It is often said that there are multiple definitions of truth do you agree disagree justify
Answers
Answer:
No there is only one definition of truth but people often change them according to their convenience....
Answer:We might say that the most typical purpose of beliefs is to describe or capture the way things actually are; that is, when one forms a belief, one is seeking a match between one’s mind and the world. (We sometimes, of course, form beliefs for other reasons – to create a positive attitude, to deceive ourselves, and so forth – but when we seek knowledge, we are trying to get things right.) And, alas, we sometimes fail to achieve such a match; some of our beliefs do not describe the way things actually are.
Note that we are assuming here that there is such a thing as objective truth, so that it is possible for beliefs to match or to fail to match with reality. That is, in order for someone to know something, there must be something one knows about. Recall that we are discussing knowledge in the factive sense; if there are no facts of the matter, then there’s nothing to know (or to fail to know). This assumption is not universally accepted – in particular, it is not shared by some proponents of relativism – but it will not be defended here. However, we can say that truth is a condition of knowledge; that is, if a belief is not true, it cannot constitute knowledge. Accordingly, if there is no such thing as truth, then there can be no knowledge. Even if there is such a thing as truth, if there is a domain in which there are no truths, then there can be no knowledge within that domain. (For example, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then a belief that something is beautiful cannot be true or false, and thus cannot constitute knowledge.)Anything that is verifiable and repeatable is likely to be true. If not verifiable and repeatable, then it may well be completely false, or at least partially false.
This holds for much more than just religious beliefs. What about political thought? One perfect example was when President Obama was pushing his ACA (Obamacare). His facile claim was that with medical coverage for all, the costs of health care would go down. Because people would take better care of themselves, avoiding those major medical bills. But that's just a banality, right? Just words that sound good. I'm not saying that morally, universal health care is wrong. I am saying, don't assume something to be true just because it sounds good. (Of course, health care costs went up, not down.)
Is it true that if you get your car washed every week, it will last longer and cost you less in the long run? Of course not. But it sounds good. People will nod their heads in mindless, lazy agreement. You'll have a cleaner car, you will most likely pay more, and it may last less long, depending on any number of factors. Exactly the same as health care.