Truth value of a good theory

[ughaibu]

If there's no meta-stance, and new object of knowledge, then JTB can be directly applied and the false object known by virtue of it being true.

The reversal of truth value is only possible with true-false pairs of the object and it's meta-object. And, as you say, it defeats the purpose of defining objects as either true or false.

I'm pretty sure I understand the point that you're making, which involves the fairly uncontroversial notion that one can only know things that are true, and I dont particularly disagree with that, but I think the question is dependent on the theory or description of knowledge that one is employing and as a description of knowledge I think JTB is highly unsatisfactory. JTB was pretty much discredited about fifty years ago, so I'm not trying to rock anyone's boat, but I do think that it's unsatisfactory at more levels than are generally appreciated.

[charles brough]

Charles Brough: There are things that are "facts", commonly available without unreasonable exclusivity to most humans, by means of direct or indirect perception. I dont see any problem with describing such facts as being "true".

 

I am glad someone made that point that there does exist such things as "FACTS." and I agree totally! That is why the "truth" concept is so stubborn. It is practical for what is "accurate enough" to be called "facts" and even "true." It is practical. It should not be necessary to place "relatively" in front of the twp words every time we use them!

 

But you know, that should not be a reason for failing to understand the whole relativity of knowledge and to always keep it in mind so as not to slip back into the old religion concept of "absolute Truth" because there is no such thing and we will never reach it.