"[T]ruth and error are identical with these consequences"? You don't need "experiential consequences" to know "true and error"? I never played with fire and don't have "experiential consequences". But it's definitely true kids DON'T play with fire. It's definitely an error for kids to play with fire. What are "experiential consequences"? Doesn't every experience have consequences?
"or else nothing with reach of the mind at all" I got no idea what this means.
143. WILLIAM JAMES, PRAGMATISM: A NEW NAME FOR OLD WAYS OF THINKING (1907). William James "showed how the meaning of any idea whatsoever — scientific, religious, philosophical, political, social, personal — can
be found ultimately in nothing save the succession of experiential consequences it lead through and to, that truth and error are identical with these consequences or else nothing with reach of the mind at all." 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 884 (1950). Learned Hand was a student of William James at Harvard. Wertheimer, supra note 130, at 237.
Wilson Huhn. The Five Types of Legal Argument (2014 2 ed). p 55. Footnote 143.