Evaluating truth claims

In this FB IPS thread the issue of evaluating an other's truth claims came up. Tom suggested that either the one making the claim, and/or others evaluating it, label it under headings like 'science' or 'religious belief' or 'trusted authority.' But then there's the issue of others tagging someone else's truth claims according to their own biased truth claims. E.g., Wilber tends to label those who disagree with him as mean greenies, while Twamp labels anyone who disagrees with him as fake news.

All of which is not to say some truths are not better than others. Hence IPS forum seeks at least some partial consensus as to what constitutes an IPS. Even though we tend to agree that there are multiple ways to formulate an IPS (or metatheory), and on some of its key ingredients, there is still a lot of battling for legitimacy or supremacy of one's favorite position(s), a good thing. And of course evaluating each other's favs based on our own favs, sometimes not as good.

It is though why I use Habermas as a fav trusted source, since he directly addresses validity claims in different domains based on postmetaphysical communicative action, especially his chapter on Mead in Postmetaphysical Thinking. I'm definitely not shy to wear my sources on my sleeve. Or to cross-check my sources against each other in forming my own idiosyncratic confluence.