Eeehhh? Im not sure truth* exists, but there are things that we accept as true and things that are so fundamental that it doesn't occur to us to question them - these things are inherently political. Just to be clear - not using that word to refer to the specific species of polarized discourse that we got in the states, talking about the nature of power and the human condition.
Curious what you consider to be true though? I'm coming at it from the perspective that even in physics where we can isolate so nicely we still aren't divining any truths, just making models with increasing explanatory powers.
Personally, I've been reaching more towards 'shared values' than 'truth', this is likely the pedant in me but truth doesn't feel tractable whereas shared values feels like it has less baggage?
Does shared values here just mean definitions? Such as the number of carbon atoms in a mole, 5+9 in base 10, the average number of protons in a carbon atom is a specific value, and leptons exist?
No, shared values is referring to the moral/emotional stuff, I find it more useful when trying to bridge the gap in a pretty politically charged environment to reconnect on simple things like wanting other people to be happy and healthy.
Are those true things? Good candidates, I like 'leptons exist'. Do you mind if we just gently ignore the math one? Feels like inviting the whole 'is math invented or discovered' thing.
1) carbon atoms in a mol - a mol is a counting number so it seems tautological to declare this one a truth
2) pass :)
3) this seems like a good candidate but it also seems to reduce truth to just the things we measure and only to the extent that we can be accurate (I'm also assuming you meant neutrons, protons are static by specie). Purely hypothetically there could be a whole heap of unusually heavy or light carbon out there that would disprove one or another of our theories. To put it another way; is the average number of apples that a trees grows in a year 'true'? It'll change year after year after all. I'm fine with a definition of truth that implies error bars and best efforts but I feel it falls short of the colloquial definition.
4) I think the pure observation that a thing somewhere exists is probably the closest to true, the rebuttals against that would all be self consuming anyway. The specific claim that leptons exist seems a little more fraught though - we could conceivably come to another conclusion if that better fit the facts.
So, can we call these things true if our concept is potentially incomplete or incorrect?
Curious what you consider to be true though? I'm coming at it from the perspective that even in physics where we can isolate so nicely we still aren't divining any truths, just making models with increasing explanatory powers.
Personally, I've been reaching more towards 'shared values' than 'truth', this is likely the pedant in me but truth doesn't feel tractable whereas shared values feels like it has less baggage?
*pretty sure lies exist though