> What we consider "true" is...a pattern of value that 'works' in such and such context
"What we consider true" characterizes belief, not truth.
But as you say it's not all about us. What about the attraction of iron filings to a magnet?
Do they find that useful? Maybe it's a nuisance.
> So "2+2=4" is...is "useful" within a context as evidenced by those operating within that context.
> You can call that "true" within that context, but once you leave that context you leave that behind.
And the same could be said of what's false--it is relative to context. But what distinguishes true from false?
Take two numbers of a million digits each and a third number of a quadrillion digits. Is it true that the product
of the first two numbers equals the third? The answer is not determined by usefulness.
> John and Jane have been living together for most of their lives. They consider themselves to be 'married' even though they never > filed paperwork with the state...
> John and Tom are 'married' by a priest who believes 'God' approves of same-sex marriage, but the state they are living in does
> if you ask 'are they married?' in any of these cases, which would you say is the 'true' answer?
They all are. It is a tenet of the MoQ that there can be more than one true way categorizing the situation.
Whether you call each of them 'true', 'True', 'objectively true' or 'absolutely true', it means the same to me.
> if a pedestrian managed to find Oxford St in London
> by using a map of Manchester would the map be useful - it would be by
> luck and not design, so, overall the map wouldn't be useful.
> And she wouldn't find it useful for very long anyway as it would be unlikely to
> work more than once and for the most part you'd have no idea where you
> are! Not a good map.
> Horse's example refutes your position, Craig
> if the map was working for him and others and had ongoing experiential value, the sailors using it would say
> the map "is" a correct navigational map. Just because its incorrect to a cartographer doesn't make it incorrect
> to a sailor.
A skilled surgeon may have a perfectly successful operation rate, but if a surgeon has a perfectly successful operation rate, he is not necessarily skilled. He could be just lucky. To be skilled, your success must
come in the right way--not by accident or luck.
> You're really way out in objectivism now, Craig.