The fact that Plato and Lao Tzu articulated that the noumenon is fundamentally unknowable does not make the fact that evolution results in processes which activ

The fact that Plato and Lao Tzu articulated that the noumenon is fundamentally unknowable does not make the fact that evolution results in processes which actively obscure raw data about the world uninteresting; it could theoretically be the case that evolution tended towards more accurate data over time in all processes while still being the case that base reality is unknowable. I think it's been obvious that this isn't the case for some time now; if you couldn't figure it out from the basic principles of evolution, it should have been obvious in light of chronostasis illusions that hack our perception of casaulity into hearing a sound before we press the button which triggers that sound by first conditioning us to expect the sound to come after an artificial delay and then removing that delay. But this doesn't make the modelling done by the researcher something done out of ignorance, I would assume the researcher is probably familiar with that line of prior work and is creating models that help us better understand the process. I do feel like the article is misleading, and the first two sentences are phrased as if the two views presented (accurate data v.s. inaccurate data) are opposed to one another rather than working together towards the same end (survival/procreation). I haven't watched the video, so I don't know how in-depth it gets, but I did upvote your comment despite my reservations because I felt like it added commentary and context that the linked text was missing.