Philosophy Now Forum

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594937 time=1662562858 user_id=22925]
[quote=Age post_id=594905 time=1662555895 user_id=16237]
Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
[/quote]

[quote=Advocate post_id=594930 time=1662561113 user_id=15238]
A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.
[/quote]

Their belief is nowhere close to [i]certain[/i]. It [u]is[/u] as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of [i]certainty[/i]. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually [color=#0000BF]misleading[/color] to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
[/quote]

Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess.

Certainty is relative to purpose. The woods-person doesn't have need of that level of causality, so certain "for all intents and purposes" is in the context of their life, not other unrelated lives. Knowledge can only be judged in relation to Available evidence, and that's bound to the scope of a given use-case.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:35 pm Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess. Certainty is relative to purpose.

I'm sorry, I just don't get that. At one end of the spectrum are guesses made without any foundation whatever. We might reasonably describe such guesses as "arbitrary" or even "random". At the other end, we have what our friend calls "the Truth", the only thing that can be correctly described as "certain", even though it's inaccessible to humans. All other guesses lie somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.

"Certain" is a word we use to artificially inflate our outpourings, to confer upon them the unchallengeability of certainty — unjustifiably.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Ah, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?

If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm
If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?

But I did NOT want to say 'that'.

WHY did you ASSUME that 'that' is what I wanted to say?

And, if you REALLY WANTED to KNOW what I meant by A, or ANY, word, then why not just pose a question, for clarification. Like, for example;
When you use the 'Truth' word, then what do you mean, or are referring to, EXACTLY?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:55 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am

a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent.

But EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has some CLAIMED so-called "justification" for ALL of your BELIEFS. Even when the BELIEFS are in DIRECT OPPOSITION of each other.

Therefore, 'your', adult, 'knowledge' is False, Wrong, or Incorrect, or 'knowledge' is NOT a so-called 'justified belief' AT ALL.

'Contingent' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Just look at the OPPOSING BELIEFS of: GOD does exist, AND, God does not exist. EVERY one of 'you', with those OPPOSING BELIEFS, BELIEVE that 'you' have the RIGHT amount of 'justification', for your BELIEFS.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.

Sounds all rather complex and difficult, while being Truly unnecessary, well from my perspective anyway.

I found how KNOWING, for sure, and DISTINGUISHING, accurately, far MORE SIMPLER and EASIER than what you have proposed here.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it,

But all "available" so-called 'evidence' pointed to the earth being flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the Universe beginning and expanding, but 'we' ALL now KNOW, for sure, that they all are NOT the one Truth, correct?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.

Very unnecessary words being added here. Again, from my perspective, only.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am b) i just answered that. One is an instance of the other.

So, 'the truth', God does exist, and, God does not exist, are BOTH instances of the one Truth, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

The kind of thing god is does not admit of justification at any level of certainty. That's what faith is; belief without justification.

You are MISSING the POINT.

EVERY one who BELIEVES some 'thing' BELIEVES that they DO HAVE the 'justification' for 'it'.

For example, EVERY 'thing' you BELIEVE is true you ALSO BELIEVE that you have the 'justification' for 'it', correct?

If no, then WHY BELIEVE 'it' is true, to begin with?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pm The justification claimed is Always insufficient or imaginary.

To me, BELIEVING ANY thing is INSUFFICIENT, and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Besides only one or two of 'you', posters, here, the rest BELIEVE that they HAVE TO BELIEVE 'things'.

And, I as you rightly POINT OUT here, EVERY time I have sought 'justification' for that BELIEF of theirs, they have NEVER provided ANY sufficient NOR real 'justification'.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pm Truth is equivalent to certainty in the actual world now, not ultimate future hypothetical validation.

WHEN is 'now'?

If some 'thing' is thought, said, or written, and 'it' can NOT be refuted, FOREVER, then 'it' is just 'thee Truth'.

How one arrives at that 'certainty' of KNOWING, for sure, that 'it' can NEVER be refuted, Is a KNOWN process, by some of us.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pm If all available evidence points to something it's truth for all intents and purposes.

'truth' and 'Truth' are TWO VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

'evidence' can back up and support 'truths', but 'truths' can be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, and thus REFUTED.

'Truth', however, NEEDS 'proof', of which 'evidence' is NOT. It is IRREFUTABLE 'proof' that makes 'Truth', IRREFUTABLE, FOREVER MORE.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pm If the next bit of evidence shows otherwise THEN someone can say it's not.

Well what a complete and utter WASTE OF TIME, and ENERGY, as some would say.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Some "truths" can be reviewed some times, but that can only happen with the addition of previously unavailable evidence that literally could not have been accounted for earlier.

In case you have STILL NOT GRASP 'this'.

To me, 'Truth' and 'truth' are TWO VERY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 'things'.

To me, 'truth' is NOT even really worth mentioning and discussing. 'Truth', however, is a VERY DIFFERENT 'thing'.

Have you GRASPED 'this' NOW?

Do you comprehend and understand what I am SAYING HERE?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm
One cannot cross willy-nilly between varieties of truth available to different people or and some transcendent Truth-knower. What truth is can only ever get known by what evidence is actually available now.

So-called 'evidence' is usually NOT even worth LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING.

One could gather, for example, ten different people, expose them to some scenario, and then ask them, What happened? You could get ten DIFFERENT versions of 'what happened', with each one claiming to have 'evidence' for their story or their view of things.

'Proof', however, is A VERY DIFFERENT 'thing'. 'Proof' can NOT be REFUTED.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later.

WHEREABOUTS does this, SUPPOSEDLY, happen?

Or, are you just MAKING UP some STORY, in order to 'try to' 'justify' the BELIEF that you currently HOLD to be true?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling

If a person BELIEVES that to be true, or even BELIEVES that they are 'justified' to BELIEVE that 'that' is true, then that person is even MORE STUPID than the tree, let alone the squirrel.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees.

You are just explaining the STUPID way 'you', human beings, individually, and collectively, over the years have 'tried to' 'justify' the BELIEFS that 'you' so dearly HOLD to be true.

You are, however, providing REALLY GOOD REASONS here WHY it would be MUCH BETTER for 'you', human beings, to STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING 'things' are true, when 'you' do NOT YET have thee ACTUAL PROOF for them.

Oh, and by the way, once you obtain thee ACTUAL PROOF, then you no longer NEED to BELIEVE nor ASSUME them to be true.

With PROOF, they are JUST True, FOREVER MORE.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Which is WHY I SAY and CLAIM 'truth' is not even worthy of being LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED here. Especially considering that this here is a A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:13 pm Transcendent Truth isn't available to us, and never will be. But we can know it sufficiently for all intents and purposes, and regularly do.

I assume "Transcendent Truth" is pretty much the same as Objective Truth, and I quite agree: it is inaccessible to us humans.

YET 'you' two speak as though 'you' KNOW that 'it' exists.

In case 'you' have NOT YET NOTICED, if some 'thing' is INACCESSIBLE to 'you', human beings, then 'you', OBVIOUSLY, would NOT KNOW if 'it' even exists or not.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm But we don't know "it" sufficiently, we know the approximation we create for it, which isn't quite the same thing. But, in fairness, that last is nit-picking.

What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.

Just for your information.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:58 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:13 pm Transcendent Truth isn't available to us, and never will be. But we can know it sufficiently for all intents and purposes, and regularly do.

I assume "Transcendent Truth" is pretty much the same as Objective Truth, and I quite agree: it is inaccessible to us humans. But we don't know "it" sufficiently, we know the approximation we create for it, which isn't quite the same thing. But, in fairness, that last is nit-picking.

I think we grok the same Truth about truth.

It never ceases to amaze that when 'you', adult human beings, think or believe some 'thing' is 'true', then it, automatically, becomes and is 'the Truth'. But when ANY one express 'a truth', which does NOT fit in with one's OWN 'truth', then it is the "OTHER" one's 'truth' that is NOT 'the Truth'.

As example above here, ONCE AGAIN.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...

To me, anyway, it is VERY MISLEADING to describe your best guesses, assumptions, and/or theories as being 'true' or being 'the truth'.

There is ONLY One Truth, and that is the One, which is IRREFUTABLE. ALL other so-called 'truths' are just what 'you', human beings, think, assume, or believe is true.

And, if what is claimed could be REFUTED, one day, then WHY even bother expressing 'it' as being 'true' or 'a truth'?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:35 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...

Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess.

LOL No matter how much, supposed, 'evidence' one has for some 'thing', that does NOT make the 'thing' 'true', NOR the polar opposite of 'a guess'.

The claim that the sun REALLY DOES revolve around the earth, which was based upon ALL the so-called 'best evidence', available, "at the time", the Fact that 'that' was NOT 'true', and was, in Fact, just 'a guess' can NOT be REFUTED.

I would LOVE to SEE you provide AN EXAMPLE for your CLAIM here "advocate".

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm Certainty is relative to purpose. The woods-person doesn't have need of that level of causality, so certain "for all intents and purposes" is in the context of their life, not other unrelated lives. Knowledge can only be judged in relation to Available evidence, and that's bound to the scope of a given use-case.

But 'knowledge' can be JUDGED in relation to, or BASED UPON, ACTUAL PROOF, instead of just so-called 'evidence'.

WHY would 'you', "advocate", ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'knowledge' can ONLY be judged in relation to 'Available' (with a big 'A') evidence?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:35 pm Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess. Certainty is relative to purpose.

I'm sorry, I just don't get that. At one end of the spectrum are guesses made without any foundation whatever. We might reasonably describe such guesses as "arbitrary" or even "random". At the other end, we have what our friend calls "the Truth", the only thing that can be correctly described as "certain", even though it's inaccessible to humans.

Just to be absolutely CLEAR here, the CLAIM that 'the Truth' is INACCESSIBLE to human beings, is just 'a, or your, truth'. Which, again, has NO ACTUAL bearing on what is or could be ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

Is this CLEAR among the "posters" here?

Or, are 'you' wanting to CLAIM that it is an IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'the Truth' is NOT ACCESSIBLE to human beings?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm All other guesses lie somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.

"Certain" is a word we use to artificially inflate our outpourings, to confer upon them the unchallengeability of certainty — unjustifiably.

To me, it seems like "advocate" is just CONFLATING 'things' here with completely UNNECESSARY wording, which "pattern chaser" is 'trying to' CLEAR UP. But while doing this "pattern chaser" is 'trying to' make the CLAIM that 'the Absolute, Irrefutable, Transcendent, or Objective Truth' can NOT be KNOWN, by ANY one, FOREVER MORE.

Which would either be 'thee Truth', and so CONTRADICT the CLAIM, or just 'their own truth', which would just be a guess that could be Wrong.

[quote=Age post_id=595020 time=1662598433 user_id=16237]
[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594944 time=1662566177 user_id=22925]
<wrote stuff>
[/quote]

Using the word Truth to mean only that which is ultimately irrefutable is to make the word worthless. There will never be a time when we have all available evidence about anything, and therefore the word Truth could not be applied to anything we know, of any level of certainty.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:38 am Using the word Truth to mean only that which is ultimately irrefutable is to make the word worthless.

WHY do you CLAIM this?

Using the word 'Truth' is just used to separate 'that word' from the other word 'truth'. They, after all, OBVIOUSLY have VERY DIFFERENT meanings from my perspective anyway.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:38 am There will never be a time when we have all available evidence about anything, and therefore the word Truth could not be applied to anything we know, of any level of certainty.

LOL Do you REALLY STILL NOT YET UNDERSTAND what I have been POINTING OUT and SAYING in regards to 'evidence' AND 'proof'?

Also, your CLAIM here that "There will NEVER be a time ...". SHOWS and REVEALS just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE.

'you' are SO CLOSED here "advocate" that 'you' did NOT even NOTICE the ABSURD CONTRADICTION in your BELIEF and CLAIM here.

Furthermore, WHY do 'you' NOT look at and discuss what I have been saying and pointing out here, instead of just rephrasing your OWN current BELIEFS?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm Ah, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.

I'm sorry that "mind" does not meet with your approval. Happily, in this case, it's role is peripheral, at best. "Mind-independently" is a common abbreviation used in such discussions as these, to describe how Objective Truth is independent of the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and opinions of any human (or any other intelligent being).

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am But I did NOT want to say 'that'.

WHY did you ASSUME that 'that' is what I wanted to say?

I'm sorry if I erred. I wasn't assuming anything, but only trying to understand your words and your position. My best guess as to your intended meaning was as I described. Happily, you are here to correct my misapprehensions.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am And, if you REALLY WANTED to KNOW what I meant by A, or ANY, word, then why not just pose a question, for clarification. Like, for example;
When you use the 'Truth' word, then what do you mean, or are referring to, EXACTLY?

I thought I had done exactly that...?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:39 am To me, anyway, it is VERY MISLEADING to describe your best guesses, assumptions, and/or theories as being 'true' or being 'the truth'.

There is ONLY One Truth, and that is the One, which is IRREFUTABLE. ALL other so-called 'truths' are just what 'you', human beings, think, assume, or believe is true.

And, if what is claimed could be REFUTED, one day, then WHY even bother expressing 'it' as being 'true' or 'a truth'?

So we are in agreement, on this point, at least. [Except, perhaps, for your concept of the "One Truth", which I am still unclear about. ]

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:33 am What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.

Oo, goody! Many philosophers have been puzzled, over the millennia, about what Objective Truth is, and now you have discovered it. Please tell us what it is, and how we might know that it is true, according to the criterion of Objectivity? Thanks.