@Empiricism Sometimes I can be too subtle, other times too cryptic.
My "added comments" would be just hoping to extend what I find to be valuable posts. Stronger critique or disagreement would (hopefully) be more obvious!
I think the term #CognitiveDissonance isn't going away, nor should be. I think #CognitiveHarmony fits very well with it.
When "solutions aren't clear" then we have a false state of harmony, no? [problem > solution > (harmony?) bias > correction > harmony!]
So now we can see that 'truth' (as applied to #ScientificConsensus) plays a role, in addition to perception. [The #historic unsolved problem of perception of #consonance deals directly with the human side, where #perception & opinion reign. This perception of "sounds right/good" does not cross #cultural boundaries without its own dissonance.]
So we have both #binary situations (T/F) and #trinary (and beyond), where there is no #ExcludedMiddle, no right/wrong. I'd like to invoke a #systemic description that can accommodate these different levels.
Even if this is just meant for individuals, a #gradient, #quantitative style of #measurement could be a helpful addition to what you laid out. It can help us be more #adaptable, accepting of change or differences, not feeling 'stupid' when wrong (or viewing others through that lens), participate more effectively in #democratic & scientific #processes, etc.
This is a #generalized enough idea that it is able to cross over into many, even disparate #disciplines. I think we align with the desire to improve existing #models, including the way they are communicated to the public.