I wander what Richard Feynman would say of this lecture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Why is this important? Serious question.

I feel like the interviewer is confused when he gives his evil twin argument (if we can call it that). Markus would probably say (although he didn't at least explicitly for some reason) that it's a fact about the interviewer that he believes there's Markus's evil twin. But this belief only has a good ground (if he's acting on good faith) which itself isn't a fact. So he doesn't know that there's Markus's twin, only believes that there is. Markus, as a fallibilist, openly admits grounds can be defeasible so the fact that you may have false beliefs doesn't have a lot of relevance to his theory of facts or knowledge. From my perspective I'd ask then if knowing is only accidental because there's not really anything that ascertains beliefs as pieces of knowledge. If so then it doesn't really seem like a good epistemology...

1:44:00

The death nail of relativism, constructionism, postmodernism & nihilism!

Based on his rule of, "sense of fields", he'll have to accept people who report, near death experiences or out of body experiences. He can't deny them on, "hard facts", predicated on, "things", as he denies that that, constitute's, what is generally, meant by the word, " world". He substitutes, that definition, for an array of what he call's , "sense of fields, not predicated on the physicist's hard laws. Of course, he could say, those NDE & OOB questions are best served, asking a physicist, for any possible explanation's, but then, he'd be playing dice with his philosophy. I.e. linguistic trickery. "Am having my cake & eating it". LOL

Was going to by the book. This put me off. Kant be arsed.

for goodness sake. how shallow is this!!!

it is more believeable to believe the prophets teaching of the afterlife than to believe philosophers saying the world does not exist

if the world doesn't exists, then this lecture could not have happened