Truth is whatever you are willing to wager your sanity on. This works because sanity is relative to people, so if you are willing to wager your sanity on something, so should other people.
Deontology has a problem because no one can definitively tell you what it is to follow a rule. So deontologists can’t fault others for appealing to unexplained concepts without undermining their own argument.
Whereas the meanings of particular words may be conventional and subject to historical accident, there are distinctions that the words create that are not conventional. If logical operators are conventional, but must exist is every possible world (you must define the world using such operators), then conventional loses its meaning: it ceases to be a convention and is instead a necessity of the universe.
The concept of structure in ‘structural realism’ is ontological, causing problems for ontic structural realists. By calling the theory structural, structural realists are attempting to exploit the concepts associated with ‘structure’ from areas other than philosophy of science. This means that the term is not being used ontically because the concept of structure is taken to have real properties. So at every turn ontic structural realists are appealing to an ontological concept.
oh and information aesthetics is back from break! woohoo!