> Here in Australia, there's a question going around: "are there ongoing negative impacts of colonialism on indigenous people". Some say yes, others say no - including senator Jacinta Price who is of Aboriginal heritage.
Why do you think this is a good example? That's a bit of a bait and switch. The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways
Do you believe someone can die of Covid? Do you believe humans breathe oxygen? Do you believe Australia is a country located near New Zealand?
Do you believe answers to those questions are susceptible to evaluation in terms of whether true or false?
It's a good example because it challenges your idea about a "thing" called truth.
> "The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways"
They didn't say that. You've changed their words, which is ironic given your position on truth. Obviously things like "how many sides does a triangle have" are not the kinds of questions people are worried about when it comes to misinformation. It's the sensitive stuff, like my example. Heightened emotion or political bias around such questions can align with efforts to quell whatever answer you don't agree with, beyond respectful disagreement.
> "You don't believe there is such a thing as truth?"
For basic binary questions like the ones you put forward, yes I "believe" in truth. For complex questions, the "truth" can be a bundle of sometimes contradictory items that need sorting and prioritising, relative to fundamental values we strive to unite on - such as human rights, protection of environment etc. Misinformation then becomes far more troubling to determine. Any legislation against it therefore is dangerous.
> > "The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways"
> They didn't say that.
FWIW I did basically mean that. Specifically I don’t believe in any single universal objective truth. Even for “simple” things, they can have a lot of depth if you are willing to go down the rabbit hole. The complexity is inherent if only because you can’t really separate “one simple thing” from the rest of the messy, infinitely complex universe.
Of course there’s not much to debate about the truthfulness of trivial tautologies like in the triangle case but many things are more subjective than a naive person would assume.
We can all maybe agree on a lot of obvious “truths”, but IMHO it is a kind of arrogance to assume that if three reasonable people reach agreement among themselves, then everyone else should also accept the conclusion.
And if I may comment on this as well:
> If so, that's an incoherent philosophical belief none of us need to bother engaging.
I thought the common struggle of many famous philosophers was on how to be sure that they have found and described truth. Descartes was only sure about “I think therefore I am”. Kierkegaard thought it requires a “leap of faith”, and Wittgenstein thought communications is just a language game and does not have inherent meaning. Those are just a few examples.
I don’t think any of those people would just summarily accept that truths can be easily found by everyone and doubting it is philosophically incoherent.
Why do you think this is a good example? That's a bit of a bait and switch. The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways
Do you believe someone can die of Covid? Do you believe humans breathe oxygen? Do you believe Australia is a country located near New Zealand?
Do you believe answers to those questions are susceptible to evaluation in terms of whether true or false?