Immediately before the first quote you reproduced, gjm says:
I think “aim for convergence on truth” means “aim for the truth, with the expectation of convergence”.
Within the quote you reproduced, Duncan says:
If you are moving closer to truth [...] then you will inevitably eventually move closer and closer to agreement with all the other agents who are also seeking truth.
To put it another way, “we are not aiming for mere convergence. Nor are we aiming for mere truth! We are aiming for convergence on the truth in a community of other truth-seekers.”
If you aren’t in a community of fellow truth-seekers, or don’t think that you are, then aiming for convergence on truth is not what you should be doing. You should default to aiming for truth, while searching for a better community.
But if you are part of a community of truth-seekers, then “aiming for truth” is something we are taking more or less for granted. Instead, we are focused on the convergence piece, since even in a community of truth-seekers, we can’t take it for granted that we will all arrive on the truth, despite our seeking efforts.
To put it another way, “we are not aiming for mere convergence. Nor are we aiming for mere truth! We are aiming for convergence on the truth in a community of other truth-seekers.”
This remains obscure. Obvious questions:
What is “mere truth”, and how does it differ from some other (“non-mere”?) truth?
If aiming for truth “inevitably” causes you to move closer to convergence with other truth-seekers, then why would you ever need to aim for convergence (or for anything whatsoever besides truth)?
What exactly is “aiming for convergence on the truth”? I understand “aim for truth” and I understand “aim for convergence”, but I don’t understand “aim for convergence on the truth”. What does that look like, mechanically? How does it differ from either of the other things?
But if you are part of a community of truth-seekers, then “aiming for truth” is something we are taking more or less for granted.
What does this mean, exactly?
We’re taking for granted that everyone else is “aiming for truth”? (But are they really?)
Or, each of us is taking for granted that he/she is “aiming for truth”? (But what does that mean? You can know that you’re aiming for truth if you are in fact aiming for truth, to the best of your ability. I am not sure what it means to take for granted that you’re aiming for truth. Probably you meant the other thing…)
Instead, we are focused on the convergence piece, since even in a community of truth-seekers, we can’t take it for granted that we will all arrive on the truth, despite our seeking efforts.
We can’t? But then how does it help to not aim for truth, if we can’t even take for granted that we’ll get to the truth even if we aim for it? How does “aiming for convergence”… er, sorry, “focus[ing] on the convergence piece” (but how is that different from “aiming for convergence”…?) actually help?
Immediately before the first quote you reproduced, gjm says:
Within the quote you reproduced, Duncan says:
To put it another way, “we are not aiming for mere convergence. Nor are we aiming for mere truth! We are aiming for convergence on the truth in a community of other truth-seekers.”
If you aren’t in a community of fellow truth-seekers, or don’t think that you are, then aiming for convergence on truth is not what you should be doing. You should default to aiming for truth, while searching for a better community.
But if you are part of a community of truth-seekers, then “aiming for truth” is something we are taking more or less for granted. Instead, we are focused on the convergence piece, since even in a community of truth-seekers, we can’t take it for granted that we will all arrive on the truth, despite our seeking efforts.
This remains obscure. Obvious questions:
What is “mere truth”, and how does it differ from some other (“non-mere”?) truth?
If aiming for truth “inevitably” causes you to move closer to convergence with other truth-seekers, then why would you ever need to aim for convergence (or for anything whatsoever besides truth)?
What exactly is “aiming for convergence on the truth”? I understand “aim for truth” and I understand “aim for convergence”, but I don’t understand “aim for convergence on the truth”. What does that look like, mechanically? How does it differ from either of the other things?
What does this mean, exactly?
We’re taking for granted that everyone else is “aiming for truth”? (But are they really?)
Or, each of us is taking for granted that he/she is “aiming for truth”? (But what does that mean? You can know that you’re aiming for truth if you are in fact aiming for truth, to the best of your ability. I am not sure what it means to take for granted that you’re aiming for truth. Probably you meant the other thing…)
We can’t? But then how does it help to not aim for truth, if we can’t even take for granted that we’ll get to the truth even if we aim for it? How does “aiming for convergence”… er, sorry, “focus[ing] on the convergence piece” (but how is that different from “aiming for convergence”…?) actually help?