Nature of Truth

[jack]

Scott Alexander made the point that even if two concepts don't have a clearly defined boundary, they can still have a clearly defined difference. Eg. there's no official number of pebbles that make a heap, or height that makes a building "tall", but most people would agree that two pebbles are not a heap, and 50 pebbles are, and that a bungalow isn't tall and that a skyscraper is.

Some concepts do come with a clearly defined boundary, and those are often useful concepts. But many concepts are useful with a clear difference even without a clear boundary.

It occurred to me the same might be said about truth. We may not have an absolute notion of what makes a statement true, but we can still say that some concepts are closer to it (eg. mathematical proofs), some are clearly in that direction (eg. well tested scientific theories, things you've lots of experience of), and some are less close, but still better than nothing.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

My immediate instinct is that true is true, is true. But that I'd be happy to see what you've said about truth instead said about our degree of certainty that something is true.