> So calling [1] an optical illusion warrants skepticism because it's attempting to dismiss the challenge of having to explain how water can physically break and magically reconstitute pencils? Don't you see the problem with this sort of argument?
Yeah, but that's a bit of a straw man.
The kinds of claims-of-illusion that warrant particular skepticism are the ones that deny fundamental observations in defense of some particular (usually sectarian, for lack of a better word) philosophical perspective.
Yeah, but that's a bit of a straw man.
The kinds of claims-of-illusion that warrant particular skepticism are the ones that deny fundamental observations in defense of some particular (usually sectarian, for lack of a better word) philosophical perspective.