Yes. But everyone thinks their truth is objectively true. — Cornwell1

No its not because 'every truth is subjective' may not be true. Paradox is neither true or false.
To me, this just means that in propositional logic there are three states, true, false and paradox.
Nothing more exciting than that, at least for now. — universeness

You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true.

It is objectively true precisely because what is objective is separated from our own personal feelings and knowledge of what is the case (subjective). What is objectively true is true regardless of what we know or feel about it.

playing with words,
— Harry Hindu
Agreed, but it's something humans do regularly. The fact that such activity annoys some people, will not prevent it from happening. — universeness

The point wasn't to prevent people from playing with words. My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully.

Well if we all did that then conversation/debate would reduce. I don't think that would help.
The fact you might find something useless to you does not make it useful to all unless you are electing yourself a speaker for all in the same way you suggest I include you, due my deliberations. — universeness

No, that's what I'm saying the one that is making any claim about the world in which we live is doing. Sure, I'm doing it to, and you too. Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective?

Right and wrong only make sense in a realist world where there are states-of-affairs that are the case and what we say about those states-of-affairs is something else and they either represent what is the case or don't, regardless of whether we know it or not.

agreed. So you agree, Level of truth(accuracy) and TRUE can be different, in concept. — universeness

An example - I go to work on a property where surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations. A previous investigation collected and analyzed three samples from the effected area. I create a SCM showing the area where soil is contaminated based on that data. Looking at the distribution and the number of samples, I decide that I don't have enough data. I find historic maps and aerial photographs that show where lead was used on site. Based on that, I revise the SCM and decide that 10 additional samples should be collected. I collect and analyze the samples and then revise the SCM again.

In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. Based on additional data, I revise it. The final SCM is more accurate than the original one. The original SCM wasn't false. The new one isn't true. One is more accurate than the other. — T Clark

If "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." was the conclusion after the original SCM and is the same conclusion reached after the additional samples were taken, then the conclusion is no more or less accurate. You just have more justification for that conclusion. You're confusing accuracy with justifications. The conclusion is either accurate/true or inaccurate/false regardless of how many samples are taken. More samples are taken to satisfy your skepticism of the conclusion.

If the original conclusion wasn't enough for the decisions needed, then the additional samples were necessary to reach a different conclusion for the decisions needed, not that the original conclusion was less accurate.

Either "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." or "a property's surface soil has NOT been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." One is not more or less accurate than the other statement. One is either completely true or completely false.

Someone else might not think that 10 samples would be enough and would rather see 20 to be more accurate. Someone else may want 100 to be even more accurate. If we can only attain degrees of accuracy, then how is that any different from saying that we have degrees of truth, or degrees of certainty of whether some statement is true or not?

Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu

I don't see why this should be the case. Every truth is both subjective and objective. There is objectivity in each truth, and there is an element of subjectivity in truth as well.

It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu

But on their own they make little sense. It's more appropriate to combine them. Every subjective truth is seen as objectively true by the people believing in it.

Your questions show that you haven't even tried to understand what I'm trying to describe. I don't expect agreement, but the ideas are not difficult.

Let's you and me not interact with each other from now on.

Your questions show that you haven't even tried to understand what I'm trying to describe. I don't expect agreement, but the ideas are not difficult.

Let's you and me not interact with each other from now on. — T Clark

Ok, Snowflake, it's actually the other way around. My post was an attempt to understand what you are trying to say and your response is thinly veiled ad hominen because you are unwilling to try and understand my questions to clarify your position.

This is a philosophy forum for crying out loud - where most OPS and posts in general need clarification because of all the wild ideas that are propagated and terms that are misused. If you dont understand that then maybe you should not interact with anyone at all.

Besides, my responses to you aren't necessarily for you, who is obviously scared of continuing the conversation when the questions get difficult, but for readers to see that your ideas aren't all they are cracked up be. Your lack of a response is quite telling in itself.

In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. — T Clark

More specifically, what decisions needed to be made? You're just moving the goal posts. You're saying that conceptual models are useful and accurate but then didn't explain what kind of decisions the concept is useful for, or which concept was even being used if not the concept of "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." You weren't clear about what concept was being used, nor what decisions it was being used for.

You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu

To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox.
'Every truth is subjective as an objective truth' is a state of paradox, which demonstrates that the state 'true' and the state 'false' are not the only two logical states in existence. It's got nothing to do with truths that we don't know are true.

My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully. — Harry Hindu

Merely your opinion

Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu

If I say the Earth is round and another says it's flat, then we will both have our supporters and dissenters. Who would you support? whichever choice you make, would mean that you are calling the other group wrong. Someone being declared wrong by majority vote is good enough for me. If new evidence comes to light then perhaps the vote will change.

To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox.
'Every truth is subjective as an objective truth' is a state of paradox, which demonstrates that the state 'true' and the state 'false' are not the only two logical states in existence. It's got nothing to do with truths that we don't know are true.

My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully.
— Harry Hindu

Merely your opinion — universeness

Really? Then please educate me on what the paradox says. Which state-of-affairs does a paradox describe? If what you say is true, then it is merely your opinion that it is merely my opinion of what is actually the case, which doesn't help either one of us, or anyone else.


I wasn't ignoring that paradoxes exist. I was explaining what a paradox is. You are free to disagree, but it would be helpful to know why

If I say the Earth is round and another says it's flat, then we will both have our supporters and dissenters. Who would you support? whichever choice you make, would mean that you are calling the other group wrong. Someone being declared wrong by majority vote is good enough for me. If new evidence comes to light then perhaps the vote will change. — universeness

Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.

Using majority support as evidence is a logical fallacy (and you're educating me on logic? - go figure). It is commonly called, appealing to popularity or argumentum ad populum.

I don't see why this should be the case. Every truth is both subjective and objective. There is objectivity in each truth, and there is an element of subjectivity in truth as well. — pfirefry

If every truth possesses the quality of subjectivity then you don't get to say that I'm wrong, or that what I'm saying isn't the case. You can and I can believe in completely opposite things and we would both be correct and no one would ever be wrong, or what we believe would always be the case, which is just nonsense. What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true?

But on their own they make little sense. It's more appropriate to combine them. Every subjective truth is seen as objectively true by the people believing in it. — Cornwell1

No. Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not.

You both would need to define how you are using, "objectively" and "subjectively" so that we aren't talking past each other and wasting each other's time.

Do you both agree with this proposition: "In believing opposite propositions we both can't be right, but we can both be wrong."

Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not. — Harry Hindu

But what's the case depends on your theory. Or better, is your theory. Observations are not theory-laden, the observations are the theory.

Then please educate me on what a paradox says — Harry Hindu

I wasn't ignoring that paradox's exist. I was explaining what a paradox is. You are free to disagree, but it would be helpful to know why — Harry Hindu

Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.
Using majority support as evidence is a logical fallacy (and you're educating me on logic? - go figure). It is commonly called, appealing to popularity or argumentum ad populum — Harry Hindu

I never claimed I was attempting to educate you about anything. I am not attacking so you don't need a defensive posture, we are merely exchanging views with I hope, the intention to stimulate debate. I have little interest in being adversarial. No winners or losers, just dialogue.

All I can say about the state 'paradox' is what you yourself know 'its not true or false.'
I know that does not satisfy. Trying to explain something by stating what it is not, often does not satisfy but I for one, currently, can't do any better.

I think we agree that evidence assists in declaring a posit right or wrong, I think most people do.
Some people, don't need evidence, some theists for example.

Majority support as a democratic method is practical whether or not it's a logical fallacy.
What's your alternative?
I'm sure you would agree that a purely logical approach to every circumstance is, a flawed strategy.
Our exchange was based on the difference between 'accuracy' and 'truth.'
I maintain the position that there is some difference.
You have not changed my mind on that by what you have typed so far.
I'm sure my typings have not altered your position either.
We can both accept that without so much as a flutter.

I never claimed I was attempting to educate you about anything. — universeness

To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox. — universeness

I didn't say that you claimed to be attempting to educate me, I'm saying that you just attempted to do so.

All I can say about the state 'paradox' is what you yourself know 'its not true or false.'
I know that does not satisfy. Trying to explain something by stating what it is not, often does not satisfy but I for one, currently, can't do any better. — universeness

Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful.

I think we agree that evidence assists in declaring a posit right or wrong, I think most people do.
Some people, don't need evidence, some theists for example. — universeness

Oh, they use evidence, but only observational evidence that isn't integrated with logic. For instance they use the very existence of the universe and it's organized state as evidence of an intelligent designer. But they fail to acknowledge and/or commit logical fallacies when arguing against alternate explanations for why the universe exists and is the way it is. We all use evidence to support our beliefs, but how much and the integration of logic with observation (justifications) can be the difference between what is belief and what is knowledge.

Majority support as a democratic method is practical whether or not it's a logical fallacy. — universeness

You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress.

What's your alternative?
I'm sure you would agree that a purely logical approach to every circumstance is, a flawed strategy.
Our exchange was based on the difference between 'accuracy' and 'truth.'
I maintain the position that there is some difference.
You have not changed my mind on that by what you have typed so far.
I'm sure my typings have not altered your position either.
We can both accept that without so much as a flutter. — universeness

For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others.




.

But what's the case depends on your theory. Or better, is your theory. Observations are not theory-laden, the observations are the theory. — Cornwell1

No. There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory.

Observations coupled with logic and other observations is the theory. Theories are not made by observations alone. That is what a hypothesis is as opposed to a theory, or what a belief is as opposed to knowledge.

Do you agree with this, yes or no? If not, then why?

Do you both agree with this proposition: "In believing opposite propositions we both can't be right, but we can both be wrong." — Harry Hindu

There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory. — Harry Hindu

Of course. Everybody wants his theory to be objectively true. Or be constantly falsified by observations. Or established in research programs. We observe the theory though. The theory is subjective. So what we observe is dependent on theory. There is no theory independent reality pulling the theory in the right direction. Well, there is, but only after the theoretical reality has been introduced in the first place. Where some see quark like point particles, I see triplets of geometrically extended structures.

I didn't say that you claimed to be attempting to educate me, I'm saying that you just attempted to do so — Harry Hindu

I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox.

Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful — Harry Hindu

No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that.

Oh, they use evidence — Harry Hindu

Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to.

You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress — Harry Hindu

I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system.

For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others — Harry Hindu

One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals.

Of course. Everybody wants his theory to be objectively true. Or be constantly falsified by observations. Or established in research programs. We observe the theory though. The theory is subjective. So what we observe is dependent on theory. There is no theory independent reality pulling the theory in the right direction. Well, there is, but only after the theoretical reality has been introduced in the first place. Where some see quark like point particles, I see triplets of geometrically extended structures. — Cornwell1

Where is the theory we observe? Where some see quark like particles and you see triples of geometrically extended structures, are you saying that what you are seeing is a theory, or objects? If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other.

I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox. — universeness

Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense.

No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that. — universeness

Finally, some examples:

Barber's Paradox:
The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
Who makes statements like this? No one that I know. Hence it is an improper use of language. What is it that is even being said by such a statement? Nothing. If you can't answer the question then it is an improper use of language. What question does the statement answer if not the one above? If it doesn't answer any questions, then it is an improper use of language.

Liar's Paradox:
"This sentence is a lie".
Again, what questions can be asked in which this statement is an answer?

So again, what statements that are neither true or false (I'm asserting that paradoxes are false statements because they aren't useful and don't refer to what is the case, so I'm also asking which statements that are false are also useful) are useful, in that they can be the answer to some question or refer to what is the case?

Your examples help prove my point, not yours. If you can't provide an example of a question that either of these paradoxes answers, or which state-of-affairs they refer to, then that helps to prove my point.

Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to. — universeness

And just as you used the fact that a majority believe something then that is evidence it is true, they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true. They are both logical fallacies - one is appealing to popularity, the other is appealing to authority.

I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system. — universeness

You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules.

One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals. — universeness

The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed.

If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other — Harry Hindu

The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities.

The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities. — Cornwell1

So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)?

So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)? — Harry Hindu

There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...

Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives.

What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true? — Harry Hindu

It is an exercise for you to answer. I'll leave my thoughts below.

If every truth possesses the quality of subjectivity then you don't get to say that I'm wrong, or that what I'm saying isn't the case. You can and I can believe in completely opposite things and we would both be correct and no one would ever be wrong, or what we believe would always be the case, which is just nonsense. — Harry Hindu

Exactly. Dealing with nonsense can be fun, but sometimes we want to escape it, so we need an epistemology that doesn't lead to nonsense. That's where pragmatism comes from. Looking at the problem pragmatically, it doesn't matter whether the proposition "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon" is objectively and undeniably true. What matters is whether the proposition is useful in a given situation or not.

Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense — Harry Hindu

Well, if we are talking past each other then we can try and correct that. I say you are ignoring the paradox state because you call it useless. It is useless because you and, me to, don't understand it? Does the Universe have a responsibility to explain its complexity to us? or is it one of our main purposes to 'decode' the Universe, despite the 'but it's impossible to fully understand and we never will' stance that some hold. I suggest we will progress more if you stop attempting to advise me on what I should do next due. I am quite willing to explain myself further until understanding is improved between us. Perhaps we can achieve that without too many 'cheap shots' from either side. I can get down in the shit with the best of them but I have never found the outcome of such exchanges particularly fruitful.

Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true". — Harry Hindu

I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor.

Finally, some examples: — Harry Hindu

Your exasperation button is easily pressed. I had already given you the example of 'the only true fact is there are no true facts.' Your quick jump to exasperation, is a weakness in the teaching world.

Your examples help prove my point, not yours. If you can't provide an example of a question that either of these paradoxes answers, or which state-of-affairs they refer to, then that helps to prove my point — Harry Hindu

No they don't, that's just in your head. The fact that you think the concept of paradox is not valid is mathematically, dead wrong. You can just dismiss paradox if your wish but If our exchange has now switched from truth versus accuracy to 'the validity of the paradox state.' then fine. You can read about paradox on wikipedia and debate, "a list of all lists that do not contain themselves, would contain themselves" and its clash with set theory and the many other logic challenges that the paradox state reveals, yourself. I am not too interested in trying to convince you of the mathematical validity of the paradox state.

they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true — Harry Hindu

They were not just 'told' in the 'matter of fact' and 'simplistic' way you suggest. Their compliance is born out of fear. Terror can make some people see three lights when there are only two. I am not suggesting that all theists are tortured into their belief, despite their ability to think logically or critically. But threatening people with the most henious punishments possible, for enternity, is quite close to mental torture if you ask me.

You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules — Harry Hindu

No I'm not confused (do you enjoy this kind of panto-style textual exchange? Oh yes you are! oh no I'm not!)
Allowing and airing minority views is a vital part of any democratic system as that is how minority views may become majority views.

The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed. — Harry Hindu

The report is about what was observed. Do you simply mistrust all reporters?

What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on
the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true? — Harry Hindu

The proposition is not true in the sense that you cannot prove it to be absolutely true. No matter how hard you try, a skeptic will find a way to question this proposition. Maybe Apollo 11 was fabricated; Buzz Aldrin was technically the first one to meet the criteria of walking; perhaps Neil Armstrong wasn't a human; someone had done this before Neil and kept it in secret; and so on.

The proposition is objectively true in the sense that you're referring to a specific event that objectively happened.

The proposition is subjectively true in the sense that it is grounded in your subjective assumptions. You're referring to a specific Neil Armstrong and not any other person with the same name. You're referring to a specific moon. You have a specific idea of what it means to walk on the Moon, in oppose to stepping on a lunar meteorite found on Earth, standing barefoot on a celestial body, or perhaps walking all the way from Earth to the Moon on foot. — pfirefry

The latter isn't about the state-of-affairs of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon (whether it actually occurred or not). It is about you. This is why we would be talking past each other. You're talking about you and your assumptions, while I'm talking about what potentially happened on the Moon.

Not only that but you create an infinite regress where your subjective truths are never about what it is that you are talking about - only your assumptions and your perception of your assumptions would also be subjective, meaning you never get at what it is you are thinking of or talking about.

Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true".
— Harry Hindu

I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor. — universeness

How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?

You see, you keep making the same mistake of asserting that I am wrong while at the same time talking about subjective truths and what is accurate is what is useful. If truths are subjective, then I can never be wrong, and what is useful to me may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than what you believe to be the case. I don't think that you are following through with thinking about the implications of what you are saying because you keep saying one thing (all truths are subjective) and then doing another (accusing me of being inaccurate).

There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. — Cornwell1

I'm having trouble picturing this. If there is no overarching world bubble, then what is the medium in which our subjective bubbles exist? What separates our subjective bubbles from each other to say that they are distinct entities?

Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...

Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives. — Cornwell1

The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact.

Either it is true that we all live in one reality that is a certain way whether we believe or know it, or we live in our own realities causally cut off from each other so we only know our own truths and our perceptions of others is just a figment of our own assumptions.

The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact. — Harry Hindu

It's confusing because it is confusing. All people, or more realistically, groups of people, see a reality which they think exists separately of them. Individuals can change it and the group reality influences the individual. Is there an all embracing reality, capturing and directing all these realities? No, because that would be a new reality believed to exist independently of us. Which is a justified belief, as anyone wants his beliefs to be objectively true. But this is only a story we tell, like the story of God being the one and only Truth.

Confusing indeed...

Let me add this. You can add everything to the story we tell without the need of proving it, as is asked for in the scientific story. I saw a discussion on this forum about the reality of electrons in the double slit experiment. Their reality as a particle. They can't be seen directly and it was conjectured that there were only lightening unicorns traveling between the emitter and screen and they don't like to be observed. Which is actually a pretty good description!

How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?

You see, you keep making the same mistake of asserting that I am wrong while at the same time talking about subjective truths and what is accurate is what is useful. If truths are subjective, then I can never be wrong, and what is useful to me may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than what you believe to be the case. I don't think that you are following through with thinking about the implications of what you are saying because you keep saying one thing (all truths are subjective) and then doing another (accusing me of being inaccurate). — Harry Hindu

Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong, firstly on your assertion that truth and accuracy are synonymous and your assertion that paradox is useless. You seem to assign some priority to what you decide is useless to you regardless of its usefulness to others. God is a useless concept to me but I respect its usefulness to others and its status as fundamental to some.
I have never once claimed that 'all truths are subjective,' I stated the posit as part of a paradox.
I don't agree with your claim that there is a logical position that exists, within which, it's impossible for an individual to be wrong. The best that can be achieved is paradox, neither true nor false. You say this is a useless state. I think it's an intriguing state. You say I am not making sense, I say I am. So we reach panto stage. so hey ho, who cares? I will still dance with you, if you want to keep the music playing.

This is a discussion on pragmatic epistemology. You guys have headed off on a different subject. Hows about you start a discussion of your own elsewhere.

What are the metaphysical assumptions made in pragmatic epistemology? If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? Is knowledge gathered only in practice?