The explanation of why there isn't any single ultimate truth

The problem with finding a single ultimate truth does not reside in reasoning, but in classification. The problem is that there isn't any both internally consistent and externally unambiguous (ie, with regard to reality) classification. Instead, there are only internally inconsistent (ie, paradoxically contradictory) and externally ambiguous classifications (like cladistics and Linnean systematics, respectively).

It means that we can think forever without finding any single ultimate truth. There simply isn't any to find. There thus isn't any "single true tree of life" as cladists claim, nor any "Higgs particle" as particle physicists claim. Instead, the idea that there is such a single ultimate truth is a fundamental misunderstanding of conceptualization, called (class)-realism, ie, the belief that classes are real. This idea is actually the only conceptual construction that conceptualization excludes. Every attempt to formulate such a "truth" will thus be either paradoxically contradictory or contradicted by facts.

The idea of a single ultimate truth is thus like the carrot in front of the donkey's eyes - a practical illusion.

         

On the truth of cladistics and particle physics

Cladists and particle physicists both assert that a contradiction (ie, "a true tree of life" and "Higgs particle", respectively) is real. The only difference between them is that cladists have not yet asserted that they have found it, which particle physicists on the contrary have.

If they indeed can find their respective contradiction empirically, then logic is wrong, since logic rests on the distinction of true and false, and false then is true. However, if logic is wrong in this way, then it means that it is just wrong in assessing true as true and false as false, when it actually should assess true as false and false as true, which it can adjust by considering true as false and false as true.

It means that if we have an argument that p implies q, and we prove that this argument is true, then we simply conclude that it is false, and vice versa, thereby proving that "everything goes" as Kuhn expressed it. In a world of contradiction, every argument is true, and every assertion can be framed in an argument that supports it. The only thing that can't be true is that time is relative (with speed in space), which is a fact. This is the subjective aspect of reality ( ie, the aspect that denies meta-levels of problems).

If this aspect gains public support, as in bold racism, then we're heading into the 3rd World War. The only way to avoid this development is to understand that cladists' and particle physicists' assertions are impossible. Never will they find their respective pink elephants. Science does not assert the existence of particular sets, but rather denies the existence of them.   

Logic is not a way to truth, but a way to find empirical tests of claimed truths

The fact that conceptualization only contains two abstractions: objects and classes, means that there are also only two principally different logical lines of reasoning: 1. assuming that objects are real, traditionally called objectivity and nominalism, and 2. assuming that classes are real, traditionally called subjectivity and class-realism.

Both of these ultimately end in one and the same paradox, ie, Russell's paradox, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated in 1901, but they comprehend the paradox differently. Objectivity comprehends it as a general paradox with many specific applications (as Bertrand Russell did), whereas subjectivity comprehends it as one (out of many possible) specific class of objects that moreover is real (like the "true tree of life" of cladistics and "Higgs particle" of particle physics). Objectivity thus comprehends it (ie, Russell's paradox) as one generic abstraction consisting of many specific abstractions, whereas subjectivity comprehends is as one (out of many) real paradoxes.

The reason for this difference is that objectivity as "basic research", ie, lacking a particular question, actually searches for the primordial object it actually assumes (as an axiom), which thus is a general paradox consisting of several specific paradoxes, whereas subjectivity as "basic research" actually searches for the primordial class it actually assumes, which thus are several possible specific paradoxes.

The practical difference between them is thus that objectivity comprehends paradoxes as abstract, whereas subjectivity comprehends them as real  So, which is right? Are paradoxes abstract or real? Well, since paradoxes actually in a general sense is a conflation of object with class (which Bertrand Russell demonstrated), the question is actually whether a distinction or a conflation of object with class (ie, objectivity or subjectivity) is right. The answer is thus obvious: if a conflation of them is right, then a distinction of them is wrong, but without a distinction of them, there is nothing to conflate. A conflation of them is thus wrong independently of whether it is right or wrong.

All this is actually just a play with words. The problem, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated, is that logic can only answer questions. As a "basic research" it just rotates around its fundamental ortogonality between object and class, with a "natural" end point in Russell's paradox. Logic does not contain any "truths" in itself, but does just lead to the answer that is logically given by its assumptions (ie, premises), which thus is an abstract paradox. Never will we thus find "The Truth" by logical reasoning. The only practical use of logic is to find empirical tests of statements, which indeed can be either true or false in relation to competing statements. Running around in the treadmill of logic is actually just a play with words (although it may be awarded with the Nobel Prize as witnessed by the claimed empirical verification of the paradox "Higgs particle"), which thus consistently is exchanged with totally different claims. It simply lacks non-contradictory claims.

Logic is definitely not a way to find truths, but just a way to find empirical tests of claimed truths. In itself, it is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory and totally lacking possibilities to distinguish truths from lies by lacking possibilities to distingush true premises from false premises. It can actually arrive to contradictory conclusions, as in the case of Linnean systematics versus cladistics, because these two approaches rest on ortogonal premises, ie, objectivity and subjectivity, respectively-.