My problems with objectivism.

I have tried several times to write something about my philosophical views, I think the main problem I had was that of scope. I found it hard to cover everything I felt needed to be said, and my writing tended to spiral out of control. I hope that by writing shorter blog posts on some subjects I will be able to get my point across more concisely.

So objectivism, the idea that there is an ultimate truth or ideal that should be the basis for our decisions. To argue against this is often mocked, and portrayed as absurd. Somethings are obviously true they say, if you drop a stone will it not fall? To not believe in objectivism is to not believe in science, apparently. However I believe that this kind of argument displays a fundamental flaw in their understanding of how we perceive the world, or to put it simply how science works. Science does not work by inclusion. That is to say that experiments cannot prove anything, they can only disprove things. Disprove enough of the likely possibilities and an explanation becomes the most likely by a considerable amount.

So I cannot accept objectivism because the layer of perception that separates our consciousness from the universe does not allow certainty of anything, only a degree of probability. So if there was any universal truth we would never be able to test whether it was true to a 0% probability of error. And if we could never find truth what use is an objective belief system?