Originally Posted by Valkyrie
My question is, how do you discern what is true from what is false when it comes to metaphysics?
Test it. If it's true, it'll eventually show to be true (that is, if you agree to empiricism; otherwise, I think you may be out of luck). If false, same deal. For those things that you can't really tell ever if it is true or false, just leave it at the unknown state, maybe act as though it were true if there's something to be gained from it, but not dwelling too much on the actuality of it (unless you really want to, of course, but typically it's not really all that worth it).
What methods, if any, do you use to discern whether beliefs you have or would like to have are true or false? How much emphasis do you put on the truthfulness of your beliefs relative to how useful or agreeable they are to you?
Methods that have, over time, proven to be useful. Depending on what value I place in certain output of operating based on a certain set of beliefs compared to other certain outputs, beliefs shift to accommodate (and generally, these beliefs shift more toward what has been tested to be 'true'). As for emphasis then, the truthfulness of my beliefs is directly correlated with how useful and/or agreeable it is to me, regardless of what the actual belief is. In any case, putting positive value in what is true rather than simply in how much you would like something to be true seems to have worked well thus far.