“…If one wishes to know something about the matter, the traditional methods of attack must be radically and definitely abandoned. (Naess, 1938a, p. 93) In his effort to settle things, Naess interrogated and surveyed ordinary people; he asked them to explicitly state what they think truth is, to state what is common to all that is true, to make synonymity judgments, to evaluate others' definitions; and he tried a variety of other techniques (see Appiah, 2008;Chapman, 2008Chapman, , 2011Stadler, 2009 He took this to show that there was just no thing that deserved to be called the common-sense theory or pre-philosophic conception of truth; so much, then, for the material adequacy condition: 2 (p.331) It is therefore nonsensical to speak of the common sense view of the truth-notion. Equally nonsensical it is to speak of the view of the man in the street, of the uneducated, of the prephilosophic mind etc.…”