> what constitutes "going far wrong" is not meaningful under skeptical assumptions.
I can be more precise about this. It means that the predictions I make on the basis of this assumption are very likely to be correct.
> Skepticism is irrational
No, it isn't. The vast majority of my beliefs about the world are not a result of direct observations, but nth-hand accounts. I believe, for example, that the orbit of Mercury precesses, but not because I've ever measured it myself, but rather because I heard it from a source that I consider credible. But assessing the credibility of a source is hard and error-prone, especially nowadays. There is always the possibility that a source is mistaken or actively trying to deceive you. And even for things you observe first-hand there are all kinds of cognitive biases you have to take into account. So skepticism is warranted.
> I begin from a position of natural trust toward the senses
That will lead you astray because your senses are unreliable.
> if your explanation involves contradiction of what you observe
But it doesn't. At worst it involves a contradiction of what I think I observe.
I can be more precise about this. It means that the predictions I make on the basis of this assumption are very likely to be correct.
> Skepticism is irrational
No, it isn't. The vast majority of my beliefs about the world are not a result of direct observations, but nth-hand accounts. I believe, for example, that the orbit of Mercury precesses, but not because I've ever measured it myself, but rather because I heard it from a source that I consider credible. But assessing the credibility of a source is hard and error-prone, especially nowadays. There is always the possibility that a source is mistaken or actively trying to deceive you. And even for things you observe first-hand there are all kinds of cognitive biases you have to take into account. So skepticism is warranted.
> I begin from a position of natural trust toward the senses
That will lead you astray because your senses are unreliable.
> if your explanation involves contradiction of what you observe
But it doesn't. At worst it involves a contradiction of what I think I observe.