Option 1: Suppose that after finishing the reading, a student says: “Any belief, however unlikely it may appear, can be saved from refutation if you’re willing to make enough secondary elaborations.” Is the student right? Defend your answer. (For the term “secondary elaborations”, see p. 346.)
No. I disagree with the idea that “Any belief, however unlikely it may appear, can be saved from refutation if you’re willing to make enough secondary elaborations.” By using the word “safe”, the student implies that he or she maintain that “belief” unchanged, which is “bullshit”. To argue the “belief”, one has to use the “secondary elaborations”, which builds up a theory. There is no theory yet is all true and explains everything. So the “theory”, which explains the “belief”, is refutable. So the belief is refutable. Thus to maintain one’s belief, one must twist the truth. This proves that the idea proposed by the student is not true. The student may argue that there can be theory that is all true for all circumstances. Let’s say he is right, there is at least one theory that is all true given any evidence. If we also agree with relativist about rationality, then there is an incompatible conceptual scheme A, different from the “unlikely theory(B),” explains all evidence. Then for anything, both conceptual scheme A and conceptual scheme B are all true. “But there is only one universe. It follows that at most one theory to be right.” Argued by Appiah. The it means that A and B are inherently the same. Then there is only one theory, and there is no so-called unlikely belief.
Option 3: How do we avoid people following pragmatic theories of truth in the wrong way — BS? Pragmatic theories of truth focus on the connection between truth and practical practices. It’s an ongoing process and permits multiple truths to exists. People, who BS, find secondary explanations to what benefits them the most. They are not seeking the truth, but share the same feature of seeking the truth. How should we differentiate?