Not sure where these thoughts lead, but in the spirit of your humble exploration........
Thought one: Douglas Adams once created the acronym WSOGMM - Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash - which I come back to often. My interpretation of the phrase is that it captures situations where the individual elements of something are known but the combinational relationship and impact of those elements are deeply uncertain. In a sense, it captures a framing issue. I wonder if you there might be merit in you thinking more about frames of reference as you develop things.
Thought two: I am slowing coming to wonder about the lenses of certainty, skepticism and humility. The juxtaposition of these concepts is powerful, but I wonder if it is sufficiently complete. Another phrase that comes to my mind at least is confidence. If we accept your basic premise about knowledge (and by extension truth), questions about certainty and skepticism (which are presented as absolute positions) are nullified. In a world of epistemic humility, we are left with two choices - to wallow in an uncontrolled sea of uncertainty or to create an artificial construct which resolves uncertainty sufficiently for humans and society to function while retaining scope for this to change as understanding changes. Ultimately this is a question of communal confidence. It leaves truth as being personal and unresolvable in a communal sense (in a sense your definitions of knowledge and truth only become issues when we seek to share them and use them as a basis for societal operations; left as individual constructs - if we lived alone on our own planet - this simply doesn't matter).
Thought 3: Human intercourse and communication springs from a combination of judgements about what the world is and what we think it should be. As individuals, these concepts can be very hard for us to disentangle these concepts. Our definitions of what the world is are inevitably determined by our views on what the world should be. Individual agency means that the set of 'should be' views is vast, meaning that the set of 'is' views is also large.
Thought 4: Back to confidence. Perhaps working definition of confidence needs to be based on the communal acceptability of a statement (within an array of contexts or frames). Confidence is not an indicator of truth, but provides a basis for societal operations. To operate successfully society needs to be humble about knowledge, tolerant of differing truths (and accepting there is no universal truth in a practical sense) but encouraging of sufficient confidence in the basis for action.
Not sure where these thoughts lead, but in the spirit of your humble exploration........
Thought one: Douglas Adams once created the acronym WSOGMM - Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash - which I come back to often. My interpretation of the phrase is that it captures situations where the individual elements of something are known but the combinational relationship and impact of those elements are deeply uncertain. In a sense, it captures a framing issue. I wonder if you there might be merit in you thinking more about frames of reference as you develop things.
Thought two: I am slowing coming to wonder about the lenses of certainty, skepticism and humility. The juxtaposition of these concepts is powerful, but I wonder if it is sufficiently complete. Another phrase that comes to my mind at least is confidence. If we accept your basic premise about knowledge (and by extension truth), questions about certainty and skepticism (which are presented as absolute positions) are nullified. In a world of epistemic humility, we are left with two choices - to wallow in an uncontrolled sea of uncertainty or to create an artificial construct which resolves uncertainty sufficiently for humans and society to function while retaining scope for this to change as understanding changes. Ultimately this is a question of communal confidence. It leaves truth as being personal and unresolvable in a communal sense (in a sense your definitions of knowledge and truth only become issues when we seek to share them and use them as a basis for societal operations; left as individual constructs - if we lived alone on our own planet - this simply doesn't matter).
Thought 3: Human intercourse and communication springs from a combination of judgements about what the world is and what we think it should be. As individuals, these concepts can be very hard for us to disentangle these concepts. Our definitions of what the world is are inevitably determined by our views on what the world should be. Individual agency means that the set of 'should be' views is vast, meaning that the set of 'is' views is also large.
Thought 4: Back to confidence. Perhaps working definition of confidence needs to be based on the communal acceptability of a statement (within an array of contexts or frames). Confidence is not an indicator of truth, but provides a basis for societal operations. To operate successfully society needs to be humble about knowledge, tolerant of differing truths (and accepting there is no universal truth in a practical sense) but encouraging of sufficient confidence in the basis for action.
I appreciate this is a bit off point, but.......