> Most serious philosophers would agree with the idea that scientific evidence is a good way to rule out beliefs inconsistent with reality. And how did they ge

> Most serious philosophers would agree with the idea that scientific evidence is a good way to rule out beliefs inconsistent with reality. And how did they get to that conclusion? The answer of whether or not the mind or the senses can be relied upon as a path to bedrock truth is something that cannot be found with scientific inquiry because it begs the question. > Almost zero serious economists are marxists, almost zero serious philosophers embrace Spinoza with no revisions, and please don't read Ayn Rand. It is precisely that these philosophers were so well followed, and presently rejected, that I enumerated them as examples of castles built on sand. The very same thing could be said of Russell. If there were a public event, more apparent than even the nuclear explosions that went off in Japan, that was strong evidence for the First Cause argument much of Russell turns to mush. That a philosopher is serious or not is a function of time and opinion. Not veracity. > what makes a question interesting What makes your response interesting to me is that Russel had the very same counterargument to Solipsism and in my opinion Russel decided that he couldn't find the rock so he built his philosophy on sand. This question was important to me so I went searching in philosophy and I found some value there, some manners of perception that proved useful, but it, in my opinion, is a largely broken field.