But you can't.
I think that's what Brandioch's been trying to say.
And it's not just pablum to point that out.
Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe.
The people who do this are not doing what they think they're doing. The process by which you make inferences is swayed by your knowledge, your experience and what you believe. The evidence you accept or reject is swayed by your knowledge, experiences and what you believe.
These inferences aren't mathematical proofs.
And they aren't necessarily improved by having greater knowledge. Beliefs, which might or might not be true, have a great impact on how we make inferences. Scientists have to fight this battle all the time. What data do you regard as outliers? Where do you search for your data?
Now I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that people should apply logic and a certain amount of self-consistency to their search for a personal philosophy. And many people don't. That's fine.
But to say that any person X can find a good approximation of Truth independent of what they wish to believe isn't a reasonable statement.
If you need an example, consider the central American civilizations that practiced human sacrifice. For a while it apparently "worked" - their civilization thrived. Later on it apparently didn't. If a person was being lead up the pyramid early on, what would they regard as the Truth of the ceremony? What about a person later on? This isn't to show that Truth is relative - it's to show that opinions matter in a person's decisions about their views on "the right way to live" and "the way the universe works" or "the Truth".
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Scott.
