OUGHT: Strong evidence, verification, or justification (oughtness) to believe/value that there is correspondence to reality:
VALUE: — doesn’t always result in belief/value (more factors influence belief/values than reasons/evidence)
IS: —doesn’t guarantee truth/correspondence (unless deductive)
OUGHT: Weak/opposing evidence, verification, or justification (oughtness) to believe/value that there is correspondence to reality:
VALUE: — does not mean belief/value is unjustified, if:
IS: — does not mean correspondence is not real (because any opposing reasons are not deductive arguments or conclusive)
One problem with A.J. Ayer’s “verification” requirement is … sometimes we “know” (believe/VALUE what IS true) without being able to articulate or show (justify/OUGHT) how it is we know. All our now-confirmed/-verified knowledge (if controlling for confirmation bias lol) about the world that started in mere hypothesis is a kind of “properly basic” knowledge. You don’t know it isn’t until its alternative is verified. Also: If verification rules out deductive arguments, that’s ridiculous.
And HOW FREAKING IRONIC!!! that verification or justification or OUGHTNESS of belief/value… is used against itself as “not making sense”… because it conflates oughts/values …
Whew! What a trip!!!