Final answer:
Elim nativists and illusionists use scientific data to argue that traditional concepts of consciousness may be illusory. Utilising empirical research, they challenge introspective certainties and support the potential of science to redefine our understanding of the mind.
Step-by-step explanation:
How Elim nativists and Illusionists Justify Using Scientific Data
Elim nativists and illusionists approach the study of consciousness from a perspective that challenges traditional understandings of the mind. They propose that our common-sense understanding of mental states and processes is mistaken and that concepts like beliefs, desires, and even consciousness itself do not exist in the way we think they do. To justify the use of scientific data, these theorists emphasize that empirical research, despite its potential fallibility demonstrated by the possibility of illusions and hallucinations, remains the most reliable method for investigating the nature of the mind and reality.
Using scientific data, supporters of these views argue for a reinterpretation of the data collected on brain function and behavior. They assert that neuroscientific findings, rather than confirming the existence of mental states, actually undermine the traditional concept of an introspectively accessible, coherent self. Instead, they suggest that what we experience as consciousness may be an illusion, a byproduct of cognitive processes.
For example, in the famous 'brain in a vat' hypothesis by Hilary Putnam, the undetectable nature of radical deception challenges our confidence in the directness of perceptions. Yet, rather than concluding that knowledge is impossible, Elim nativists and illusionists use such hypotheses to highlight the power of scientific inquiry in advancing our understanding of the brain and its relation to behavior, often claiming that consciousness, as we think of it, is an erroneous construct that future science will entirely revise or eliminate.