We have seen recently that Rawls, while asking a legitimate question, fails convincingly in his response to his own question.
What happens, instead, if we take Plato seriously?
Suppose we are as slaves, chained so as to stare at the wall that contains only fireborn shadows...and no sense of the real, thre dmensional world. Suppose then that a sage enters the cave, speaks of a three dimensional world of true, colorful forms, and the source of the light: the for of the good...how will he be treated?
Plato answer that question well, and condemns democracy in the same breath...by common vote, said sage will be fed to the Alligator of the Cave.
But here Plato falters as do all the pre-Cartesians. The useful question is not "what is true?", but rather, "What should we chained slaves believe?" And they are far different questions.
I assert, rather charcteristically, that the answer is: It depends on your goal.
Certainly, when one is first becoming conscious...one should mostly believe whatever one's trusted caregivers say. Later...the answer changes. Is your goal beautiful thought? Predictivity? To not join that sage in the maw of the Alligator? To lead the clan of the cave gator?
Further assertion: the goal "truth" is neither clear nor accessible, nor is it a real goal. Rather...a lot of folks think that truth is a coherent goal while it really is not.
More interesting to me is that this model is not far from our current best model of the world. We sample through our very limited senses even more limited information about the world. A single sense of the color of an object, completely describeable in 32 bits...rather than as a listing of which wavelenghts of light are reflecting from an object. Ditto sounds, smells, tastes, touch, heat, body motion, and so on.
As for my goal?