So you're saying it is meaningful but not true.
-
-
Replying to @ComplaintStick
Some things people place meaning on are not true, yes. Thunder is not actually an angry god swinging a hammer about. The meaning given to it is false. People can still take pleasure in imagining it and perhaps it could even be useful but it is not true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ComplaintStick
People can place meaning on absolutely anything. This can be interesting and I study narratives because it is interesting. It also matters what is true and distinguishing what people find meaningful regardless of truth from what has been discovered to be true has advanced society
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm not arguing against truth. I'm saying that if tribe members argue about whether a plant makes you sick, and they argue in terms of that myth, they aren't arguing about whether the myth is meaningful but about whether it is true: that the right way to live is not to eat it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
OK? So what? Where is this going? If you mean that sometimes people can find information and data in myths, I agree and have never claimed otherwise. This is not the point of the disagreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm saying it isn't just a question of information that may or may not be verified (scientifically), but of knowledge that may or may not be true (where truth is not just scientific). The opposition between the true and the meaningful cannot be consistently maintained.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
I don't know what that means but I am bored now so I will leave it here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
My initial point was that Dawkins defines truth narrowly as verifiable information, and that it is only by keeping that narrow definition that you can oppose truth and meaningfulness. Truth, though, does not just refer to scientific verifiability. But OK: I'll stop boring you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
Well, yes. You can assert that 'truth does not just refer to scientific verifiability' and other people, like Dawkins and like me, will say that is the whole problem. Calling things which have not been established by evidence 'truth.' That is what we are criticising,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Are you criticizing my position on the basis that what I say isn't true, or that it isn't meaningful? Because as far as I can tell, this isn't itself a scientific discussion. But the criterion of truth is still relevant to how we conduct this discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Now where are you going?! I'm really not digging through that mess. I should have walked away when I said I would. I have been very clear on my meaning and none of what you have just said is relevant to it.
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.