Just because someone is biased doesn't mean that what they believe in is wrong. Just because people disagree on any given thing doesn't mean that both disagreements are justified, and just because some people agree on any given thing doesn't mean that they're right. However, if you notice, people disagree on values far more than they do on facts (like whether or not the moon revolves around the earth). Romanticism (or idealism) and imagination has the tendency to be emotionally exciting, while realism has the tendency to be sobering. By understanding the affects that these worldviews have on human psychology we can understand the biases. One bias confuses imagination with reality and that's the problem.

I suspect that you have psychological reasons for adopting this conception of epistemology and its relationship to psychology. Sure, you can have all the faith you want in this view of yours, but it doesn't, for me, escape the difficulties I have mentioned.

People disagree very much on certain facts. Some facts allow for quite a bit of consensus. Truth is a property of sentences. Show me one single truth that is not a sentence, or a phrase. ("Sentence" is metonymy). Let's phrase it this way. Show me a truth, in your sense of the word, that isn't made of words. Just one. Only one. Please.

The definition was invented. But what makes you think that stipulative definitions are true or false?

Isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 92" a true statement? And isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 91" a false statement? And didn't the first statement become true (having previously had no truth-value) when the word "uranium" was first coined and defined? If so, the truth was not discovered, but invented.

But uranium existed way before we ever coined the word "uranium", didn't it? And it had the properties that make it have the atomic number 92 way before we ever applied the written properties to the written name of the element.

We discovered the truth, we didn't invent it. All we did was articulate what was already, with language.

What we discovered was the truth that there existed an element with the properties that made it have the atomic number 92. What we invented was the truth that uranium was that element.

Isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 92" a true statement? And isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 91" a false statement? And didn't the first statement become true (having previously had no truth-value) when the word "uranium" was first coined and defined? If so, the truth was not discovered, but invented.

What we discovered was the truth that there existed an element with the properties that made it have the atomic number 92. What we invented was the truth that uranium was that element.

No definitions are true or false until the words in which they are couched are invented. But the meanings of words are discovered by investigating the ways in which those words are used by fluent speakers of the language. And the results of those investigations. So definitions are true or false reports of how words are used. I certainly hope that the editors of the dictionary did not invent those definitions.

How did we do that? Uranium was always that element, although that element was, of course, not called "uranium" until the word was coined. Mars always orbited the Sun, although the planet was not always called "Mars". Words and things. Very different. "Uranium" is the name of uranium. It is not uranium.

So at one time it was not true that the name of uranium is "uranium", but now it is true. That truth was invented, not discovered.

But can we now discover it? Or once invented, always invented?

No, it was only invented once. Now we know it - or, if we are new to the subject, we discover (i.e. learn) it.

So at one time it was not true that the name of uranium is "uranium", but now it is true. That truth was invented, not discovered.

No, it was only invented once. Now we know it - or, if we are new to the subject, we discover (i.e. learn) it.

What truth was invented?

But you would still dub it an invented truth, though people can discover it?

But what it expresses is not made of words.

Nothing is "true" until it has been accepted into the realm of true things. Atoms were not true until they were true. Just because someone hypothesized them and named them and certain elites accepted that hypothesis, dis not make the atom true whether it exists or not.

Isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 92" a true statement? And isn't "uranium is the element with atomic number 91" a false statement? And didn't the first statement become true (having previously had no truth-value) when the word "uranium" was first coined and defined? If so, the truth was not discovered, but invented.

This second "truth" is also made of words.

At one time uranium was not called, "uranium", since it was not called anything at all. What truth was invented? No one invented uranium.

"Uranium" was invented. Is there a non-human reality that our human conceptions refer to? I think there is. But we can't know it directly. We create a model of it. The model changes. At one time, radioactivity did not exist. Not for us as we understand it.

Right you are. There was radioactivity. But no one knew about it. Just as there was the planet Uranus. But no one knew about it until it was discovered in 1781.

Show me a truth, in your sense of the word, that isn't made of words. Just one. Only one. Please.