(unfortunaly truth may be he's a guy in his 40'ies)

As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. For you could not, since you have no information. You simply pour out ad hominems that have nothing to do with the issue. You are missing a fine opportunity to be silent.

I will, just had to vent some fustration.

Why? And frustration about what?

Just the general idea about useage of empty rethoric which provoked my fustrations.

Well, there wasn't any of that, so you should not let just the idea of something produce frustration as long as the actual thing does not happen.

It appears you don't really think you understand what I'm saying. If you do you do not for me produce any satisfying reply.

According to a post on a different forum:

Our cognitive facilities are rather notoriously NOT reliable.

Is that true? It sounds false to me.

Actually, I thought that the poster was one of the few reliable posters on that board. ...

Maybe it is his or her cognitive facilities that are not reliable that has led him or her to that conclusion. And it would appear that yours are not as reliable as you had thought:
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

But, seriously, isomething being totally undependable when it is only not perfectly dependable.

According to a post on a different forum:

Our cognitive facilities are rather notoriously NOT reliable.

Is that true? It sounds false to me.

We're products of natural selection. Having our beliefs track reality is an advantage. However, their domain of applicability is limited. We expect big solid objects to behave like big solid objects. Even an infant is amazed when a single ball is put behind a screen and two balls come out the other side. We are wired for normal everyday activities. There's no reason to think natural selection would provide us anything more than that. Some scientific questions are so far removed from our world that our common sense way of thinking probably hurts us as much as it helps us in those cases.

So, what is your conclusion? That we can trust our faculties in some areas, but not in some others, because they are reliable in some, but not others? Isn't it true, though, that even in the esoteric areas, we ultimately rely on our cognitive faculties, although our inferences from them are not common-sensible? What else is there?

Isn't it true, though, that even in the esoteric areas, we ultimately rely on our cognitive faculties, although our inferences from them are not common-sensible?

But we don't rely on other peoples cognitive faculties in certain areas. For example, eye witness testimony is sometimes discredited, yes?

And sometimes people just make no decision at all, which isn't really relying on their cognitive faculties.

Sometimes there are reasons not to rely on others, and when we rely at all on anything, we do rely on our cognitive faculties. [emphasis added]

Yes. I think people do not think about that fact enough. Whenever people are arguing in favor of absolute skepticism, for example, they are relying on their reasoning abilities. And if their conclusion is right, that they cannot rely on their reasoning abilities, then their argument cannot be relied upon at all, and consequently they have no reason to believe it.

Sometimes there are reasons not to rely on others, and when we rely at all on anything, we do rely on our cognitive faculties.

We're products of natural selection. Some scientific questions are so far removed from our world that our common sense way of thinking probably hurts us as much as it helps us in those cases.