LOL. Truth is True because it must be True??? (again with the capital T). I suppose I am making this argument in so far as anyone who makes an argument at all and claims it is correct must ultimately rest on that same foundational "circular thinking." As I admit in the opening paragraph of my last response, the claim that we can understand anything about the nature of reality at all rests upon the self-same unprovable assumption that reality is at least a little bit understandable, to begin with. Even the claim that it isn't understandable in any meaningful sense of that word rests upon the conviction that its inscrutability can at least be assumed if not demonstrated. But setting ultimate capital T truth aside (whatever that is), the truth I'm talking about has little if anything to do with truth being true because it is true. We maybe got sidetracked on that question here a bit but the original article was never intended to answer the question 'what is truth?' in such an ultimate and absolute sense. Indeed, the truth I'm talking about has virtually nothing to do with such nice-sounding deepities as "Truth is True because Truth MUST BE True." For example, it is true that the sun will seem to rise tomorrow at a particular time because of the orbit of the Earth around its host star and its tilting upon its axis at about 23.5 degrees. The ultimate nature of truth or reality is interesting but really has nothing proximally speaking to do with it. Likewise, it is true that aspirin helps some significant percentage of people deal with headaches and joint pain and that vaccines reduce the risk of certain diseases and that particular healthcare systems have on average better or worse outcomes in certain areas than others, etc. We can identify the proximate reasons why the data show these things to be true without having to reach any conclusions about the ultimate nature of either reality or the limits of knowledge. Hell, we don't even need to know how aspirin works to know that it at least usually does, any more than we have to be computer engineers to know our laptop will almost certainly work when we hit the power button. However, if we try to make the data fit within an ideology instead of allowing the data to guide and improve our understanding we almost always make matters worse. I don't know what reality is in the ultimate sense you seem to be talking about it but I do feel pretty confident that if we start allowing ideological concerns to dictate the data we use we'll cause more problems than we solve. That said, as Godel demonstrated no system can ultimately demonstrate its own internal consistency. That goes as much for your argument as it does mine.
