if you have a limited knowledge about something, but the knowledge you do have is true, and it's just that you also happen to lack other pieces of information that would also fit into your current understnading of the truth of the thing,

i think that is a different thing than

your ignorance of certain pieces of information means that what you knew actually isn't true.

jordan is saying that there are degrees of truth that depend on how complete your understanding of a thing is, where as i think it's more kind of modular where you can actually have a true understanding of a thing without knowing everything about it.

i don't think we can know if what we currently know about a thing is true and in line with the information we don't have (since we don't have it), but in the sense of whether or not we are correct (irrelevant of whether we know we are correct) i think it's absolutely possible to have an understanding of something that while not being complete, is still true.

is this retarded? this is what makes sense to me when i hear jordan talking at around 1 hour 20 minutes in. i don't understand how he can have such a fluid concept of truth when all my life i have thought of truth as being such a concrete thing