Well, you’ve swayed me. Somewhat. Let’s try this and see how it goes!
So, I’ll start by saying what I believe and why, sticking to material that I find to be relevant to our past two posts.
First, objective vs. subjective truths. I believe that we (as people) are all part of a universe that has its own laws. I believe these laws are independent from what we believe those laws are. (If I drop an apple, and believe hard enough that it will float, it will still fall.) I don’t believe this with 100% certainty because that would be silly, but I believe it to a great degree, because this idea fits everything I’ve experienced, and everything that other people tell me they experience.
Because of this, I believe that there is a realm that I can call “objective truth” which consists of all the statements that are true “about the universe”. Laws of physics would be objectively true. Even though there are probably other universes with different laws of physics, let’s just stick to this universe for the sake of conversation. Sentences like “Twiffy likes math” are also objectively true. Sentences like “Santa Claus exists” are objectively false.
Then there is the realm of subjectivity. Every person has a variety of beliefs. Some of these beliefs reflect, or contradict, objective facts. Some people believe in Santa, or believe that Twiffy does not like math, or believe that evolution does not take place. But others of these beliefs are “opinions”, beliefs the individual has that are neither objectively true nor objectively false, but something else entirely. “Cilantro is disgusting.” would be one of these statements. The term “disgusting” doesn’t even have meaning to the universe. That claim has no objective truth value. But subjectively, it is true for me, and false for many others. Presumably the sentence “Twiffy thinks Cilantro is disgusting” is objectively true. Presumably all moral claims (Murder is bad etc.) are subjective truths.
So we have this subjective / objective divide. Of course I’m sure you’ve thought about all this before, but the reason I bring it up is because I think the distinction is very important, and is helpful when we talk about “multiple truths”. To my mind there are only objective and subjective truths, and when you say “multiple truths”, I think “subjective truth”. I think “differing moral beliefs”, “differing cultural backgrounds”, etc. Things that make people different, but cannot meaningfully be classified as objectively right or objectively wrong.
Enter science. Science could reasonably be defined as the study of objective truth. All science is about objective truth in this sense; math studies objective truth that is independent from the laws of physics, and relies solely on logic. Physics studies the most fundamental objective truths that depend on the laws of physics. Chemistry and Biology study emergent properties of physical systems. Psychology, even higher, and so on.
Most of the humanities study aspects of subjective truth. What it’s like to be from a certain culture. The morality of war, the emotions of love.
Philosophy is an interesting mix. Historically, it’s been filled with both. Metaphysics, abstractly, is mathematics applied to traditional philosophical questions. But some philosophers historically have focused on more subjective matters, such as morality, art, beauty, wisdom, and so on.
So with this perspective in mind, here are some of my responses.
Objective truth is scientific truth, which is remarkably important and useful. Subjective truth is also important, but since it depends on the individual, my looking for the subjective truths of others is only useful up to a point. It’s useful to know what categories of belief are probably subjective, but once you know that, knowing the exact details of someone’s subjective beliefs are often very uninteresting. Do you like vegetables? Are you a libertarian? How often do you choose to bathe? Much less interesting than many questions of objective truth. Chaos theory and fractals are objective truth. Black holes. Computers. Quantum mechanics.
This isn’t to say subjective truth isn’t important – as I’ve said, it is. But I think a lot of post-modern viewpoints would degrade science to a religion, or to subjective truth, or to something dispensible and inferior to the beautiful machine of culture. I disagree with all of this. Ironically, the denigration of science is something that only those who live surrounded by the luxuries that science has produced, and who are therefore insulated from the harshness of having to cultivate your own food and manually maintain your own existence, can claim.