point that you made and there's sort of a sociopolitical critique so let me i'm doing the epistemological point first normalism is the idea right that there's no real patterns in the world there's only right there they're just made by the mind everything is just constructed there's a deep problem with that it actually can't actually explain um how we get universal generalizations it also is and here's an argument i would want to make so it it it presupposes a profound kind of ontological dualism because what you're saying is there aren't real patterns in the world but there are real patterns in the mind because the right the connections have to exist somewhere so they exist here which means the mind is somehow fundamentally different from reality that gets you dualism and that gives you skepticism and that gives you like there's it means that the only thing that's actually intelligible to the mind is itself which means my own mind it's solipsism and so this whole thing just it collapses unsigned so if you if you do a reverse what's the best explanation for the existence of science it's that that the world is actually intelligible which means there are real patterns in it which means we i reject nominalism because it commits me to a really deep kind of cartesian dualism a human kind of skepticism and then i can't even listen to you and it undermines the very claims about against science that you're trying to make so that kind of move um i would make about the epistemic dimension the sociopolitical one is okay sorry no i think i think that's helpful to make because i think that people that that may be feeling these objections rising um whether they're trained enough or or well-read enough to understand you know the the the metaphysics that are relying upon which those critiques are relying upon can know that you know there's there's a difference of camp and you're not going to accept anonymous opinion and there's room for a debate there or or even to provide language to someone who's who's you know feeling those do