How Reliable Are the Different Ways of Knowing When It Comes to Leading Us towards the Truth?

Before answering the above question, let's first explain the true meaning of the truth. As far as I am concerned, there is no absolute truth in this world. The reason is that I think we may not be genuine. I think that this is the basis of my opinion, as people think different ways and beliefs. There are three true theories: correspondents, consistency, and pragmatism. The correspondent theory states that if the statement is consistent with the actual situation, the statement is correct.

"There is a way to understand the truth, be faithful to himself and God, thereby making us more realistic and sacred, but there is another way to accept the truth, which is not true to us I will be sanctified by the truth, if my will behave as a servant of truth and devote my soul to the things of wisdom I will be sanctified. "(Matthew But if I truth as my master as if it belongs to my right to conquer as if the truth is my servant, It is natural to think that you can do whatever you want.This is the root of all falsehoods.The wise men must regard truth to be of service and are not owned and operated according to their own pleasures .

Universal medicine shares a way of life to provide a unified truth for all ... the real way. There are no weapons or harsh words here. This is our truth, the truth from which all of us derive, and the truth that we will eventually return. This is a matter of time

Why is interpretation of "Marxism" and "Feminism" about history rather than physics permitted? Does the way to understand lead us more directly than other methods? What is the difference between the types of knowledge? Are there different types of knowledge? Is there a system with urgent attributes that can not be studied at a more fundamental level? If that can not be predicted, is complexity useful or interesting? Or should we accept discouragement and lack of prediction? Is pursuing knowledge a precious goal of dedication to life? What prompted this? Using their lives to prove that so-called phenomena actually do not exist? Is there a lot of work that is necessary to establish the evidence to prove that the theory is wrong with a single counterfeit? What does 'knowledge is power' mean? Do you need to judge the usefulness of public research funds? How to judge the utility in advance?