Editing Philosophical Research:Schizophrenic point of view (section)

== When are statements false? ==

it has been argued that "truth" is not a good framework for understanding reality. sometimes the term <i>truth</i> gets applied in totally subjective contexts such as what belongs to the definition of a field of mathematics and what doesn't. some things like quantum-scale objects or black holes simply cannot be objectively observed, for instance because the experimental subject has become too small to observe with anything big and solid enough to have been manipulated into an experimental instrument, or the experimental subject is somehow smaller than time such that any attempt to move objects behaving in time near it looks distorted (to say nothing of the much worse possibility of a tearing-apart of time tearing apart the apparatus with it). this isn't to say such vanishingly small phenomena never <em>will</em> be understood — only that for the past few decades most scientists have been forced to study only the changes that appear on the outermost boundaries of the phenomenon rather than what might be inside. this has led science to define reality based on characterizing the behaviors of [[Term:The Great Behaving|everything that can reasonably be observed]], whether immediately or in the near future when a plausible new experimental apparatus is actually developed. although the total of what humanity can observe may change over time, science must ground its models and calculations in predicting what we can currently observe.

science focuses on the accuracy of proposed models to real-world behavior. formal logic does not necessarily begin in this kind of foundation, because one of the first rules of formal logic is that statements must be valid or invalid <em>to the system of reasoning</em> before they are required to be true to the material world. formal logic is designed to encourage evaluating statements as single integer numbers or binary bits, although the actual act of comparing any statement to the real world will be far more complicated than 1 or 0. this is to say that a propositional logic appropriate for science needs to operate on rules other than booleans and bit operations to determine whether statements are true.

for the purposes of distinguishing S2 Statements from F2 Statements, an F2 Statement is an <i>inaccurate</i> statement which is not useful to [[Term:The Great Behaving|operating in the real world]] and an S2 Statement is a statement which has not been identified as inaccurate; an S2 Statement is any hypothesis on a topic which may either be accurate or inaccurate, and an F2 Statement is a hypothesis which has been rejected. a Z2 Statement is not strictly guaranteed to be accurate to any particular system defined as reality, but contains a fully explained mathematical description of some particular physical behavior based on everything that can be accurately observed about that defined reality.

Statements must be [[Term:meta-ontological soundness|meta-ontologically sound]] as written to avoid being marked inaccurate. Due to the limits of HTML presentation, this may mean the whole statement is only found in an Item's aliases or its usage notes rather than its outward label; this is fine. However, if a statement is made about the whole world when it only applies in the United States, it will be marked inaccurate unless it is changed or forked into a statement specifically about the United States; the same could happen with populations or demographic identities of any scale.

There may be multiple valid strategies to avoid statements which are intended to be neutral observations being marked inaccurate. One relatively easy way is to make the statement very specific so that it does not cover cases where it would not apply — "For United States White people...". Another more difficult way is to make the statement more literal, making use of the principles of [[Term:existential materialism|existential materialism]] to describe a phenomenon on the correct physical scale and level of generality so that it will actually be true everywhere — "The relationship between subpopulations of greater populations and individuals...". Yet another way is to turn a questionable statement into a statement about a speaker or text: "<em>Trotsky believed</em> that all the world's populations would spontaneously become a single government", instead of "All the world's populations will spontaneously become a single government".