Posted: Dec 02, 2021 10:14 pm
by hackenslash
Frozenworld wrote:Apparently you don't have a grasp of it because you still don't have evidence for the claim that there is an external reality.

Except, of course, that I do. I may not have proof, but proof is mostly for alcoholics and mathematicians. To the extent that proof applies at all to science, it only applies in the form of modus tollens. In other words, in disproof, or falsification. Affirmative proof is not something that can be applied in science, because proof would require omniscience, which is impossible (even for deities). This is known in rigorous circles as the problem of induction. Popper thought he'd solved this problem, but he was wrong. What he actually did was to bring deduction into a primarily inductive area of reasoning, but he did so by redefining what constitutes knowledge.

What I do have is my empirical sense-data and yours, which is solid evidence that there's an external reality of some description. All else aside, solipsism itself requires an external reality, because it requires a stratum upon which your senses reside and function. They do not prove beyond all doubt that what we experience is, in an ontological sense, real, but they do stand in evidence.

Meanwhile, in your evidence bucket, we have fuck all but crickets.

Tell me again how I don't grasp it.

Skepticism is the default.

Correct. It's the rebuttable position. Except, of course, that you don't understand what scepticism really is. It is NOT the rejection of any claim under all circumstances. It's the rejection of unsubstantiated claims. My claims are substantiated not only by my sense-data but by yours as well.

And the foundation that you claim epistemology is founded on is false, and he been shown to be so several times. Cogito ergo sum is wrong.


There is no evidence to back it because it all resorts back to what is doubted to be true. You really don't have a grasp on any of this stuff. Many have debunked there being an experiencer: ... ite_ref-47

This citation is irrelevant to your assertion. Did you even read it? It doesn't debunk cogito, it simply compares two religious mindsets.

I don't get where you're going with knowing the word "empirical" because that is the very thing you guys claim shows external reality and other people when it is just circular. Using observation to justify observation.

This is the part of the show where you reveal to the class precisely what circular reasoning is, why it's a problem and, most important of all, when it's a problem.

Just as a critical example, ALL definitions are circular. They can't be otherwise, because definitions are of necessity tautologies, and tautologies are always circular.

Solipsism says one cannot know for sure if there is an external reality or other people, and you cannot verify it to be true or false. Harder versions say there isn't but that's a minority view and considered absurd even by other solipsists.

Even by other solipsists...

I'll leave that to stew for a bit.

Though considering you guys haven't addressed any of the points I posted or linked to that undermine your attempts to call solipsism nonsense I wonder if you fully grasp it and what it means. There is a difference between knowing what it is and understanding it.

You haven't posted anything worthy of address. To the extent that you have, it's been addressed, and more besides, giving the context for just how utterly fucking stupid this entire line is.

Solipsism was a worthy philosophical question back in the old days of Aristotle failing to do the accounting work of sexual dimorphism in hominid dentition, but it's Cliff Clavin level stupidity in the millennia since.