Hi, hi, everybody. Hope you doing well, so we're having a good debate or discussion on the nature of truth.

This is coming from a fellow named Bob.

And the question is, is it possible for something to be accidentally true?

So if I murmur, what does two and two make?

And a golfer yells four, he doesn't even heard me,

maybe he yells four, has he accurately answered the question? Is his response true? I argue that

it's not. I argue that truth is the result of a process, not an accidental coincidence.

So Bob is saying, hello, Steph, I am listening to show 6162, cursor currently positioned at about 44 minutes, and you have been arguing for some time

with a gentleman about the meaning of truth. Since her argument started, I have been feeling an

increasing sense of unrest and active rejection, The pinnacle of which happened when I heard you saying that a madman in the middle age is ranting, that the earth revolved around the sun, wouldn't be making a true statement. I felt properly annoyed by that point. Yeah, so this is my case. If there's some guy, he's got, I don't know, I guess it wouldn't be syphilis,

because this is prior to the discovery of the new world which transmitted syphilis back to Europe,

but if you had a madman in the Middle Ages who ranted that unicorns existed, there were demons in his room,

and the earth went around the sun, him saying that the earth goes around the sun is not a true statement, but rather the

ranting of a madman. The fact that it happens to later coincide with a true statement is a

coincidence, but there's no truth in the statement. And I sort of mentioned if a blind man hits a tennis ball perfectly, he's not a

good tennis player. It's just an unusual coincidence. All right. He said, I soon identified,

Bob says, I soon identified this feeling as the reaction to an attempt to redefine a fundamental

word in the vocabulary. I have been using for my whole life an attempt, which was not made

by just anyone that I could ignore, but by Sivan Molyneux himself, in an argument that was not free from

reference to your undeniable, I say, prime skills and debates, almost turning it into an argument

from authority. Well, that's a minor bit of an ad-harm. I am not, I don't think I've ever said I'm right because I'm me.

I mean, that would be pretty bad as a philosopher.

...