So claims like, "the truth is whatever everyone believes," or "it was true then that the Sun orbited the Earth" are incoherent. So I do not believe that "Bubonic plague is caused by demon possession," although there have been some people who believed that in the 1300s.
So I believe these sentences: And insofar as I believe them, I think they are true. Furthermore, I do not believe, "Scorpios make better parents than Libras," "The American moon landing was faked," and "it is possible for unassisted humans to fly if they concentrate hard enough." I think all of those claims are false.
When people believed that the earth was flat, in fact, it was not.
The truth was that the earth was (and is) spherical. Evil demon possession does not cause bubonic plague.
Furthermore, since it is mind-independent, there are truths that are not believed by anyone.
There are truths about the location, speed, and mass of a rock that is floating in space around the Sun that no one will ever confront or learn, for example.
So you either believe, disbelieve, or suspend judgment about the proposition, "The Earth is flat." You might be able to acknowledge why someone else might see it differently, you might even be able to recognized the evidence that would lead them to believe something else.
But once we have clarified a claim, you must either believe, disbelieve, or suspend judgment about it, but you cannot both believe and disbelieve it at the same time.
It evaluates the effects of advertising, politics, religion, and the news media.
The course also explores the gulf between reasoning in theory and in practice.