Previous reviewers have said many interesting things about this book. But which ones are true? Could Blackburn's theory of truth help us to sort the true interpretations from the false? Blackburn thinks that the idea of perspectivism fails because the metaphor doesn't work: different actual perspectives on the same scene, e.g. the Eiffel Tower, can be combined. But we can always push an analogy too far, or in the wrong direction. A good question would be whether all the interpretations of or perspectives about Blackburn's own book could be combined in the same way that all the visual perspectives on the Eiffel Tower could. I submit that they could not. Each writer in the troop that has preceded me on this Amazon site has his/her own perspective, his/her own vocabulary, and interprets Blackburn in terms of this. There is not even agreement on Blackburn's main point. If Blackburn's theory can't determine which interpretations of his book should be taken to be true, then what good is it? Blackburn is a "scientific realist" who loves to talk about things like tide charts and maps as paradigms of things that are true. Admittedly, a scientific realist theory of truth works particularly well in these areas. But Blackburn's theory of truth is intended to be general, to cover all types of truth, especially the ones that have been the source of much disagreement. Whether a map accurately shows the presence of a cliff is not the kind of question that has ever been hotly contested in the debates between relativists and absolutists. The existence of God is. Blackburn places emphasis on connections between beliefs and causes, noting that "when we write that there is a church on the corner, we take our writing to have been caused by the church..." (171) Yet if we substitute something more philosophically contentious like "When we write that God exists..." we find it doesn't help much to say that we know "God exists" is true because the existence of God causes it to be true or causes us to believe it. Another example of something that has been hotly contested is the nature of truth itself. Blackburn offers his own theory of truth, i.e. that truth is real if accepted in a minimalist way without reference to a first philosophy or underlying foundationalism, and that, contra the postmodernists, we can feel confident in using our traditional vocabulary of explanation and assessment, such as "reason," "objectivity," and "truth," without scare quotes. Other philosophers (including some postmodernists) offer their own theories of truth. Blackburn talks in detail about some of these. I have read many, and my experience each time has been one of entering into a very plausible world in which everything fits together quite nicely. The author's theory always seems, at first, quite superior to the theories of those he/she attacks. Will Blackburn's theory of truth help me to decide between his theory of truth and that of Nietzsche or Rorty. Why should I accept his perspective as superior to theirs? Each is a widely regarded philosopher with an impressive following. Each provides us with strong arguments. Sure, Nietzsche's and Rorty's theories look bad when I am reading Blackburn's account of them. But Blackburn is not a particularly charitable reader, and when I read their actual writings they are at least as impressive as Blackburn himself. In conclusion, I do not see how scientific realism will help to determine which interpretation of Blackburn is the correct one, or which theory of truth is the correct one. By the way, Blackburn does not discuss or even mention Joseph Margolis, who is arguably the leading analytically-trained defender of relativism. See his The Truth About Relativism.