. . .

On external correspondence.

You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism.

All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments.

The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions.

We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know).

When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it.

However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.

This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal)