I can certainly argue that we are getting facts wrong without showing that we are getting facts right:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 12th, 2021, 11:02 am (A) We CAN'T argue that we're observationally getting facts about externals wrong in particular ways WITHOUT ALSO arguing that we can observationally get some facts RIGHT about externals,
(B) If we're arguing against ever being able to realize direct/naive realism, and we're instead arguing for some sort of representationalism, it necessarily collapses into solipsism, with the only out there being faith claims that solipsism isn't the case,
and
(C) (B) CAN'T rely on scientific theories of perception, how perceptual faculties work, etc., because per (B), we CAN'T actually observe things like eyes, ears, other people, etc.--what we take to be eyes, ears, etc. would be our own imaginings, our own mental fantasies.
It follows, if there can only be one Jesus, that one of the men must be wrong. But, nothing says they can't both be wrong. As soon as two men say they are Jesus, it is shown that we sometimes get facts wrong. It does not show that we sometimes, or ever get them right, does it? What does show this? You mentioned faith, and I guess that's a good word for it. My habit of interpreting a set of circumstances in a certain way in the past has served me well, so I will continue seeing that set of circumstances in that light until I discover a more useful way of framing it. But, does that say how much of it, if any of it, I ever got right?"Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits
If you want to go full-on Descartes and spit out all your assumptions and only take back what is true, then you'll begin with solipsism. You start with the idea that you are having experiences-check. Therefore, you exist in some form to be able to be the experiencer-check. At this point, the form in which you exist might just be a cloud of thought floating in space, having a dream of being alive. You don't necessarily need eyes and ears to imagine you are seeing or hearing. You don't need scientific theories of any kind to exist in that state, imagining everything. It seems reasonable to go on to step three and beyond, accepting the existence of others and quite a lot of science and such, but you really have to do it on faith in some sense. It's not the kind of faith you might need for God, but you can't carry on beyond step two with the same level of certainty, can you?
I don't advocate thinking that way all the time, challenging everything at every step, and I don't see Huxley saying that, either. Also, I am not sure his way of challenging reality with drugs is the right way for most of us, myself included. But, I think he is on to something in reminding himself once in a while that everything we 'know' amounts to opinion, no matter how great the consensus. It's very liberating to do this in small ways for me, especially when I find myself getting sad, anxious or angry. I believe I have blurred the line between concepts and reality in the past and suffered for my mistake. So, not being a solipsist, I must assume that others have suffered in the same way, and could also find relief in letting go once in a while, or hitting the reset button.
...the man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.
He will be wiser but less cocksure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his
ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning
to the unfathomable Mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend.