Nacmir wrote:None of them, neither true nor false. And both being true and false at the same time, as the 2 + 2= 5 example, or time being constant. People tend to forget about those two very often.
The problem is that both horns of the dilemma result in relativism being false. So, if you try to have it both ways you just end up being double
2+2=5 is not both true and false at the same time. We can know to a high probability that it is false.
Einstein said that under specific circumstances, time was relative. Other constants could be objected too, and so other "truths". That's the point. Sooner or later, some cience-dude will say something that will revoke "truth" until the next one revokes it again. As you like to say, they will change the territory, converting evething that was behind in false.
The territory didn't change when Einstein developed the theory of relativity. It's not like you could go faster than the speed of light in 1904 and then a year later it became impossible to do that!
Likewise, it was not possible to fall of the edge of the world prior to ancient scientists discovering that it was round.
And yes, undoubtedly science will discover that many things currently believed to be true are actually not. Beliefs can certainly be wrong. It is the map that changes, not the territory. That's why all knowledge has to be regarded as probabilistic. Given the evidence available at the current time, X is the most probable belief. That is what Bayesians mean by knowledge.
Baye's Theorem tells you by how much and in what direction to update your probabilities in light of some new evidence. It's the logic behind science. A consequence of this is that when you get more evidence you have to change your beliefs accordingly. Otherwise you're being irrational, ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
So obviously when we make new discoveries we will be changing our beliefs.
That does not mean that the truth is constantly changing!
I'm not establishing anything, That's the point. Nothing can be established.
If you can't establish anything, then you can't establish relativism, meaning it is possible to establish things.
As long as there is not an absolute matter in which there is not a second point of view, I'm quite happy with it.
But you haven't shown that this is the case! That's the whole point. If relativism is not true then there is
an absolute fact of the matter. So you do have to show that relativism is true. However, if you did that it would undermine your own argument.
It's a self-defeating position.