Another fascinating conversation! You never fail to impress! Your engagement in the dialogue shows such cohesive comprehension which contrasts your apparent age, like a modern day philosophical Doogie Howser! Thank you for conducting another thought provoking interview!

Nice interview dude! You are great at this! ❤

I really enjoyed listening to this, and learned a lot. This channel has some of the best dialogues. 👏🏼

Good discourse, great questions, fun discussions. This is the first video of yours I've seen, you have captured my intrigue. I will be watching again. Keep pressing twords truth.

Another great interview!

Good topics. Lets go.. 💯

Huemer 4 life.

It certainly seems like the external world exists and we are clearly well served by acting as such. But its also clear that any specific claim about this external world is subject to future revision based on some future experience, so we are never sure if our current understanding of the external world is "real." All we ever know, at any given time, is that of which we are convinced, and yet, this isn't a problem, because this shared conviction is enough on which to premise epistemology. So it doesn't actually matter if our beliefs are "true," all that matters is the extent we agree on their utility, which is something we justify to each other, while acknowledging that justification is relative to an audience, not a "foundation." See pragmatism.

6:22 is the moment a philosopher mollywopped an entire population of people... he said "what bitch!?" POP bruh did the 1,2 kung fu 3, 4 want some more? 😮😮😮😮😮 thank you for your video bro, you're making waves out here

something i dont understand is that huemer said that there can be no evidence for or against the external world scepticism hypothesis and that it is unfalsifiable, but claims that our coherent experiences are extremely strong evidence of the external world due to the fact that the external world realism hypothesis predicts that we would have coherent experiences in a way that external world scepticism would not. but if there is strong evidence for the external world realism hypothesis, and external world realism entails that the sceptical hypothesis is false, does that not mean that there *is* now evidence against the external world scepticism hypothesis and that it is not unfalsifiable due to that?

Knowledge as "justified, true, belief" is question-begging and superfluous. If people in the middle ages "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth, but we now "know" that the earth revolves around the sun, then what guarantee is there that people in the future won't think that we are as "wrong" as we think people in the middle ages were? If there is no such guarantee, then why bother insisting we have "knowledge," but people middle in the middle ages didn't? Why not just say we are convinced of something different than people in the middle ages and leave it at that? What do you think you gain by insisting your experiences amount to "knowledge," but someone else's don't?

Philosophical Skepticism and Empiricism is an interesting topic but I doubt very many people can understand the topic. The Skepticism that would have been suited to your channel would be as followes. You should have also defined what your definition of truth is. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. The word “skepticism” comes from the ancient Greek skepsis, meaning “inquiry.” Skepticism is, therefore, not a cynical rejection of new ideas, as the popular stereotype goes, but rather an attitude of both open mind and critical sense. The ancient skeptics simply doubted that human beings can achieve certain knowledge, and preferred to be agnostic about a number of notions which they felt we just did not grasp securely. That philosophical tradition eventually informed the beginnings of science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it is best captured by David Hume’s advice that wise persons proportion their beliefs to the evidence. Or, as Carl Sagan put it much later, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The modern skeptical movement is a grassroots phenomenon that aims at helping the public navigate the complex borderlands between sense and nonsense, science and pseudoscience. Skepticism does so by way of investigation of alleged extraordinary phenomena, mindful cultivation of critical thinking, and an honest attitude toward intellectual inquiry.