1/ A gentle reminder that there are more than two ways to evaluate a claim.
Most people default to “does this match my experiences / can I find an edge case or counter example?”
And then they think “are the claims the result of a sound logical argument?”
Conversation
2/ These are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth (to use the philosophical terms).
But when it comes to practical matters, there’s a third way to evaluate the claim, which is to ask “is there a test I can construct to check that the claim works / is true?”
1
6
3/ This third approach is the pragmatic standard for truth.
It is different from the first and second methods because it recognises that what makes a claim true is sometimes its usefulness — does it help you achieve your goals? Does it work when tested against reality?
1
5
4/ has this thing where she says “do you want to be effective or do you want to be right?”
The distinction captures the differences between that third method and the first two standards for truth.
2
1
5
5/ I mostly bring this up due to a recent conversation I had with someone who was absolutely convinced of the superiority of sound logical arguments as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
These people exist. They tend also to not be particularly effective.
Let this be a reminder.
Replying to
1
7
Replying to
1