[B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM
1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.
2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.
3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.
4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.
Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.
Thanks for following me on the journey.