I’ll add the question then: whether your (one’s) epistemology relies on testifia

I’ll add the question then: whether your (one’s) epistemology relies on testifiability, where testifiability requires: realism (existence), naturalism (causality, determism), identity (disambiguation), internal consistency (logic), existential possiblity (operations), external correspondence (observable evidence), bounded rational choice (rationality), bounded rational reciprocity (morality), and satisfies full accounting (limits, completeness), and is within the limits of restitutability, and whether you are willing to state testifiable truth regardless of cost.

That’s the complete, exhaustive criterial for testifiable truth claims, with every dimension of falsification available to man.

Under that criteria very few people speak any truth whatsoever. Instead, they speak a negotiating position or a suggestion, or a deception, or a fraud.

I’ve done exhaustive work on testimonhy and deceit, and the most interesting science of all it turns out, is the rich study of human lying.

We didn’t evolve for truth.
We evolved for negotiationg cooperation
We didn’t evolve for morality.
We evolved for acting within the limits of immorality.

We just try to teach each other beneficial positivas (the right way to do things). Which has the side benefit of not teaching now NOT to do things. WHich would only make matters worse.

Economic cooperation, the commons, political systems, rates of evolution all depend on the truthfulness of the population, and it’s correspondence with the laws of the universe (which are unmerciful, really).

Truth is a human advantage in all things.
It’s also the most expensive and costly – especially psychologically and emotionally – commons that humans can develop. And thats why almost no one has. Except for europeans, which is rather interesting in and of itself.

Confession, Oath, Contract, Testimony, Military Reporting.
“truth before face regardless of cost”.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @SRCHicks