the voice of reason as something that somehow cuts through all this [ __ ] um but that's exactly um something that i think you could make an increasingly good case for um if if like because what typically happens is people want to be skeptical about the stuff they don't like and then not be skeptical but the problem with these arguments is once you start right once you sort of let it go they they tend to consume everything because if the scientists are only motivated uh by uh you know money then uh how how is it that we make progress how is it we discover things like if they didn't do something that was valuable why is money being given to them like you get into these weird circles and things like that so again not denying that but if we undermine nominalism and constructivism and we say there's there has to be an independent faculty for uh assessing the plausibility in terms of the intelligibility of things then i think we can at least discharge those um criticisms enough to move on do you feel that's fair yeah i i feel like there's there's going to be a need for reliance upon a principle like plausibility itself to reject um which which which might be a bit tricky because because it's it's it might be seen as begging the question um but i well i want to try and give a justification for plausibility so i don't want to treat it as a primitive i want to try and explain okay good yeah i need to trust in it yeah i think i think i think as well what i want to add is that is that there has to be in order to function um there needs to be also a limits of skepticism and we can we can play the game of absolute skepticism that's been done from the ancient greeks to human ever and in between but uh but we're living functioning human beings and i mean and we we sleep and we drink and we eat and we we function so um so this i think there has to be some maturity in recognizing the the the mental arithmetics of skepticism for they can they can be done for for for shopping and for good things and for fun and but but if we want