Is it? Are you sure? Is this the example of logical debate you say that truth needs to bare out what is and is not Truth? Seems (ironically) you deny the statement as a truth without the nessesary logical debate.
So who is not accepting reality?
Objective Truth is a interesting Philosophy. A philosophy muddied by perception.
“Even if there are some very good logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, is that enough to say that we know that truth is objective? It may be if you are a pragmatist, but not everyone is. So we must inquire as to whether our conclusions here are really valid after all — and, it seems, there are some reasons for doubt.”
The only thing I'm saying you're not accepting, is that there is truth out there. I'm not arguing any idealogical point or any particular truth other than that. But that's the tape you want to run (seeing me arguing some other point, like Global Warming), so that's all you see from me.
I do not deny that the truth actually exists and that it is out there. I doubt I would recognize it if I saw it, but that would never deter me from looking for it. The article however seeks to quell that search, label and marginalize those that seek the truth because it is inconvenient to the political realities. Your article has nothing to do with Truth and everything to do with denial with those who proclaim to have the truth. Hence the title was interesting.
"Always trust the man searching for truth. Never trust the man who claims to have found it."
Seems my college science classes were a big waste. I was under the impression that science is never settled, never absolute the science itself is limited to only what we do know and not what we don’t know. That science is about varying degrees of certainty but never 100%
That was a poor choice of words on my part. “Accepted” is a perception. Just because you have accepted a truth does not make it a truth.