undefined | Better HN

0 pointszarathustreal1y ago0 comments

> You absolutely do lol, or you’re just straight wrong.

This is false, an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct (without being derived from any science)

This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth which while interesting in the abstract, is not particularly interesting to me personally.

0 comments

darby_nine1y ago

> an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct

How can you establish "correctness" without something like the scientific method? How do you even bind loosely-defined english to verifiable claims to real-life referents without agreeing with others on terms? No, you're chosen simple, comforting delusion over anything resembling objective truth.

> This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth

Yes, truth is an apriori concept; objective truth is a silly delusion. Coherence is generally a much stronger concept anyway.

zarathustrealOP1y ago

Correctness (of a given assertion) doesn’t need to be established to exist

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse