On 2015 Nov 17, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Anderson concludes his critical commentary on Hoffman, Singh and Prakash's (2015) "Interface theory of perception" with the following remark:

"But remarkable theories require remarkable evidence, and there is currently insufficient evidence to take the metaphysical leap proposed by interface theory."

In fact, as I observe in a recent editorial (http://pec.sagepub.com/content/44/10/1149.full) critical of the "anti-realism" of Hoffman and others, the position is not amenable to evidence; any appeal to evidence in favour of the anti-realist position is paradoxical.

If you say that the features of the perceived world bear no correlation, no connection to the real world, then you cannot EVER produce evidence in support of this position. You cannot prove such a position, because you can't compare the "real world" with your (supposed) wholly inaccessible-to-perception-world. As it is impossible, Hoffman cannot be not doing it, even when he is claiming that he is. He is free to believe anything he wants, but the issue is outside of empirical science.

(I will follow this up with a critique of Hoffman, Singh and Prakash (2105) but wanted to make this quick point.)

On 2015 Nov 17, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Anderson concludes his critical commentary on Hoffman, Singh and Prakash's (2015) "Interface theory of perception" with the following remark:

"But remarkable theories require remarkable evidence, and there is currently insufficient evidence to take the metaphysical leap proposed by interface theory."

In fact, as I observe in a recent editorial (http://pec.sagepub.com/content/44/10/1149.full) critical of the "anti-realism" of Hoffman and others, the position is not amenable to evidence; any appeal to evidence in favour of the anti-realist position is paradoxical.

If you say that the features of the perceived world bear no correlation, no connection to the real world, then you cannot EVER produce evidence in support of this position. You cannot prove such a position, because you can't compare the "real world" with your (supposed) wholly inaccessible-to-perception-world. As it is impossible, Hoffman cannot be not doing it, even when he is claiming that he is. He is free to believe anything he wants, but the issue is outside of empirical science.

(I will follow this up with a critique of Hoffman, Singh and Prakash (2105) but wanted to make this quick point.)