Kant wrote his massive tome to show this is wrong.
— Jamal

Yes, I agree. — Corvus

It is confusing to have you acknowledge that Kant argued against your argument immediately after you claim that he supported it.

A quandary.

LOL.

From what I've seen the main argument in the last two pages has been that Banno thinks if there are things we don't currently know, then Antirealism can't hold.

Well... *sigh*. That is.. not reasonable.

There are plenty of things we may never come into contact with. That doesn't make them unknowable. Unknown and unknowable are simply not the same.

Now, I presume I've missed something major. But I don't see it anywhere. Someone want to help me out there?

From what I've seen the main argument in the last two pages has been that Banno thinks if there are things we don't currently know, then Antirealism can't hold. — AmadeusD

It is difficult to follow your argument since you base it upon an interpretation of what an interlocuter has said rather than engage in the debate proffered.

Well... *sigh*. That is.. not reasonable. — AmadeusD

There are many ways to show how the argument is not reasonable, I provided one. The argument requires a very narrow perspective to work. It works for Banno because he adopts that narrow perspective and refuses to talk to anyone who will not take it. It's like saying the argument requires these assumptions, and if you do not accept these assumptions, I will not discuss it with you. What's the point?

With a simple smattering of charity you could just have offered that they are maybe trying to say that phenomenon is all we have via sensibility?

@Corvus I think that is all that is being said?

This didn't help. LOL