Boy, what a mouthful. I knew it would happen eventually, I'm finally beginning to feel the first twinges of frustration. Let's see if I can quell them. (it's always a bad sign when you have to read a post four times before writing a response) I feel bad writing such short replies to your novels, but I only have a few things to say this time:


It is incomplete when it comes to use statements. It is irrelevant as far as truth statements unless we accept precepts on faith. Since use statements themselves depend on some truth statements, the whole enterprise is built on faith.

Not exactly. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of faith, so let's check. I think that scientific "faith" and religious faith are two seperate things entirely. The truth statements that science is based off of are placeholders, and are freely admitted to be place holders. Science only goes into the realm of faith if you say that its truth statements are valid. I have never met one person who has done this. Ever. They KNOW that science is an evolving entity, with truth statements based off of the most use statements as possible, but ultimately a description.

Religious faith, on the other hand, bypasses evidence and claims their beliefs have genuine total accuracy in the outside world. This is flawed.

Why don't you agree that we can desribe truth statements through use statements? Even science's underlying truth statements change over time as new use statements are uncovered.

I'll write more later...