I recognize I’m coming from a place of naivety. If your plan is to tell me to read more, I accept that, recommend me some literature though. To me the concept just seems silly but again I’m not educated on the subject to a degree higher than reading the Wikipedia page. I’ve seen it used as a defense on here sometimes. I always wonder if its just the speakers trump card for not having a cogent argument ( I guess thats the point). Also, I post here kinda frequently, if its more than appropriate, can a mod let me know?
Realism gives rise to more epistemological issues—anti-realism is more logically rigorous insofar as you’re making fewer assumptions beyond what you’re explicitly given (i.e., a stream of sensory impressions).
Even if you’re a realist at heart, it can be instructive to see how far you can get before taking the leap of faith that the source of your senses is actually what your brain is telling you it is.
Thats fair