You do know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism?
The former starts with the following assumptions:
The universe is fair(no Boltzmann Brains) and thus knowable.
The universe is treated as natural, but not proven to be natural.
The 2 assumptions are the basis of evidence, but they are without proof or evidence.
They are without absolute proof but not without evidence. I can just assume that I might be a Boltzmann brain or in the matrix or that there is a deceptive god but that's an intellectual dead end. The fact is that our science
works - or if it doesn't, only seems to, and one of those other assumptions are true, it
might as well work because it's the only "reality" we have access to.
BTW no humans are right or wrong, unless you believe in that. There is no evidence for the fact, that a human can be either right or wrong. That is a cognitive artifact.
If you tell me you can walk out of a tenth story window unaided and fly away across the horizon, rather than falling to the ground, you are wrong.
I don't for a minute believe that you don't treat our apparent shared reality as if it were actually real, just like everybody else. All science does is take that, basically unavoidable and practical stance and formalise it - and it
works.
We accept methodological naturalism precisely because it works (or it unavoidably seems that way).
And you still don't seem to get the point about using the products of science to communicate with me that there is no objective reality. If you seriously took the possibility of being a Boltzmann brain or being tricked by some demon or god as seriously as the shared reality we experience, why would you even bother?
Your view is not so much absolutely wrong in some philosophically provable way as totally and utterly useless. It totally fails to recognise the obvious and practical difference between claims about matters of fact and matters of opinion. Even if this is all the fleeting moment of awareness of a Boltzmann brain or the crazed creation of an evil demon, there is
still a difference between the two
within that context.
This is kind of a Pascal's wager, except that it's actually sound. We can believe what appears to be real and possibly learn something and go with what actually (seems to) works or we can disbelieve it and get nowhere.
In either case, there
still is a qualitative difference between the objective and subjective in the context we find ourselves in, regardless of its absolute reality.
You are using in effect certainty.
No, I'm not.
