Help me to understand the difference between a "false belief" and a "valid belief."
A false belief is one that has been disconfirmed, usually empirically. One might extend that definition to include beliefs that can be disconfirmed but haven't yet. A valid belief (sound conclusion) is one that has been confirmed empirically. A third category of belief is in purely metaphysical entities and processes, meaning those with no impact on experience claimed, the so-called unscientific statements, meaning unfalsifiable statements, also sometimes called "not even wrong."
We cannot in actual fact measure either love nor loving per se, except for through its physical, emotional and social effect + our trust in those who say that they experience them.* A materialist may very well say: our experience of loving exists, but does love?
In my experience, it's the theist that asks this question when trying to argue for the existence of his god for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief by the standards of the critical evaluation of evidence. Love is an abstraction (induction) that describes one's own feeling that something or someone is worth protecting or investing in, and its evidence in oneself and others is in nurturing and protective behavior.
Existence for we humans will never be about being 'right'. It will always and only be about what works and what doesn't via our experiences.
Yes, and it makes sense then to connect being right or correct with empiricism, and reserve the word for those ideas that can be shown to most accurately predict outcomes. All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is correct, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is incorrect and a useless idea. If one's definition of truth includes ideas that he believes fervently but cannot demonstrate to be correct nor useful for making decisions as described, it doesn't deserve to be called true or correct or knowledge. This is the correspondence theory of truth. And if you agree that truth or correctness should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some claim of fact, we have a means to decide the issue.
"Truth" is fool's gold. Honesty (humility) is the far more important and valuable asset.
You say that like the two are mutually exclusive. I wonder what those words need to be translated to in order to make sense. Maybe thinking that one can discover what is true is arrogant and giving up that hope is humility, and that somehow, that will lead to increased happiness or something else of value (important). What's a fool's errand is calling other kinds of ideas truth. That's where a little humility might be of value. Also foolish is epistemological nihilism - an incapacitating paralysis of thought caused by a radical skepticism that denies that anything can be known, which is the opposite of empirically untethered belief (faith) being called knowledge.
.)
