I am on my first read of Beyond Good and Evil. In chapter 1, aphorism 14 and 15, he discusses different methods of understanding the world. In 14, he dismisses the absolutism of physics (i take this to mean a wider breadth of science than literal physics) and its ascendency in the masses being linked to the "senses": " It has eyes and fingers of its own, it has ocular evidence and palpableness of its own: this operates fascinatingly, persuasively, and CONVINCINGLY upon an age with fundamentally plebeian tastes — in fact, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternal popular sensualism". He goes on to praise / throw a bone to Plato for his "means of pale, cold, grey concept nets.." which is noble.
I broadly understand this. Science as a will to truth is "confirmed" by senses, which are limited and aligns with the "sensualism" of the day. Okay, got it.
But in the next section, he dismisses idealism, the notion our world of apperances is created by our sensory organs. He goes on to say: "Sensualism, therefore, at least as regulative hypothesis, if not as heuristic principle."
So my understanding is that he is arguing against an over reliance on the senses, not a dismissal of their use. Is this correct? Or is he simply finding positives and negatives, as he did with Plato's "noble thinking" in section 14, while earlier attacking him?