(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)
***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.***
Lets note the difference between the following points of view.
2 experience of the universe,
3 utility in determining one’s action,
4 observation of an action and consequences
5 justification of the results of one’s action,
6 warranty in recommendation of action*,
7 and decidability in conflict*,
…describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it.
I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language.
Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them.
We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.