>
> I think that this is the case of viewpoints that you are debating in this
> thread. Your opponents' knowledge is derived from "systemic principles" and
> thus independent of facts. If facts support the conclusions derived from
> these systemic principles they are seen as corroborating evidence, if they
> don't - they are dismissed as irrelevant. In a nutshell, this is how
> idealism operates.
===============
At best, CC is guilty of selection effects and confirmation bias; hardly the stuff of so-called idealism, which, after I've followed your posts for a long time, you simply do not understand as a school of thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias