So we have (with my subjective and surely biased interpretations of the meaning & "epistemic status/quality"): 1. [Current Approach] determined - "was 'discove

So we have (with my subjective and surely biased interpretations of the meaning & "epistemic status/quality"): 1. [Current Approach] determined - "was 'discovered' to be X, regardless if was actually discovered (as opposed to estimated)" - decision made by bureaucrats/experts &/or courts | Invalid: it is not necessarily possible to discover what is true (under the current system) 2a. declared - "was decided to be categorized as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth" - decision made by courts | Valid: acknowledges that the actual truth is not known, but fr pragmatic reasons a decision is made so we can move on (which is what actually happens now, but we do not speak truthfully about the details, which causes anger, which often has complex, outsized systemic consequences) 2b. agreed - "all parties voted to categorize as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth, with or without (optional) formal complaints*" - decision made by party officials | Valid: roughly, same as "declared", but the decision is voluntary by party officials, rather than decided by courts What do you think of this way of thinking about it? I find #1 fairly repulsive, but the exact same outcome recorded/discussed as 2a or 2b I find much less problematic.