A pragmatic conception of truth views an assertion as the eye of a vortex of testable hypothetical consequences.

Tracing out these consequences and conceiving experiments capable of supporting or weakening belief in these assertions — that is what rational thought should dedicate itself to. And making persuasive arguments for investing in the most consequential experiments. And for conceiving new assertions with new vortices of hypothetical consequence.

Here is what my life of people-centered design has taught me: Never argue when you can experiment.

Again, Le Carre famously said: “A desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world.” It is important to remember that a conference table is just a big desk for a committee to sit behind. A philosopher’s armchair is another kind of desk. An academic journal is pretty much just a virtual conference table.

The natural sciences learned this lesson centuries ago. What divided modern science from ancient science was not drawing logical consequences from empirical observation! This is a common misunderstanding with catastrophic consequences. What brought science into the modern age (and us with it) was experiment: using observation to form hypotheses, using hypotheses to design experiments, conducting experiments to support or weaken hypotheses for a community of scientists, and to produce networks of confirmed theoretical assertions, each with a vortex of testable hypothetical consequences.

All questions can be treated scientifically, including social and existential ones, local and particular ones. We just have to pragmatically clarify exactly what our questions are about which helps us grasp our scientific object and the suitable experimental methods, which might not be predominantly physical, outwardly observable or quantifiable. Science, too, should observe “truth to materials.”