Excellent! So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect to what you or I think"? Dave?
FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that locality (scope) is set by the language. And so, it's less about what one *thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine in which the people find themselves squirming around. If such truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's concept of reality being whatever consequences our language *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that language. And, here Dave and Peirce agree. Change the language, and you change what evaluates to true in that language. On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Taking up your challenge as penance: A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say > that there is a real world out there that we have clues to. Sometimes we get > it right; sometimes we get it wrong. It's a dualist position because there > are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind > stuff in here. Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff. I E, there is a > truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well > as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the > world. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
