The phrase "a practical truth" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a truth that is applicable and useful in real-life situations or practical contexts.
Example: "In the world of business, a practical truth is that effective communication can significantly enhance team productivity."
Alternatives: "a useful fact" or "a pragmatic reality".
"It is a practical truth," the administration official said, that without a deal, "our Congress would not likely follow through on the assistance promises we've made, nor would other partners".
By the supreme moral law Bolzano means "a practical truth [i.e., a true ought proposition] from which every other practical truth can be derived objectively, i.e., as the consequence from its 'ground'" (RW I, 228; cf. also RW I, 44, 244, 256, RW IV, 27, 217, 221, and WL II, 348, WL IV, 178).
Mr. Obama's ability to recognize the poetic truth of Eliot's conservatism, while still embracing the practical truth of liberalism, is what makes his letter not just a curiosity but also a hint at the complexity of his mature politics.
While it is easy to call for greater quality, the practical truth is that development timelines are long and the true quality of any given agent cannot be readily known until some years into its life cycle.
It must therefore be a basic truth, i.e., a truth that does not have an objective "ground", but can only be an objective "ground" of other (practical) truths (WL II, 375, RW I, 229, RW IV, 207).
It resides in the insight that the nature of practical truths should be explained in terms of the constitutive features of practical reasoning.
It can function not only as an independent endeavor in search for abstract truth, but also as intentional pursuit of practical truths, which to be applied in everyday life.
(i) There are truths, he says, which are accessible to natural reason, that is, to ordinary experience (including the specialized observations of natural scientists), insight, and reflection; and these include practical truths about good and evil, right and wrong.
But the accounts of the first two types are almost entirely in terms of how they differ from the rational type, whose rationality is self-evident to Weber and his readers on the basis of their own knowledge of human goods (basic aspects of human wellbeing) and related practical truths.
But you spoke the truth: on a practical level, who cares about a muon or something not being pin-downable on a scale so small that we have to build monstrous facilities just to observe?
The third truth is a practical one so a person needs to test it in their own way to see if it can actually be done.
