That makes a bit more sense, but I'm still not really convinced of it...I like your definition of truth though!
That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
But I got the feeling that, at the end there, you changed what you meant by it...by saying
it only represents, at any given time, our current understanding of what "is".
The words "our current understanding of" seem to limit "in accordance with reality" in important ways.
I believe that we shouldn't look back on Newtonian physics and say, "Newtonian physics WAS true, but now it's not, because relativity and quantum stuffz", but instead we should say, "Newtonian physics HAS ALWAYS BEEN FALSE, but it was a useful approximation of the truth (which we still aren't sure of)."
In a more serious tone, I don't think we would be justified looking back on history and saying, "It WAS true that Jews are inferior, but now it's false"...I think we need to stand up against that and say, "It HAS ALWAYS BEEN true that all people are created equal!"
If the first case were true, then truth would be no justification for anything!
I would never say Newtonian physics was wrong. Within it's given category, it's still as useful and "true" today as it ever was. The problem is language and categorization.
Water is wet. Is a water molecule wet? A group of them? We have trouble understanding emergent properties but much of our reality is an emergent property of many smaller things.
If there's a way to perceive "reality" beyond what we "currently understand", what would that be? To me, that's logically impossible. As soon was have more information, our understanding would catch up to better form our perception of reality.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit