In other words, if I truly believed this, I would label most people as being too stupid to have a real discussion with.
Stupid’s got nothing to do with it.
Are you so sure your preferred Truth modalities are better than theirs at winning? Probably, through most of human history, and even today, a dominant Correspondence to Reality modality was an evolutionary and personal loser.
Epistemically accurate statements are only a subset of winning statements. Actually, that’s only “some epistemically accurate statements”, as others are losers in some use contexts.
PeerGynt
Stupid’s got nothing to do with it.
Are you so sure your preferred Truth modalities are better than theirs at winning? Probably, through most of human history, and even today, a dominant Correspondence to Reality modality was an evolutionary and personal loser.
I you would have thought a discussion of the nature of truth came under epistemic rationality.
See paragraph
Epistemically accurate statements are only a subset of winning statements. Actually, that’s only “some epistemically accurate statements”, as others are losers in some use contexts.
Indeed: Some winning statements aren’t true, so truth shouldn’t be casually equated with winning.
Not how I was using the term:
Paragraph 2: