A response so well explained by a view established by the works of William James, pragmatism; "Truth independent, truth that we find merely; truth no longer malleable to human need" -this says James is what the pragmatist dispenses with. "The true, to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as 'the right' is only the expedient in the way of our behaving."

A view bought on by the well established Kantian view that facts "in themselves" are unknowable and the voluntarist view that action has primacy over thought. This led to the infamous words of Goebbels, "Important is not what is right but what wins."

The result of such an attitude: pragmatism leads to relativism as can be clearly seen in those statements.

"An idea, the pragmatist holds, must be judged as true or false according to its utility in a particular situation. What works today in one situation need not work tomorrow, in another. Thus truth is mutable. There are no 'rigid' principles, not in any field. There are no absolutes." - Leonard Peikoff

But of course, why would one need absolutes when twist and spin seem to be much more functional. And why would one doubt what you have written, of course, you were there documenting the whole thing but have just been too busy on forums to publish those works.

But then without the pragmatism and here in reality, the truth be known, just another emotional output to try and establish that which is wished to be true, a perception not based in reality.