ubts from those areas come up so it's i think it's helpful to as as a case is made to say well we're we're we're saying this because we don't buy into this we don't buy into this and even just i mean we don't have time to to fully sketch rejection every for every metaphysics and every personality that we're rejecting because that as well leads to a combinatory explosion but but at least to to point out in in in basic where the where the boundaries of the thinking are that's right and i mean just i'll do one more again like you said this is not meant to be exhausted you know the idea that it's all just constructed um well that requires that uh is my knowledge about my mind being able to construct things it's self-constructed well oh oh no that has i have to have real knowledge that that's the way minds work in order to claim that constructivism is true how do i get this unmediated non-constructed knowledge of my own mind and tell me why that is any different than the knowledge i get from the world and then you get all you get you get an infinite regress and then you you you ultimately have to defend it by a kind of nominalism and then you get the argument i've just made the point is that these positions which are largely taken for granted are actually very are subject to very powerful critiques and for those of you who want to read it in more depth and great analytic rigor read berman's book uh so i'm just gonna i give you a gist of why i i reject that now the socio-political are people directed by funding and kind of a fucoin thing yeah again no denying that but to say that they are influenced by that is not saying they they are only influenced by that and there is empirical evidence that no in addition to all of this scientists do judge things in terms of the plausibility independent of funding issues and uh of course they're affected by my side bias but you can show that there's an independent thing at work in them and this goes to something i want to talk about later which is what is the call of reason what's