Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

[Veritas Aequitas]

You think there is an issue with 'influenced' I did not say there is an issue.

I said there was a problem with the word. I explained why I thought that. In your response you tell me that you borrowed the term from PH. I don't know why you told me that.

I was just mentioning facts that I did borrow from PH which I think is appropriate in alignment with my main point. That you jumped to think I am blaming PH is childish.

OK, but then you did not respond at all to what I wrote about the problem that term.

If someone says 'hey, your use of the term X is problematic for reason -Y' and you respond 'I borrowed the term X from PH AND do not respond to the objections, it's charitable to think you are distancing yourself from the term, rather than just telling me information that doesn't really matter. But even so, I tried to get clarification. I did not jump to a position. I asked if you were distancing yourself or if not if not, then why did you not respond to my objections.

Principle of charity. I did not jump to the assumption of your distancing yourself. I presented two options, one where you were and one where you weren't and presenting why, given you did not respond to my objection, neither option seems to fit with not responding.

Since it was not mine, it would be courteous to mention the source to avoid plagiarism.

Do you think that antirealist scientists think they are only studying patterns in human psychology regardless of their field of inquiry?

Don't get your point.

Hume was saying that causation was only psychological. This would mean that an antirealist scientist considers him or herself to, when drawing conclusions about causation, to be only concluding about psychology. Every research paper dealing with causation (and most are) would be about habits of mind.

IOW I am trying to bring your claims down into the world of minds. You are talking about what models insist. Models, don't insist anything.

Principle of Charity...
Obviously models are created and operated by human minds, thus the implied linkage.

Right, and I assume then the principle of charity will go both ways. So, since model don't insist but humans can, we need to look at what individual humans minds are doing. Hence my exploration of antirealist scientific minds given that you think Hume is compatible with metaphysical antirealist in a scientific context.

AntiRealist scientists understand their limitations in relying on induction and psychological influences.
However they reinforced it to the best of their ability with the strength of their collective-human-based FSRK, i.e. the scientific method, peer review and other requirements.
It generally accepted by all rational people that the scientific FSRK is the most reliable, objective and credible despite its well-known inherent weaknesses.

And still no explanation of

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 5:46 am
You are the one who did not understand Hume's thoroughly.
Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits. You are not aware of this?

Show how what you say here relates to what I wrote.

The above was in response to your

But the word influenced shows you don't understand what Hume was saying.

I stated, Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits [psychological elements via the mind].
As I had stated, whatever the conclusion of causation, it is 'influenced' by constant conjunction, customs and habits [i.e. the mind].
By influenced in this case, I meant 'causation' cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Based on that you are the one who did not understand what Hume was saying behind his related term of necessity.