https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
I'm still chunking through this and related entries, but this was a convenient starting point for me.
I'm generally inclined to think of frameworks of truth-finding as having developed in a sort of taxonomy, like a tree. While groups will evaluate the same data similarly up to a point, say, problems with depth perception and colorblindness don't prevent people from seeing something similar as conventional-seeing people do, the different methods of evaluating the same data come from context/field-specific standards, faculties, or methods.
If a
thingdescription is adequately modally robust or is true across different viewpoints, that seems to me a good indication it is true.Model aligns with Reality.
Can it be scientifically proven? Then it's the truth.
... it's assumed to be true, until proven otherwise
What if our assumptions could be false? What gurantees it be truth? Or in other words, why it shouldnt be false?
