> You can perceive something, but what you perceive is not necessarily a comprehensive and accurate representation of what may be there.
I don’t understand what point you are making here. Please clarify.
> True, and the fact that this is true has little bearing on whether the underlying proposition is objectively true
Agreed. But if you offer the explanation “magical pink laser did it”, then I say, “going to set up some lenses and sinks and mirrors to study this phenomena”, then you say, “nope, it’s magical, your dorky science equipment can never contain it”.
> For many, many people, their sense experience has included some interactions with what they perceive to be the supernatural.
How can you perceive the supernatural? If you perceive it, then it’s sense data. So photons and sound waves.
> A good example is Philip K. Dick's experience of apparently hallucinating a pink beam of light telling him his son needed medical care. He took the kid to the hospital, and found his child had a hernia, IIRC.
Not having a good explanation for how you know something does not imply fairies did it.
But don’t I benefit most by covertly defecting (crypto-assholing) in a well functioning society? Then I get the standard benefits of the society and some stolen ones.
Okay cool, imo the desire to avoid hurting her feet is a good justification. What does she say if you ask her, “Are there good reasons for not cleaning up the toys?”
What even is named by the word “disrespect”?
Is disrespecting me just any behavior that I call “disrespectful”?
Seems like bullshit to me.