A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the fo

A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the following three states: - belief, zero supporting evidence - fact, only non-contradictatory supporting evidence - paradox, supporting and disproving evidence exists All states are valid, but only an idea classified as a fact should be relied upon as evidence for another idea. Every idea starts as a belief. A fact can change to a belief if the evidence brought to bear on it is proven to not be classified as a fact. Equally it can become a paradox if new evidence contradicts existing evidence. Resolution of a paradox would require at least two new, more precise ideas to be created, likely with a clause defining the demarcation of the paradox boundary. The paradox entity remains unchanged. Reliance on a belief to support an argument I consider ‘agnostic ignorance’, and reliance on a paradox is ‘wilful ignorance’.