(January 12, 2017 at 12:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think that any of those things are truths, they're explanations. Each is the conclusion of an inductive argument, they are potentially, but not necessarily, true. Again, I think that you're making a huge mistake at the very bottom of this whole process.So say something you think is true, then, and we'll examine it.
Quote:Just to reiterate a simple explanation for why I don't use those terms interchangeably. A person may see a ghost, that doesn't make the ghost evident, nor does it mean that there really is a ghost. Experience, evidence, truth.You use the word "really" like it means something to you. I'm guessing it means that it conforms to your hunches about which of your experiences represet reality.
Quote:The context bit is your baby, not mine, there's no sense in trying to saddle me with the consequences of your own poor word usage and equivocations. I don't and wouldn't use any of those terms in the manner that you've used them.It's not surprising that a materialist doesn't get the point of establishing context-- it is your position that there's only one context, making the word pretty much irrelevant to you. But if you're such a fan of evidence, then demonstrate, using evidence, that your metaphysical position really does represent truth.
