Many thanks Kim, I found this interesting if a bit hard-going in places.
I liked the idea that "My beliefs determine my experimental predictions, but only reality gets to determine my experimental results". This seems to relate to a useful way of holding beliefs or views regarding practice, or things which arise associated with the practice. My beliefs are that the type of meditation I do, and how I conduct myself ethically, will make me happier. I hold these rather as a form of Popperian conjecture. Reality in the form of my happiness then strengthens my belief, in that they they relate to real things. They are conditionally (conditional upon my experiences and memories) true.
I was also reminded of this post and the associated comments on a blog I often read: http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?post/2012/11/06/The-master-and-his-emissary%3A-what-difference-does-it-make#comments
The rationality article focuses mainly on a kind of propositional and instrumental notion of "truth" which the Mark Vernon article characterises as "left brain". (I've no idea as to the "truth" of the biology, but whatever...) There is also the "right brain" sense of open-minded awareness and acceptance of what there is now (including propositional and instrumental uncertainty) which we are familiar with via meditation and mindfulness. I would like to give a bit more thought to how this distinction applies to Sacca
and its various uses in the canon and the commentaries.
Thanks again - thinking about this has woken me up a bit and made me feel better!