Hey, things have been pretty hectic the past two days (son starting college, "fighting fires" at work, etc), so please pardon my delay in responding. I might be responding out of order too, so please accept my apologies.
** You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance). **
Actually, that is not what I"m suggesting or saying at all. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along:
1. If you can not prove/verify/show/demonstrate that something is TRUE (substitute whatever word you want for "TRUE", such as "real", "facts", etc), then you can not make the assertion "It is true.". On the flip-side though you also can NOT assert that it's "not TRUE" either. You simply do not know.
I guess one can just simply utter the words, but doing so doesn't make it "true."
** Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)? For example, [LINK]
Well yes. Your basically saying is there a difference between a statement that is "TRUE" (as in provably true, Real, etc) and a statement that is TRUE (as in declared true based on instinct, personal judgement, etc). Yes. Of course. They are two separate things. I think it's best to view them as they are, without assigning any clarifier such as "opinion, etc".
Here's what I mean. Suppose there is an blue ball on the other side of the world. You and I have no way of seeing this ball, etc. We honestly truely have never seen the ball, heard about the ball, etc. All we were told is that this ball exists over there.
The objective fact (truth, reality) is that the ball is blue.
You make the statement, let's call it statement A: "the ball is blue."
You also make the statement, let's call it statement B: "My statement A is truth."
I make the statement, let's call it statement C: "the ball is orange."
I also make the statement, let's call it statement D: "My statement D is truth."
You then make the statement, let's call it statement E: "Your statement C is false, and is your statement D."
I then make the statement, let's call it statement F: "Your statement A is false, as is your statement B."
First and foremost, the objective fact of the ball being blue is independent of what you or I say, think, observe about it. Hell, you and I can cease to exist and that objective fact (the ball is blue) will remain.
Your statement A is simply that. A statement. One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement. You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.
Likewise my Statement C is simply that-- a statement. I can not call my statement C a "truth" or a "fact" (i.e. I can't really make statement D) because I simply don't know.
Likewise neither one of us can say the other person's statements are false (statements E or F) because we simply do not know.