Proving What We Already "Know"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Everything we ‘know’ is provisional. A search for ultimate truth is a bugaboo that is destined for ultimate failure. 

But so what? We don’t need ultimate, final proof of anything - not in maths, not in science, not even in relationships. If we arrive at an approximation of truth that appears to fit what we observe and can reason out, that seems enough to get by on.

Boru

The video in the OP is very much about how evolution has steered us away from a good approximation of truth, because truth (it turns out) may not provide nearly as good genetic fitness as untruth or a very poor approximation of it.

I think your position is very pragmatic-- that's pretty much how we all live, whatever belief we hold or position we take.  But you could put it this way-- in the context defined by human instinct and apparatus, XYZ is true.  (mother / baby relationships are important, people age and die, absolute truth seems unknowable)

I have no issue with people using the word ‘true’ when they really mean ‘an approximation of true’ - sure, it’s a little sloppy, but I’m not pedantic enough to make an issue of it.

As you said in the opener, it’s perfectly acceptable to arrive at ‘something like truth’.

Boru