One approach would be to understand beliefs as habits rather than as propositions. Both the belief in gravity and in national borders guide movement. Even aesthetical judgements - what we deem beautiful and ideal in itself - guide massively our orientation in life.
Then the question about the truth isn't purely a relationship between a proposition and some state of things, but a dynamic and fluid relation between a habit and environment.
True beliefs would then be beliefs that are in harmony with the environment. True belief would minimize surprise. For instance, believing in flat earth would lead to surprises when flying in space. This way even things deemed as intersubjective or subjective aren't fully arbitrary. For example, a good society is one which sustains itself with minimal crises.
I don’t buy this. I think there’s something here in this continuum idea, but you’re likely conflating utility with truth.
I think the continuum is better described as the scale of consensus on a given topic, which is itself an objective property of reality. “I like coffee with milk” is an objective fact claim about your personal preferences - it’s either true or not. “Coffee with milk is good” is a subjective value claim, the utility of which increases as a function of its social consensus. As you said, if enough people value something, then that thing becomes more valuable.
None of this impinges on some things being objectively true and other things being false. So I think this intersecting continuum applies to some forms of value beliefs, for sure. Most of what humans are doing - even when they tell themselves it has to do with objective factual reality - is really about values. I agree with that.
But some things still are and aren’t true, and these things include minutiae like your personal preference for X over Y. Again, “X is better than Y” is a value belief, on that continuum of consensus. “I prefer X to Y” is a fact belief that can be inferred from, ie observation. For example, the Pythagorean theorem. Either it is true or it isn’t. Whether or not people disagree on this is irrelevant to the truth, but it can matter for utility. If everyone thinks Pythagoras, as an old white man, is evil and bad, it may be wiser to keep your use of this evil theorem secret. But id still use it.
If everyone in some field agrees that some claim is true, the utility of disbelief in the claim may indeed lower- but it depends on the field and the people! Most financial experts would have told you to stay away from bitcoin 10 years ago. We now know they objectively wrong. If only one person thinks a claim is true, the utility of believing the thing to be true, in general, is much lower. So what I think you are describing in this continuum is not objectivity vs subjectivity, but the scale of value consensus.
One approach would be to understand beliefs as habits rather than as propositions. Both the belief in gravity and in national borders guide movement. Even aesthetical judgements - what we deem beautiful and ideal in itself - guide massively our orientation in life.
Then the question about the truth isn't purely a relationship between a proposition and some state of things, but a dynamic and fluid relation between a habit and environment.
True beliefs would then be beliefs that are in harmony with the environment. True belief would minimize surprise. For instance, believing in flat earth would lead to surprises when flying in space. This way even things deemed as intersubjective or subjective aren't fully arbitrary. For example, a good society is one which sustains itself with minimal crises.
I don’t buy this. I think there’s something here in this continuum idea, but you’re likely conflating utility with truth.
I think the continuum is better described as the scale of consensus on a given topic, which is itself an objective property of reality. “I like coffee with milk” is an objective fact claim about your personal preferences - it’s either true or not. “Coffee with milk is good” is a subjective value claim, the utility of which increases as a function of its social consensus. As you said, if enough people value something, then that thing becomes more valuable.
None of this impinges on some things being objectively true and other things being false. So I think this intersecting continuum applies to some forms of value beliefs, for sure. Most of what humans are doing - even when they tell themselves it has to do with objective factual reality - is really about values. I agree with that.
But some things still are and aren’t true, and these things include minutiae like your personal preference for X over Y. Again, “X is better than Y” is a value belief, on that continuum of consensus. “I prefer X to Y” is a fact belief that can be inferred from, ie observation. For example, the Pythagorean theorem. Either it is true or it isn’t. Whether or not people disagree on this is irrelevant to the truth, but it can matter for utility. If everyone thinks Pythagoras, as an old white man, is evil and bad, it may be wiser to keep your use of this evil theorem secret. But id still use it.
If everyone in some field agrees that some claim is true, the utility of disbelief in the claim may indeed lower- but it depends on the field and the people! Most financial experts would have told you to stay away from bitcoin 10 years ago. We now know they objectively wrong. If only one person thinks a claim is true, the utility of believing the thing to be true, in general, is much lower. So what I think you are describing in this continuum is not objectivity vs subjectivity, but the scale of value consensus.