When I completed my PhD in biological systematics, I took a step from practitioners to theorists, since I before had worked as an electronic engineer.
On the entrance to theorists, I was first surprised by the intriguing among them. Among practitioners, I was used to people saying what they think to other people, rather than intriguing behind their backs.
Next, I was surprised that theorists appeared to have a tendency to believe that what they think about matters IS these matters, rather than their thoughts about the matters they actually are. They thus appeared to have turned thoughts and matters up-side-down (matters thus disappearing into a black hole). For example, I realized that biological systematists didn’t classify nature, but found classes (consequently calling the discipline “systematic biology”, as if there are unsystematic biology), that particle physicists “think they have found” something they have imagined and called “Higgs particle” and that some quantum mechanists claim that there are multiple universes out there just because it is the only way they can explain our observations. The only consolation I had in tribulation was that particle physicists did not say that they actually had found Higgs particle, because this is actually impossible.
I am thus a practitioner that tries to explain to those theorists that have got thoughts and matters up-side-down that they have got thoughts and matters up-side-down (as also Ludwig Wittgenstein tried to). When I encountered this up-side-down theoretical approach, I realized that it is also logically consistent, as the practitioner’s approach is, but that the two approaches are incompatible. I thus realized that only one of them can be the correct approach, and that I thus had to find empirical proof to decide which of them that is. After a lot of thinking, I realized that the proof I was searching is that time is relative to speed in space, because this fact is excluded by the up-side-down theoretical approach, thus actually falsifying this approach. It meant that I didn’t have to change approach, but could instead rest comfortably in the practitioner’s approach.
Today, I have found the threads in this complicated situation and can thus explain the problem, but not “what reality is”. Instead, I can state that we can’t explain “what reality is” at all, because there are at least two rational explanations of “what it is”. The problem thus isn’t that there isn’t any rational explanations of “what reality is”, but that there are more than one such explanation. The problem to find such an explanation is analogous to get an exact measurement of any quantity. It is simply impossible. Instead, we have to encircle such an explanation analogously as we have to encircle an exact measurement, wherein the final result must be a compromise of the parts of the encirclement. The final result must thus be an inexact compromise between the encircling parts. Never will we thus find the core of this onion.
This is the logical basis for my claim that truth is compromise. I thus claim that there isn’t any “true tree of life”, neither any “Higgs particle”, nor any multiple universes, but rather a reality lacking a core (or a middle). I would thus rather say (similar to the ancient Greek Heracleitus) that reality is a constant flow, wherein a rational explanation of it is forever hidden behind a door with two locks, one vertical and one horizontal, whereof one can’t be opened if we open the other. If this also means that reality is compromise or not is thus a matter of opinion.