***That is exactly what I'm talking about. Would you agree with me that Language is often not sufficient when it comes to communicating Conceptual Schemes? Would you also agree that that issue has a tremendous impact on everything we think we know, as most of it is acquired through Language?***
I agree that language has it's pitfalls.
***It's good you think it sounds reasonable. I think it's more than reasonable, that it in fact happens to be the case, but I need someone else to look at this. Convincing yourself of the truth of your own ideas is too easy and for the most part worthless.***
All we have is reason, beyond that we cannot say.
***I was talking about are ones that are allowed by the Semantics of a language but are not "true". Essentially, in some Languages "lies" are perfectly valid statements. Now of course it starts to get complicated, but that is exactly where it starts to get interesting! What I think I found is no more no less than a way to understand "truth" by means of understanding the relationship between Statements in a Language and what those Statements refer to. It made it clear to me why people often disagree on what is true and what we can do about it.***
In sounds like some minimalist theory of truth. My view is that disagreement about truth is often a conflict of conceptual schemes. Since the world can tolerate many different conceptual schemes, it also tolerates many versions of 'truth'. It's not that there is many versions of 'truth', it is rather our access to the best conceptual scheme as it relates to the universe as a whole is rather limited. As we know the universe better (e.g., through science, through debate of ideas in a philosophical discussion, etc), we can limit the number of viable conceptual schemes (i.e., restrict 'truth' to something more specific), but we still cannot reduce the number of feasible conceptual schemes to one. I think this is why 'truth' is seen differently by so many.
Warm regards, Harv