[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

I can only come to a conclusion about what is objectively true by using a methodology which is in accordance with reality itself.

Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The scientific method is derived from reality, and no matter how much we believe we will get the results that we want, we will always get the results that reality has prepared for us (no personification intended).

since you do not know the true nature of reality, this is a belief system and therefore as valid as me saying a purple dinosaur makes the results of science come out the way we want it to.

The scientific method is not a plant or a star. The scientific method is a system derived by subjective beings to figure out stuff. I'd love to hear how you think a subjective consciousness can create a method that magically achieves objectivism. Anything from a subjective point is at least in part always subjective.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The fact that we can even use the word "true" means that we have some means (a methodology) for coming to a conclusion.

The word "true" does not require collaboration. Truth does not require "we".

It is true that I am thinking about kidneys right now. And the methodology for coming to this conclusion is subjective experience.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The only thing I really have a problem with is that you're unable to live by your own philosophy.

Already addressed this.

Originally Posted by snapshot

How did you come to the conclusion in the second quotation that I stated? If you did not use logic or empiricism, then you must have some other methodology by which you came to the conclusion, but no one has told me what this methodology is with which I can come to the same conclusion.

Any methodology other than the one you have determined to be true will not be logical to you. That's the trap of belief in objective truth. You believe that what you have proven to yourself through your belief systems (logic, empirical evidence) is not only true to you, but true regardless. Which is a ridiculous argument, as it requires you to believe in it as objective truth for it to be objective truth.

In effect, this conversation has now officially become "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" with you saying "yes it does, as it is an objective truth that when a tree falls, it makes a sound" and me saying "you did not hear this tree fall, so while you can make an educated guess of it making a sound, you do not know, and are therefore not speaking of an objective truth."