The only sensible response to the problem of induction is to do our best to track the truth anyway
The other problem of induction is that even if it works perfectly, it’s limited to the observable, and other means are needed to get at the behind the scenes mechan isms.
I don’t know what “directly” means, but there certainly is a causal pathway, and we can certainly evaluate whether our brains are tracking reality. Just make a prediction, then go outside and look with your eyes to see if it comes true.
Inasmuch as you are looking with your eyes, that would be tracking appearance. What you don’t have is a way of checking whether the ultimate causes of your sense data, in reality, are what you think they are.
The indirectness of perception, which allows for simulation and other sceptical hypotheses—you can’t tell what is at the far end of a chain of a perceptual chain from the near end.
The other problem of induction is that even if it works perfectly, it’s limited to the observable, and other means are needed to get at the behind the scenes mechan isms.
Inasmuch as you are looking with your eyes, that would be tracking appearance. What you don’t have is a way of checking whether the ultimate causes of your sense data, in reality, are what you think they are.
The indirectness of perception, which allows for simulation and other sceptical hypotheses—you can’t tell what is at the far end of a chain of a perceptual chain from the near end.