Some may think that science is not important. I disagree, but suppose that is true: the philosopher, J.L. Austin once wrote that truth is more important than importance. And, wasn't he right? For example, it would be important if God exists. But only if it is true that God exists. Otherwise, it is not important at all.

Is the use of the word important , important? I think it would be profound
if god exists. But it seems that the truth would be more profound.

What would be the difference between the profundity of God existing, and the profundity of the truth that God exists? If there were no truth, it could not be true that God exists.

Yes the truth is primary, but how do we know its important? Could it be merely profound?

It is either true, or it is not true, that truth is merely profound. (Truth is hard to get away from).

Quite so, could we say that knowledge of the truth is important,the truth profound. Would that be a true statement?

If so, does it not follow that science is a tool used to arrive at knowledge of the truth.

The order would then be ,Truth,,knowledge of truth,,,science.

The truth need not be profound at all. There are many very shallow truths. And there is much knowledge that is unimportant because it is knowledge of unimportant truths. All Austin said was that being true was more important than being important. So, even if what is true is unimportant, it is more important that it be true than that it be important.

I don't see how a truth can be shallow or unimportant. That seems to me a value judgement, which in turn negates the truth, isn't truth pure.

Some knowledge may be unimportant, but not all knowledge is of truth.
I would have to say, though, it seems truth is most important.

Well, suppose I notice a piece of lint on the rug, and assert, "There is a piece of lint on the rug". That assertion does not seem to be important nor profound. But it is true.

I think all knowledge is of truth. What can you know that isn't true?

Yes, the truth may not seem important. that may be true, importance appears secondary

I think I said knowledge was of truth, not truth itself, or didn't I

I stand corrected on the profundity of truth, not nessesary, but it should be pure.

I did not say, "seem important". That there is lint on the rug is not important. But even if it is not important, it is still true.

I think I said knowledge was of truth, not truth itself, or didn't I

But knowledge is always of truth, since no one can know what is not true. (I don't think I know what "knowledge of truth itself" means).

Again I think the importance of lint on the rug is a personal value judgement and thus invalid.

I am persuaded to believe all knowledge seems to be of truth.

Is truth seemingly pure?

I did not talk about the appearance of lint. I said just lint on the rug (although I don't see how if I say it looks as if there is a piece of lint on the floor, that is a value judgment. I am not either approving of there being lint on the floor or disapproving of it, All I am saying is that I happen to see a piece of lint on the floor. It is just a report about what I see. Would you say that if I reported that is looks cloudy today, that would be a value judgment?) Anyway, why are all value judgments "invalid"? Whatever that means.

You are mistaken , the statement was on the importance of the truth that a piece of lint is on the floor, I am anal retentive ,it is important to me,that there is lint on the carpet ,value judgement. Not relevent to truth.

"Knowledge of truth" is a vehicle to preserve the seeming purity of truth.

Value judgements assign value to perseptions of truth.

It may be important to me that there is a piece of lint on the rug. And I may find that to be an evil thing. But the report that there is a piece of lint on the rug, is either true or false, whatever my attitude toward it is.

"Knowledge of truth" is a vehicle to preserve the seeming purity of truth.

I have no idea what you mean by this. But it does not seem to have anything to do with the fact that we can know only what is true.

In order to preserve the seeming purity of truth, I must separate knowledge from it, therefore knowledge of truth does the job nicely I think.

I have previously stated that I am persuaded to believe that all knowledge seems to be of truth.

redirect
a] truth is seemingly pure
b]All knowledge seems to be of truth
c]science appears as a tool to gather knowledge.

I don't know what it means for truth to be pure or polluted. Knowledge and truth are not the same thing, of course. Although I cannot know what is not true, there are many truths I do not know, and some which no one knows.

I don't know what it means for truth to be pure or polluted. Knowledge and truth are not the same thing, of course. Although I cannot know what is not true, there are many truths I do not know, and some which no one knows.