SBF: You have yet to explain what "close to reality" really means. When is a statement close to reality and when is it identical with reality and how can you tell the difference?
I can easily tell the difference, i can make an experiment, and i can talk about truth by examining the outcome of the experiment with eg. statistics. But that is quite immaterial to the discussion since it is you who said you could not see how one statement could be closer to reality than another, this is what you wrote:
SBF: I don't see how you can say one scientific statement is closer to the truth or closer to reality than another
So do you hold on to that statement? Is it as true to say there are dragons living in england as to say there are sheep? Is it as close to reality to say the moon is made of cheese as to say it is made of rocks? By implication, that is what you assert.
It is advisable to believe one statement rather than another because of the consequences of doing so, not because of its supposed proximity to the world as it is in itself.
but the REASON it is not advisable to eat human excrements is BECAUSE you tend to get ill if you do so: That is what the sentence said and that is why it is true, it accurately describe the world. Have you ever read Tarskis semantic theory of truth? Even while claiming to reject sentences can be truer than others, you are in fact accepting just that: It is a self-contradictory argument.
Again, I think this is a clear example of trying to reject the obvious by making a fallicious argument so complicated it is hard to point out what exactly is wrong even though something is obviously wrong.