> Thus I'd rather have several inconsistent 'theories' that work well
> within their own 'domains', rather than one that doesn't really quite
> work anywhere. (Scientific parallels are surely obvious, for those of
> that bent.) If one starts down the path of assuming that what
> can be inferred about the 'true nature' of things from fragmentary
> subjective evidence,
I'm actually suggesting doing the other way round: start from a "truth" and infer the conmflicting versions. We are not Gloranthans, evidence is only as fragmentary and subjective as we write it.
> and the even weaker form of things created
> primarily as game artefects, can be cobbled together by an ad hoc
> process of reductionism and whole-cloth invention, and rise to the
> level of 'objective truth' which is itself superior to the
> understandings of the original, explicitly subjective material,
> then it seems to me one is on very shaky ground indeed.
Who said the 'objective truth' is superior? As long as a subjective version is consistent and works it's of equal value. The 'objective truth' is not an end, just a means to make better subjective truths.
Powered by hypermail