I suppose that I could draw a grid with the fields of inquiry on the left, and p

I suppose that I could draw a grid with the fields of inquiry on the left, and proof criteria across the top. But I’d just rather keep it simple.

Truth (testimony) in which you attest to some subset of the following:

– Proof of Construction (causality in the form of actions of measurement reducible to sympathetic testing: ie: empiricism and instrumentalism)

– Proof of Consistency (Internal Consistency: math, logic, protocol/test)

– Proof of Falsification (parsimony)

– Proof of Correspondence/Verification (correlation)

Regarding a:

– Theory (general rule of arbitrary precision) or if possible;

– Theory (general rule of perfect parsimony)

While paradigmatic shuffles are affected by changes in basic concepts, as far as I can tell, all statements reduced to operations, and satisfying the test of construction will result in increases in precision, not in falsification.

At least, I can’t think of any exception to this theory that is not a mere verbalism, or mistake in understanding of the nature of precision. But it’s possible I am wrong.

I could also take a clue from popper’s use of the funnel of time to illustrate a sort of spectrum of proofs. But I’ll have to think about it.

What bothers me most is that we have ruined the term ‘truth’ in the vernacular and in science and philosophy. It is used as an allegorical, and general term for a multitude of cases most of which are not truths whatsoever, but mere analogies to truth. Worse, Popper brought his mystical heritage with him and conflated perfect parsimony (ultimate truth), with proof (demonstration of truth) and testimony (truth telling). Only one of those three things can exist – the last.

Sigh….