If you want to discuss ontology (or say things like "that is woo"), its kind of integral to discuss truth .... much like maths requires numbers.
Regardless of what I may or may not think, you think that mathematics is that "ultimate truth". I have simply provided explanations and examples of how mathematics is a mediocre yardstick for such a task. Unless you think notions of justice, "why" questions or art history are eternal, its not clear how "eternal truth" entered this discussion.
Then why default to outcries of "Woo!" the very moment mathematics is problematized as a perennial language for such descriptions? Clearly you are bringing other criteria to the discussion, even if you are not forthright enough to lay it on the table.
Ok. So what if I was turn around and say any conclusion that is not presented in english is not an accurate representation of the fabric of reality? In otherwords if one insists that english has a monopoly on describing reality (and all other languages are, at best, mere subsets or partial representations of english), in what "space" can I establish the gaps?. I admit that english has gaps but I also hold that they can only be sealed by the use of English, as we, in the progress of time, become more proficient in it. Anything less is woo.
In otherwords if I, as above, default all languages to the authority of english, how am I not drawing an explicit connection between the fabric of reality and english as the topmost language of truth?
Ontological discussions (even if they take the form of "spot the woo") tend to be like that. Its just like complaining about maths tests where it seems every question has something to do with numbers.
Lol
Then you have an epistemological stance that is indefensible.
Or to put it in simpler terms, it's a case of even if you are right, you are wrong.