Well, it's not just Occam's razor, but abductive reasoning or the appeal to the best explanation. The problem is that this appeal to what's more likely depends on our background beliefs. What seems more likely to you and to me will differ if our background beliefs differ. The epistemic question then would revert to whether our fundamental beliefs which are determining those probability judgments were acquired responsibly or somehow problematically.

Sure, biologists would have to explain how the brain can hallucinate the psychedelic experience. What's more unlikely, though, that some such explanation could be given, that complex patterns can arise from simpler ones, or that we communicate with supernatural beings by taking drugs? If the former really seems less likely to you, that must be because you've grown accustomed to accepting the paranormal or the supernatural. Scientists more often than not haven't.

Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store