fourmummy: "In order to avoid the infinite regress of "My truth trumps yours", "No, my interpretation is correct"" : Well that would appear to be the nub of our problem, wouldn't it
"we will need to impose a singular set of rules which we both agree on if we are to continue interacting peacefully" How about if we agree that, for all intents and purposes, facts do exist and opinions also exist and they are not interchangeable?
I mean, I am not an expert in pseudophilosophy, and I do understand that you could argue the whole "how can we be sure of anything?" "Maybe reality is but a dream!" (not saying in any way this is what you said btw) thing if you really wanted to, but while that stuff may seem really deep and insightful if you're stoned at 3 in the morning, it's not terribly helpful to a meaningful discussion, is it?
Like the point I made on the other thread:
If I jump out of the window, the "truth" that I will fly is not as valid as the truth that I will fall. If I am unwell, the opinion of my doctor is worth a hell of a lot more than the opinion of my cat. The informed opinion of an evolutionary scientist who has spent many years studying is worth more than a hunch of Pence's. - yes, you could argue that in an infinite universe you could jump out of a high window and fly, but you would never want to test that would you?
Or like Claig admitting that he has never read anything by Orwell, but knows exactly what he would think about Trump because it's "common sense" - do you really think that sounds like common sense?