Salvaging Truth from Ontological Scrap

Abstract What should one do when one's philosophical conclusions run counter to common sense? Bow the might of ordinary opinion or follow indiscriminate force reason, no matter where it leads? A few strategies have recently been proposed which suggest we needn't make this difficult choice at all. According these views, can accept truths sense whilst simultaneously endorsing views with they seem conflict. We can, for instance, as true that Taj Mahal is in India, also eliminating from our ontology. I argue generate a new conflict and thus undercut central motivations drives them. stronger claim kinds ‘truth-salvaging’ strategy are incapable principle reconciling theory sense. This does not mean must be abandoned, there may good independent reasons them, but eliminate their most promising advantages. The upshot paper will two-fold. First, major severely undermined. Secondly, perhaps more significantly, those who think philosophy strictly constrained by sense, all radical ontological effectively off table.