There is a branch of philosophy (I'm not sure the name of it) which basically says nothing exists. All is illusion, dream or spiritual fluff. As someone who reads science magazines I can accept that the desk in front of me and the keys I am pressing are mostly empty space. They are made of small atoms with lots of distance between them filled with fields of whatever. Even the atoms themselves are mostly nothing but a few quarks and more field emptiness.
But such knowledge doesn't really help me. It doesn't put food on my table or pay my bills. Such philosophy is against my perception of reality. The table and keyboard is solid and real to me. I can touch and feel them even though all I am touching may be electromagnetic fields. I can't be skeptical about this reality.
The trouble with Berlinski is that he is too much of a contrarian. Skepticism is fine to a point, everyone would do well to develop a good BS detector. However, to deny everything doesn't get you far (except for those, like Berlinski, that can get paid for it.) Somethings have to be real and true don't they? The universe exists doesn't it? Food and water help us to live right? Computers compute occasionally?
Every person has to decide for themselves how much evidence is required to determine when something is true or false, real or unreal. If you sit upon a jury how much does the prosecuting attorney need to present to earn your "guilty" verdict? Are two witnesses enough? Five? Ten? Do you need to see photos of the crime being committed? Fingerprints on the weapon? DNA evidence? Does knowing the defendant's past activities help? (Personally I think I'd like Berlinski to be in the jury if I was accused of a crime. Since to him nothing is true I must be innocent.)
The same decision applies to scientific and religious ideas. How much evidence to do you require to believe something? A passage in a book says a great city existed on a hill. A thousand scholars probe that hill and find no trace of it. Did the city exist or not? A group of holy men says the world popped into being overnight. A group of scientists says it took a billion years to form. Which is correct? However, to deny both stories, and all others, just leaves everyone cold. Something about that hill must be true. Some idea of the world's formation must be true. But what?
Berlinski really has nothing to offer. Unlimited skepticism is useless.
-Doughdee222
"I am a realist, not a pessimist. The real world is pessimistic by nature."
