Re. the references to Clifford's paper, what do we make of people who deny the existence of global warming, despite sufficient evidence that it is 'real', or those who insist without any evidence that the most recent presidential election in the U.S. was 'stolen'? Politically, those 'truths' are 'working' all too well, as I see it, for people with an anti-Liberal (not just anti-liberal) agenda.

More generally, James's conceptual paradigm seems to lead to a need for some way beyond performative efficaciousness to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' truths. More basely, depending on outcomes to determine whether or not a proposed 'truth' is valid can easily be a recipe for material disaster.

As a species, civilization seems to have blinded us to the simple truth that there is a material reality that imposes itself upon us. To negotiate material existence successfully we must accept that reality for what it is to the best of our ability, using the rational capacity that (I believe) the Good Lord gave us. That is not arbitrarily 'privileging' 'the rational', much less the 'scientific perspective'. Rather, it is the approach to life that is necessary for physical survival — which does put an ethical onus on people to acknowledge that reality.

If an ethic to govern governance — of individuals and societies as geopolitical units — can be discerned within material existence, all the better. (Linked articles are here in Medium, but not behind the paywall.)