised away. It is harder to do that when 'consistency' rather than 'truth' is intrinsic to your project.
-
That depends on the epistemology for finding truth and the methods for testing it.
-
Your core confusion is recognisable 'truth'. If truth isn't recognisable you can't know you've attained it. Yet 'recognisable' assumes prior knowledge of what truth is. The best you can have is consistency (of evidence, methods, epistemology + the relationship between them).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
'Consistency' will get you as close to a humanly perceivable reality as you can. You can then decide what you want to do with regards to that reality and, of course, to achieve that you will once more rely upon 'consistency'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
