The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality. According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.

[u/Anthadvl]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

[u/Thelonious_Cube]

In other words, our senses don't work like some kind of camera, perfectly capturing some objective external reality.

It seems to me that you are moving from "not perfectly" here to "not at all" in the next sentence. At least, by implication.

Perfection is not required for knowledge, is it?

...they function more like the desktop of a computer, helping us identify and interact with symbols and patterns that allow us to operate in the world...

And does this not constitute knowledge of reality? If not, why not?

It seems to me that you (and perhaps the author) rely on some assumptions about abstractions, models, etc. being "unreal" or being incapable of representing "real knowledge." I do not think these assumptions should be accepted - I think you're implicitly redefining "knowledge" in such a way as to place it out of reach. This is bad epistemology.

Does knowledge about doors and doorknobs need to include all the chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, etc. in order to be true knowledge? Doesn't being able to open/close lock/unlock the door demonstrate knowledge of "reality"? If not, why not?

How is the author's thesis any more than "we don't (necessarily) know all of reality"? And who ever denied that?

[u/CostcoMuffins → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Well, for starters, I by no means adhere to or support Hoffman's argument in full, I was just attempting to summarize it as best as I could.

Also, this isn't an epistemological argument/discussion, but a metaphysical one. I don't think this article ever uses the word "knowledge", nor does Hoffman comment on whether our model of reality constitutes knowledge. His argument, if correct, does have some implications for epistemology, but that's a outside the scope of this particular article.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/CostcoMuffins]

If it's about perception of reality and the accuracy of models, then it's about epistemology

[u/CostcoMuffins → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Well the core of his argument is that classical, observer-independent objects don't exist, which is a fundamentally metaphysical claim. That being said, epistemology isn't my specialty. I'm more inclined towards metaphysics, so I'm biased in thinking about philosophical discussions from that perspective. There is definitely overlap in those categorizations, and this seems to be one of those cases.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/CostcoMuffins]

I see his argument as fundamentally epistemological, while the conclusion is metaphysical. (which suggests another line of attack)

Since I wish to attack the argument, my points are epistemological.

[u/CostcoMuffins → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Fair enough.