But I’m not sure how that contradicts with what I said.. It should actually support it. The fact I can sense something external of myself would prove objective reality exists and the fact that it is consistent and holistic means that it tolerates no contradiction and therefore allows for only one truth (the 100% truth). We can say (and many post modernists like to do that) that we’re just brains in a vat or in some sort of a shared delusion, but that’s all completely inconsequential, as inconsequential as saying there may be an invisible pig flying in the orbit of Jupiter.

Anyway, I’ll read the links in whole eventually, thanks.

Two problems with this are 1) that observation is theory-laden, 2) beliefs face tests not in isolation, but as parts of a web of belief and you always have a choice which part of the web you sacrifice: nature doesn’t dictate that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism

Those are two of the main problems epistemologists and philosophers of science try to deal with

There may be varying views within the rationalist “camp” (accepting truth and it’s discoverability), but that doesn’t mean they’re not rationalists.

Also majorities are quite inconsequential to anything except the number of people to debate against or agree with. Majorities have too much history of being wrong.

EDIT: My terminology here might be a little off and casual. When I say rationalist I don’t exclude empiricist. I think both play a part. The key distinction between what I describe above and post modern nihilism is the acceptance of existence of truth and possibility of discovering it, whether by logic or senses or both. I say both, plus emotions, especially when it comes to discovering truths about self.