In this case...

In this case, the agnostic might have reason to pursue philosophy, but only if enough theories had been or could refuted that she were more likely than not going to accept the true one. But this is not the case. Additionally, this defence does not explain philosophers’ actual behaviour. Suppose philosophy is progressive because it can show, at least, which theories are false, and the point is to arrive at the truth though elimination.

This would justify constructing, debating, examining, and attacking theories, but not accepting a theory. It would not give the agnostic reason to believe anything. E. *Consensus Just Around the Corner. * One could concede that current dissensus shows that philosophical methods are ineffective, but then assert that philosophy could become effective in the future.…