And thus, the definition of "Truth" has been obscured by these armchair philosophers, who overlook the obvious only because the obvious is what is observed. No other group deserves such dis-respect.
For example, the Definition of truth. It is observed what can be called truth in almost all situations. Any philosopher needs to just observe the method we use to determine the truth of a statement.
How do we determine something is true? It is observed that for a person to determine a statement to be "true", they compare said statement with what is observed. Yes, that is correct. We can observe that truth is a comparison of a statement with an observation.
I think this is a good direct way to challenge the complex and subtle ways of defining truth. But i have to say that more recently that i have become much more relativistic with regards to truth. I am not sure if this is contrary to what i see as your clear and pragmatic approach.
For example with regards to the highly pragmatic situation of a court of law. I am sure you recognise that many people were convicted simply because the 'evidence' presented/available to the jury genuinely convinced the jury that they were guilty. ie 'It is true that you are guilty as charged of this crime because guilt is a true statement when compared to what is observed."
Of course subsequently, say with new technology and forensic evidence, an appeal court can say that "It is true that you are innocent because that statement is true compared to what is observed. New observations show the previous verdict to be false" ..... and herein lies the problem.
Of course the method of comparing a statement with the observations remains the same, and thus the probability of established truth (or the probabilty of overthrowing established falsehood) is presumed to increase by continuing to use the method.
However ...... that is an infinite iterative process and one can never be sure by applying such a method for finding /establishing truth that the truth
has ever been found/confirmed. Thus the definition of comparing a statement of truth with what is observed can never by its own admission ever establish truth with certainty. New and better observations can always potentially find an established statement of truth ......as false. Thus it is not a definition of truth, UNLESS truth is also considered necessarily to be intrinsically relative
(to available observations/ language capabilities/....)
Which brings the discussion to the ultimate prize of the armchair philosopher, "Absolute truth". Distrustful of perception, the armchair philosopher yearns for some "transcendent truth to be directly percieved without the aid of(stupid I know) perception". To them, reality is something "behind" observation. Yet they yearn to observe it.
This is stupid. Why? Because of the observation that information travels. It is not observed that information is somehow incorrect when it moves through a medium. Indeed, an observation through the eye yields the same information as a direct perception. Why? because "direct perception" has been observed to be the traveling of information. That is precisely what observation is.
..... well i have to strongly disagree with your crucial statement here
Media often distorts and loses information. That has been observed!
It is not observed that information is somehow incorrect when it moves through a medium.