Ok, I read your previous article https://steemit.com/steemstem/@rortian/dealing-with-the-myth-of-facticity and that was indeed required reading. Then I re-read this article and again highlighted the exact same passage I noted above in my first comment, as something to follow up with you on. Here is the complete paragraph from above.

For example, many of us learned as children to identify the idea ‘knowing’ with the idea ‘truth,’ but this presumption is not the best approach to achieving deep insights into complex subjects. Contemporary (postmodern) philosophy emerged when it became very clear to the world’s wisest philosophers and scientists that there’s no possible way that any linguistic description could manifest any confirmable truth about anything that we can’t observe directly."

Now, I don't mean to quibble, but are you saying here that if we can observe it directly, it may be a confirmable truth?

I think not, because in your previous article you said:

2 We ought never to be absolutely certain about the objective truth of anything that we do observe directly.

Point 2. We don’t sense objects directly
Let’s reverse the question: Why is it that we don’t and can’t perceive the whole truth about the objects which stimulate our senses, and what do we actually perceive instead?

This means that we can only perceive what we already understand; unfamiliar objects are unrecognized so we’re sometimes driven to speculation about what things might be.

Again, I may just be manufacturing a quibble here. Be that as it may, I found this article to be paradigm shifting and I'm looking forward to participating in #higherorderthinking.