Years ago, I took a single class on epistemology (the study of truth). I remember thinking it was the most important class I took at uni. The lessons have stuck.
This week's post is about the four theories of truth, and how you may use it to think better:
Conversation
Replying to
What has been most interesting for me, writing this, was the observation that pragmatism is still relatively underused as a method of reasoning.
And also — ironically — while the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in the US, it was Singapore who perfected it.
1
4
(Or rather Singapore who lived longest with it).
Consequently, Singaporean thinkers are the ones who are most familiar with its problems.
I don't spend much time in my piece on the problems of pragmatism, but I think I wouldn't have known about them without living in SG.
3
5
Replying to
just started and already feeling that tension between Popper (h/t ) POV and Chesterton when you describe LKY's ad hominem attacks
nabeelqu.co/post-popper
1
3
your post ties in amazingly with my post for the coming week...there's several angles to work it from, so need to sort that out. i wasn't in the mood to think but i'm glad you wrote this!
1
2
Show replies
Replying to
James' definition (useful <=> true) is a kind of pop-summary of the versions articulated by Peirce + Dewey.
Peirce phrases it as: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief."
1
Replying to
Oh I agree. I think Pierce's (less familiar with Dewey's additions) ideas are more interesting, because they have to do with the scientific method, and on matters of ethics. But I had no choice but to roll up the entire movement into a bad summary, because the piece was too long!
3
Show replies