Embed Notice

@AdrianRiskin I have issues with this statement: "The only way to define the truth of an explanatory system is if it allows people to get along in the world."

First, why is that the ONLY way to define the "truth of an explanatory system"? I'm not big on thinking we can ever assess "Truth" but for evaluating explanatory systems, I favor "degree to which the explanations match empirical data" (where the last part needs defining, too).

Why is "getting along in the world" better than "matching empirical data?"

Fascist Germany and Japan were pretty good for getting along with each other; they only had problems outside their "worlds". Cargo cults are arguably great for helping people who believe them "get along in the world." should we be trying to convert the world to cargo cults, for "truth?"

Various religious empires have had explanatory systems that, when accepted by millions of people in "the world," helped those people "get along."

That criterion for evaluating ideologies makes no sense to me.