= new reply since forum marked as read
In my context, they're clear, esp. pulled out of context and juxtaposed.
In another's context, with the actual context in which they occurred, not so clear.
In religion, I'm willing to stipulate that "my truth" and "the truth" have extensive overlap in things ambiguous and let "the truth" drift a bit because belief. Outside of religion, I like to make sure that "my truth" is as close to veridicality as possible.
I may believe that quantum mechanics is a total and complete crock and that if we actually understood things we'd have a good laugh for ever entertaining the idea that it's accurate ("my truth"
. But I calculate energy wells and probabilities as though it's Really True because, well, the model makes accurate although sometimes truly bizarre predictions. Since quantum mechanics is apparently accurate when it comes to predicting "the truth", it's what I use.
I knew a molecular biologist working on his PhD and about to defend. He was a young Earth creationist. Got created the world in 6 days 6000 years, Adam and Eve, the whole 9 yards. Yet the guiding heuristic for molecular biology, including his field (as he admitted) was evolution. So his dissertation dripped evolution, rested on evolution, used evolution, and he lived in fear that his advisor would discover his dark, hidden secret. He had no issue with "his truth" being at odds with a heuristic that seemed to mirror "the truth" so incredibly well.
I'm right with you.
