Aye.

Never be silent, it only shows consent.
Change is only made by thinkers.

So you can prove through science that: a) Other people exist and b) That the scientific method is reliable? How can you do that?

Most scientists today go by "Ipse Dixit".

What is your point? Are you really trying to say science doesn't work because of solipsism?

It amazes me anyone would think this is a valid method for arguing against science.

Are you trying to say that bias is the result of science not being able to "prove" that we exist? LOL

It seems tangential at best, at worst it seems like you are trying to obfuscate because you have no real argument, that is very dishonest.

Yeah, cause I'm a scientist. xD

..he does that a lot.

The point is obvious.

You stated "Right . . . so whats wrong with being skeptical, and requiring a high standard of evidence for spectacular claims? "

You only have proof that you exist. "I think, therefore I am". You have no proof that anyone other than yourself exists, but you accept that other people exist, ENTIRELY WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

You have no proof that the scientific method is reliable, it has never been proved reliable, because we have NO METHOD THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THAT. We can't use the scientific method, that would be circular reasoning.

So here is the point to put it bluntly: You demand evidence for the supernatural, that you don't require in order to believe that others exist or that the scientific method is a reliable way of understanding the universe.

And I'm clearly not "trying to say science doesn't work because of solipsism?". Maybe you should try to understand other peoples arguments instead of just assuming you are right and allowing your bias to ignore valid arguments. Just saying.

Edit: Corrected Descartes' quote.

I would love to see a real argument.

sadly, the following is not one.


Your argument is that we cannot know anything . . .

Really? That is your argument against skepticism?

So you think assuming reality exists, that people exist is on the same scale of skepticism as excepting we can see the future.

You think that science, and the methodological testing that is the guts of science cannot be trusted that the knowledge gained should be discarded . . . because of solipsism, the brain in the vat, and all that?

So lets take a moment and analyze what it is exactly Spider is asking us to do.

He wants us to question the methods of science, the very basic concept of testing . . . becuase we cannot prove we exist.

Pathetic.

Dude!

That's my punchline!

Ah, it's ok.
You can use. :/

Just saying...

Man, he's totally faking it..

So spider do you leave your house from the second story window? I mean we cannot know we have physical bodies?

Do you try to fly by flapping your arms. . we cannot know if that will work or not becuase brains in vats yo.

This is really bad bud, its the worst way to try to fight against skepticism. I think everyone can see that we all make very fundamental assumptions, such as I exist, and there is actually a reality out there.

These philosophical concepts support science and the concept of skepticism. We know that we exist, we all know it except perhaps a few mentally handicap people. We all know this and we engage in reality based on this knowledge.

It is upon this philosophical foundation that science and methodological naturalism rests.

Trying to undermine science by appealing to solipsism is the worst kind of mental fraud. It requires that we throw out all knowledge to take that attempt seriously, the actual products of removing all knowledge would be quite deadly quite quickly, and no one really does it . . . even when they so dishonestly try to use such terribad reasoning to undermine proper logic.

So I cannot take your pathetic argument seriously, becuase I cannot toss out all of knowledge just to engage you in this silly attempt to downplay the importance of skepticism.

For everyone playing at home...



^^ This is called a strawman fallacy.



^^ This is Bushidobillyclub ranting against the strawman he created.

He has yet to come close to addressing my point. Shhhhh, don't tell him, he has to figure this out on his own.

Spider. The solipsist.

Prove me wrong bro . . . show how solipsism provides us with anything?

Why should anyone take you seriously, you are asking that we not assume we exist. For knowledge to accrue, we must exist. For science to work, knowledge must be possible.

You are not even in the same discussion when you appeal to solipsism, its a scale factor of an entire different order.

You accuse me of a straw man, the nice thing about that is that you can show me the difference between my understanding of your argument and your actual argument.

Why dont you do that?

A swing and a miss!

I'm sorry man, I can't read my posts for you and explain them word for word. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. I just wish you could understand that you don't get it.

If you cannot know you exist, how can you then know the keys in your pocket exist?

Without the assumption reality is real and that facts exist which can be made sense of then there is no purpose to science.

You are trying to undermine science and by proxy skepticism by appealing to solipsism.

If your not actually trying to do that . . . then you have failed to make your argument sensible, and that is no fault of mine.

lol this is entertaining.

Witch doctors call it 'voodoo'. xD

My point is so clear, JeannieBean got it on the first post, why can't you?

You put an unreasonable burden of proof on the supernatural, but you require no proof of the existence of other people or the validity of the scientific method.

That's the point that I made in the first post and have repeatedly made in every other post.

I have never said it's NOT RATIONAL or CORRECT to believe that other people exist, the EFFING OBVIOUS point I've made all along is that you believe in the existence of other people without proof, but would demand that God show you his drivers license and birth certificate and you would still check his references.

My point was never that Science cannot be trusted or that science wasn't reliable, it's been that YOU ACCEPT IT AS BEING RELIABLE WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF EVIDENCE, WHILE YOU REJECT THE BIBLE AS MYTH.

You have unreasonable expectations for proof for some beliefs and readily accept other beliefs without evidence. I hope I've been clear enough. If you reply again about how I am a solipsist, I will probably cry in pity for you.

Solipsism must be discarded to acquire knowledge.

Once you discard it, you cannot use it to justify a lack of skepticism.

It really is THAT simple. So your entire line of thinking is completely without merit to this conversation.

No one is arguing about if we exist. We are arguing if psychics exist. It is completely dishonest to try to argue against skepticism for psychics, by using philosophical brain in a vat concepts as ammo against a skeptic.

Basically saying that the same kind of skepticism should exist between these two very different topics is absurd . . . and no one would think they are relevant in anyway shape or form, unless they were either clueless, or being dishonest.

Spiders argument is you believe reality exists without "proof", yet ask for evidence that psychics exist. WOW.

Mental hoola hoops indeed.



What constitutes evidence depends on the claim. This is always true.