Posted: Sep 21, 2021 6:38 am
by Spearthrower
Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.

So while this is manifestly idiotic, it also turns out to be false at even the most superficial level.

My first result on Google searching for 'solipsism is parsimonious'

This is why Occam's Razor often has a clause specifying that all other theoretical virtues, aside from ontological parsimony, must be equal in order for Y to be more likely than X. By "theoretical virtues" I just mean whatever features theories can have that increase their likelihood of being true, such as explanatory power. If we were to add such a clause to the version of Occam's Razor I formulated above, it should no longer be obvious whether it supports solipsism over realism about the external world. The reason is that if realism explains more of our evidence than solipsism or explains the evidence better, this new principle will say that realism may be more likely to be true despite its positing more kinds of entities.

My second result in Google...

Certain experiences, which I will call tiger sounds and tiger visual images, exhibit striking correlation. We can explain the existence of this correlation by postulating an entity that is the cause of both. If there were tigers, it would be no surprise that certain sights and certain sounds tend to co-occur. Our rejection of solipsism can thus be justified by appeal to an abductive argument; we advance an inference to the best explanation conforming to the pattern that Rechenbach (1956) called the principle of the common cause.

My third result on Google... ... &t=1467110

Hi, I’m new here and I just wanted help with this topic.

I’m a big lover of science, in fact I’m hoping to do something with entomology in the future, but I ran into something along the way that sort of hurt me in more ways than one.

Essentially solipsism. The statement that you cannot truly verify your sensory experience and whether or not people in the “outside world” exist and are real. As someone who loved science this was a major blow to me because the very foundation upon which I built my understanding is little more than faith really, not evidence or observation but faith. I know it can’t be proven but I can’t disprove it and that’s what gets me, the frightening thought that it might be true and I’m all alone. That my efforts in the world will mean nothing because it’s not real and there’s no way around it.

I was wondering if people on here encountered it and whether they found a way over it. I understand the irony of asking a forum for help but I don’t know where else to go here.

Pretty sure you're trolling. Have a nice day!

You're pretty religious, am I right? Or are transitioning, or something? Maybe I'm wrong, but 9 outta 10 times these questions pop out of someone who's religious and is either:

Trying to convince some sciency types that nothing is provable, and thus they should be more accepting of religion (i.e. trolling).
Likes science, but someone in their church has told them nothing's provable, and now they're struggling to figure out what's right.

This is your first post. You started a new thread. This isn't even the front page comments section.

My money's on trolling. Have fun, I'm not interested.

OK, I was really thinking you were trolling and reported this thread, but if you're really serious, this is certainly interesting, if not... well, I don't know what age you are, but this is the type of question I and many teenagers with me during secondary education asked. It sounds and feels deep and fundamental to our existence and consciousness, but as you learn more about philosophy, it's just another perspective to consider. Solipsism isn't the logical conclusion to all logically consistent philosophical frameworks, just one of many to choose from depending on how you reason and which axioms you choose.

Just as an aside - the reason people will quickly think you're trolling is because this line of reasoning is a bog-standard entry point for religious apologists and science deniers. It's fairly easy to use the line that 'nothing can truly be verified, therefore the scientific method boils down to little more than faith' to construct a false equivocation with religious faith, and then pascal's wager people into your religious viewpoint. This gets old and annoying VERY quickly.

So you were not just wrong, you were completely wrong.

None of the first set of results on a Google search corroborates or even agrees with your position.

The first one says basically no, that's not parsimonious. The second says that believing that tiger sounds and tiger visuals indicate an actual tiger is more parsimonious than explanations which don't explain that co-occurrence. And the third is an example of a person like you rocking up to a forum and making shit arguments and how people respond to it, i.e. either by considering them a troll or a teenager grasping at the first shiny thing that comes into their view and having no grasp of any wider context at all.

So were you just lying? Did you lie when you said that Google proves you right? Or were you just posturing again because you've got no fucking argument whatsoever?

At what point are you going to realize that you need to actually frame an argument rather than just waving your hands around and pretending you're right?

The irony of the fact that you aren't even aware that Google provides search results tailored to you via algorithm, and that this itself indicates a plurality of subjects engaging with Google's machine learning is no doubt completely lost on you, but not on anyone else here.