Is there indeed a single rational truth (as cladists and particle physicists believe)?

(Class) realists (as cladists and particle physicists) believe that there is a single rational truth. The problem with this belief is that such a “truth” must be a compromise, since it balances on the edge of the difference between different opinions.

If any of all different opinions indeed could be such a single truth, then the matter of this opinion must have only one aspect, meaning that there is a single matter with just one aspect.

Now, if there indeed is one such matter, then “matter” equals “aspect”, meaning that there aren’t different aspects on matter at all, and thus that there aren’t different opinions at all, which clearly is wrong.

It means that the fact that there are different opinions means that there isn’t any single rational truth (as cladists and particle physicists thus erroneously believe), because it would mean that there weren’t different opinions. The fact that there are different opinions thus means that there isn’t any single rational truth (as cladists and particle physicists thus erroneously believe).

If any (class) realist could ever verify empirically that there is such a single truth (as particle physicists “think” they have with “Higgs particle”), then they would thus have falsified empirically that there are different opinions about matter, which clearly is wrong.

It means that (class) realists (as cladists and particle physicists) actually never can verify that there is a single rational truth, because there simply isn’t any. Instead, the belief in such a single truth is just as inconsistent as all other beliefs, as in Gods of all kinds. It doesn’t help that this belief is in rational thinking, it is still just as inconsistent as all irrational beliefs. The problem with this belief is thus not rational thinking in itself, but belief in it. Rational thinking is good as long as we don’t believe in it (ie, just use it to cope with reality). It is good to manipulate reality, but not to understand reality.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/