> 1. Objective reality is consistent.
>
> One camp thinks that it is very important to hold this statement as true,
> while the other camp is saying that assuming it is true might make one
> blind to certain parts of reality where it isn't true.
Or assuming that the isomophisms we use to understand the consistancy of
the universe are complete may blind one as well (if not more).
> Before proceeding, is that an accurate characterization? If so, would it be
> worthwhile defining all terms in (1) in detail?
Possibly. I wonder, are our thoughts considered a part of "objective
reality" for the purposes of this discussion?
-Prof. Tim