[C]RITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION
1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm )
2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law)
3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness)
4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory)
Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious).
Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ).
Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology.
As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us.
The Propertarian Institute.