> Craig and Brent:
> would you kindly disclose an opinion that can be
> deemed "SUPPORTED"????
> All our 'support' (evidence, verification whatever) comes from mostly
> uninformed information fragments we receive by observation(?) of the
> already accessible details and try to complete them by the available
> 'knowledge' already established as "conventional science" stuff.
> We use instruments, constructed to work on the just described portion of
> observations and evaluate the 'received'(?) data by our flimsy
> (*human?)*mathematical logic ONLY.
Yes! This is a core assumption of multisense realism. I go a step
further to describe that not only do our observations arise entirely
from our the qualities of our observational capacities (senses, sense
making), but that the the nature of our senses are such that what we
observe as being within us 'seems to be' many different ways, but the
more distant observations are understood in terms of facts that
'simply are'. This forms the basis for our human worldviews, with the
far-sighted approaches being overly anthropomorphic and the
mechanistic approaches being the near-sighted view.
> Just compare "opinions" (scientific that is) of different ages before (and
> after) different levels of accepted (and believed!) informational basis
> (like Flat Earth, BEFORE electricity, BEFORE Marie Curie, Watson, etc.)
> My "worldview" (and my narrative, of course) is also based on UNSUPPORTED
> OPINION: "mine".
Exactly. This is the native orientation of the universe. The impulse
to validate that opinion externally is valuable, but it also can
seduce us into a false certainty. This is not an illusion, it is
actually how the universe works. In my unsupported opinion.