Did the Fnord-inventor believe this, or did he have a rational basis? If its an axiom, its analogous to a belief in as much as it's a given. If its a sound bite, he's handwaving.
Disagree. The appendix is (supposedly) useless, but faith does bring some utility, just in an oblique way. Faith drives common belief systems, which drive social cohesion.
From the perspective of somebody that believes in (literal) books full of things that are--in whole or in part--fabrications, of course realism looks naïve.
This flamewar is ancient and tired, like your dwindling religion of doomsday cultists and scientist killers.
I have no interest in flamewars. A reasonable discussion with other rational persons is something I appreciate, thankfully that can happen on HN; I find I equally enjoy that whether I’m simply reading such an exchange or engaging in it.
Your previous reply-comments (to me) convey unprovoked hostility. Why?
Explain to me how a reasonable discussion could possibly proceed after throwing out a link to "Naive Realism".
I won't defend my own comments. They're basically snark, boiling down to "religion bad reason good" (which I stand by). But don't try to take the high road now after you yourself replied to me with nothing but a Wikipedia fig leaf over "no you're just biased".