The certainty of identity expressed in the verb “to be” applies only to a priori statements, to which its use should be restricted.
I judge the use of “is” in normal discourse dangerous, as it ignores the speaker’s acts of perception, inference, and judgment and implies an unwarranted certainty of identity which too frequently impedes the advancement of understanding and leads to close-minded ideological commitments.
I judge that we may be well served a short-hand substitute verb whose definition explicitly acknowledges the speaker’s constructive role. Perhaps when speaking of the a posteriori, we should say “iji” (“I judge it”) instead of “is” …