—“Truth is temporal, not absolute”—
Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why?

If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language.

When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements).

In other words: word games.

Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence)

The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation).

So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully.

We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not.

1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.

1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).

2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.

2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.

3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.

3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.

We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible)
We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality.
And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality.

Slowly we get there….